U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
J
MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
POINT SOURCE METRO PHOENIX 208
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
JULY 1979
-------
EPA-IX-AZ-MARICOPA-MAG 208-79
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
POINT SOURCE METRO PHOENIX
208 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
JULY 1979
Approved by:
Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
-------
SUMMARY
STATEMENT TYPE: Final Environmental Impact Statement
PREPARED BY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
1. TYPE OF ACTION: Administrative
2. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: This Final Environmental
Impact Statement describes the impacts associated with EPA's
proposal to approve the Point Source Metro Plan developed by the
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) for the metropolitan
area of Phoenix, Arizona. It is issued in accordance with a
Notice of Intent released by EPA on May 6, 1976, and responds to
comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
issued December 4, 1978.
The Point Source Metro Plan is part of the MAG 208 Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for Maricopa County. The WQMP was
developed in accordance with Section 208 of the Clean Water Act of
1977, with guidance and financial assistance from EPA. It is
intended to solve and prevent water quality problems and to help
provide water of suitable quality for drinking, recreation,
support of plants and wildlife, agriculture, irrigation, and
commercial and industrial uses.
The Point Source Metro Plan consists of two key elements.
The first is a plan for a series of facilities which are to be
built or improved to provide treatment of municipal wastewater and
appropriate reuse of the treated effluent. The second part is
what is called the management system. MAG has assigned responsi-
bility for carrying out the facilities part of the plan to MAG's
Regional Council and other local agencies. MAG has overall
responsibility for planning and implementation of the plan. Local
Sub-Regional Operating Groups and cities have responsibility for
financing the construction and operation of facilities and for
enforcing rules to prevent damage to the facilities and pollution
of ground and surface waters.
The Point Source Metro Plan proposed to EPA by MAG was one of
four alternatives assessed in EPA's Draft Environmental Statement.
The plan was developed through an extensive public involvement
program, including review and evaluation by five 208 advisory
iii
-------
groups. On November 1, 1978, the MAG Regional Council tentatively
selected this plan (Alternative 2) as the preferred point source
metro element of the 208 plan. On January 17, 1979, MAG adopted
the entire 208 plan, including the point source metro element.
EPA proposes to approve the Point Source Metro Plan because
it satisfies the requirements of the Clean Water Act, and there
are no adverse impacts of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the
benefits derived. In approving this element of the plan, EPA
would be agreeing to accept it as part of MAG's overall strategy
for water quality management. This would include a commitment to
make funds available to designated agencies in the area for design
and construction of wastewater facilities. EPA makes 75 percent
grants under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act for this purpose,
subject to the availability of funds through the State's priority
system. MAG estimates the total cost of construction which EPA
might assist in funding at $160 million.
The 208 plan has been prepared by MAG with grant funds and
guidance from EPA and with assistance from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Maricopa County Planning Department. EPA has
had substantial involvement in the development of the plan and the
preparation of this document, but the decisions have been made by
MAG, subject to approval by the Governor of Arizona and EPA.
3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The proposal is a plan to
improve and protect water quality in the Phoenix area; hence, most
of the impacts of the plan are beneficial. Provision of physical
and institutional means for upgrading and operating the areawide
wastewater treatment system will result in higher quality waste-
water discharges. As a result of the plan, surface water quality
standards will be met, effluent will be reused to a greater
degree, and planned-for growth will be accommodated by the provi-
sion of wastewater treatment. This growth, however, will result
in some adverse impacts to the environment, principally because of
low—density urban expansion.
In preparing the plan, MAG projected an increase in popula-
tion in the study area from 1.2 million in 1975 to 2.3 million in
the year 2000. Land use projections for the same period call for
the conversion of substantial amounts of natural and agricultural
land to urban uses. Associated with these changes are impacts on
air quality, water quality, and resource consumption. These are
addressed in the EIS.
Although the plan was developed primarily to improve the
environment, some adverse impacts could occur without mitigation.
iv
-------
Construction and operation of wastewater treatment facilities
could cause noise, dust, odors, and increases in the number of
mosquitoes and other insects near the facilities. Reuse of
effluent with high loadings of nitrogen could increase nitrate
content of ground water underlying some reuse sites. Construction
of new facilities and interceptors will result in the loss of some
natural land area and could lead to localized dislocation of
planned development near one facility (north Gilbert). With
mitigation, adverse effects of the facilities would be signif-
icantly reduced or eliminated. EPA will ensure that mitigation is
developed and implemented on all EPA-funded projects.
Before any facilities are built, further assessment of local
impacts will take place and information will be made available to
the public by MAG and the responsible cities. In addition, EPA
will notify the public before issuing any grants to design or
construct facilities.
4. SUMMARY OF MAJOR ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives assessed in
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement consisted of four plans
to treat wastewater regionally. These plans, or project alterna-
tives, were compared against the No Action Alternative, which
assumed that no addition to or expansion of municipal wastewater
treatment facilities would take place and that all flows not
sewered would be treated by individual septic tank systems or
small, privately owned package plants. In the thirteen environ-
mental categories used in the Draft EIS, the project alternatives
were superior to the No Action Alternative. Among the project
alternatives few differences were drawn.
The project alternatives offered varying degrees of regional-
ization of wastewater treatment, with Alternative 1 being most
centralized and Alternative 4 least centralized. Alternative 2
was selected as the preferred plan by MAG and the 208 advisory
groups, primarily on technical criteria.
5. COMMENTS RECEIVED:
Federal Agencies and Offices
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration
-------
State Agencies and Offices
Arizona Department of Transportation
Arizona Game and Fish Department
Arizona State Land Department
Arizona Water Commission
Arizona Department of Economic Security
Arizona Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Arizona State Parks Board
Arizona Agriculture and Horticulture Commission
Arizona Department of Health Services,
Bureau of Water Quality Control
Regional and Local Agencies and Offices
•
Central Arizona Association of Governments
Maricopa Association of Governments
District IV Council of Governments
City of Tempe
Gila River Indian Community
Private Institutions and Individuals
Arizona Public Service Company
John S. Schaper
David E. Creighton
Orme Lewis, Jr.
Thomas S. Rothweiler
Adron W. Reichert
Gilbert T. Venable
6. DISTRIBUTION OF FINAL STATEMENT: This Final Statement is
being distributed to all those who commented on the Draft State-
ment and also to a selected list of recipients of the Draft
Statement. All recipients of the Draft Statement are being
notified of the availability of the Final Statement. The names of
those being sent the Final Statement, in addition to the above
list of commenters, may be found in the attachment to this sum-
mary, pp. vii-ix.
7. EPA SCHEDULE: EPA expects the Final Statement to be made
available officially on July 27, 1979. EPA will take no action on
this plan for at least 30 days following the publication of the
statement. When the MAG 208 Plan has been certified by the
Governor of Arizona, EPA will take final action, which may include
imposition of conditions.
vi
-------
ATTACHMENT
ADDITIONAL AGENCIES, INDIVIDUALS, AND LIBRARIES RECEIVING COPIES
OF THE FINAL STATEMENT:
Agencies and Individuals
Council on Environmental
Quality
Washington, D,C.
Federal Housing Administration
Phoenix, Arizona
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Coordinator of Environmental
Quality Activities
U.S. Department of Defense
Deputy Asst. Secretary
of Defense
Environmental Quality
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Environmental Clearance Office
San Francisco, California
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of Environmental Project
Review
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
Arizona Projects Office
Phoenix, Arizona
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Phoenix, Arizona
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
-Office of Environmental
Review
-Office of Legislation
-Office of Public Affairs
-Office of Water Programs
Operation
-Public Information Ref-
erence Unit
-Freedom of Information
Center
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Region IX, Library
San Francisco, California
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Los Angeles Contact Office
Los Angeles, California
Col. Gwynn Teague
District Engineer
Los Angeles District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Branch
Los Angeles District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
vii
-------
W. W. Worthington
Chief, Phoenix Urban Study
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Arizona Dept. of Health Services
Bureau of Air Quality Control
Phoenix, Arizona
National Wildlife Federation
Washington, D.C.
Arizona Wildlife Federation
Phoenix, Arizona
Clinton Pattea
Tribal Chairman
Fort McDowell Indian Community
Gerald Antone
Tribal Chairman
Salt River Indian Community
Charles Salem
Mayor of Goodyear, Arizona
Ernie Kleinschmidt
Town Manager
Town of Goodyear, Arizona
Don Skouser
City Manager
Chandler, Arizona
David Mansfield
City Manager
Tolleson, Arizona
Kenneth McDonald
City Manager
Tempe, Arizona
Charles Miller
Maricopa County Manager
Carlos Pa1ma
City Manager
Avondale, Arizona
J. A. Petrie
City Manager
Mesa, Arizona
Maggie Reese
Town Manager
El Mirage, Arizona
Ed Wohlenburg
Town Manager
Gilbert, Arizona
Stan Van de Putte
City Manager
Glendale, Arizona
Jerry Pastor
Town Manager
Guadalupe, Arizona
Harold Yingling
Town Manager
Surprise, Arizona
Oscar Butt
Town Manager
Paradise Valley, Arizona
Frank Aleshire
City Manager
Scottsdale, Arizona
Marvin Andrews
City Manager
Phoenix, Arizona
Mary B. Cayton
Town Clerk
Youngtown, Arizona
Bill Vaughn
Town Manager
Peoria, Arizona
James R. Perry
Chairman
Citizen Advisory Group
viii
-------
Robert Brunton
Development Services Manager
Phoenix, Arizona
John J. DeBolske, Executive
Director
Maricopa Association of
Governments
Herb Donald
Maricopa County Flood Control
District
Wilbur Wiegold
Buckeye Irrigation District
Reid Teeples
Salt River Project
Libraries
Mesa Public Library
Mesa, Arizona
Peoria Public Library
Peoria, Arizona
Scottsdale Public Library
Scottsdale, Arizona
Tempe Public Library
Tempe, Arizona
Maricopa County Community
College District Library
Phoenix, Arizona
Glendale Community College
Library
Glendale, Arizona
Scottsdale Library, North
Branch
Scottsdale, Arizona
Tolleson Public Library
Tolleson, Arizona
Scottsdale Community College
Library
Scottsdale, Arizona
Buckeye Public Library
Buckeye, Arizona
Salt River Tribal Library
Scottsdale, Arizona
Sun City Public Library
Sun City, Arizona
Maricopa Technical Community
College Library
Phoenix, Arizona
Mesa Community College Library
Mesa, Arizona
Chandler Public Library
Chandler, Arizona
Avondale Public Library
Avondale, Arizona
Library
Center for Environmental Study
Arizona State University
Tempe, Arizona
Library Archives and Public
Records
State Capitol
Phoenix, Arizona
Guadalupe Town Library
Guadalupe, Arizona
Phoenix City Library
Phoenix, Arizona
University of Arizona Library
Tucson, Arizona
ix
-------
Government Documents
Hayden Library
Arizona State University
Library
Terape, Arizona
Gilbert Public Library
Gilbert, Arizona
Kaka Media Center Library
Sells, Arizona
Mohave-Apache Community
Library
Fountain Hills, Arizona
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 ACTION COVERED 1-1
1.2 EIS OBJECTIVES 1-2
1.3 DEIS REVISION 1-3
1.4 EIS FORMAT 1-4
1.5 AVAILABILITY OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 1-5
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1 NEED FOR AND PURPOSE OF ACTION 2-2
2.1.1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND FUTURE
FLOWS 2-4
2.1.2 WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS 2-8
2.1.3 NEED TO CONSERVE WATER RESOURCES .... 2-11
2.1.4 NEEDS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES 2-12
2.1.5 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM NEEDS 2-21
2.2 POINT SOURCE METRO PLAN 2-22
2.2.1 PLAN DESCRIPTION 2-23
2.2.2 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 2-39
2.2.3 INDIVIDUAL FACILITY DESCRIPTION 2-42
2.3 ALTERNATIVES 2-65
2.3.1 OVERVIEW OF PLANNING PROCESS 2-65
2.3.2 FINAL POINT SOURCE METRO ALTERNATIVES . . 2-67
2.3.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES 2-74
2.3.4 PLAN SELECTION AND APPROVAL 2-79
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
3.1 STUDY AREA PROFILE 3-2
3.1.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 3-2
3.1.2 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 3-8
3.1.3 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 3-12
xi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont.
Section Page
3.1.4 CULTURAL AND AESTHETIC
CHARACTERISTICS 3-15
3.2 SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES 3-18
3.2.1 WATER RESOURCES 3-18
3.2.2 AIR QUALITY 3-29
3.2.3 SALT-GILA SYSTEM DOWNSTREAM FROM
91ST AVENUE 3-37
3.2.4 POPULATION AND LAND USE 3-44
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1 INTRODUCTION 4-2
4.2 IMPACTS OF THE SELECTED PLAN 4-4
4.2.1 WATER RESOURCES IMPACTS 4-4
4.2.2 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 4-12
4.2.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS 4-16
4.2.4 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS 4-25
4.2.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS 4-45
4.2.6 MITIGATIVE MEASURES 4-47
4.3 IMPACTS OF GROWTH 4-50
4.3.1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANNING AND
REGIONAL GROWTH 4-50
4.3.2 MAG REGIONAL PLAN 4-50
4.3.3 "WITHOUT-PROJECT" CONDITIONS 4-52
4.3.4 POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND
DISTRIBUTION 4-55
4.3.5 LAND USE 4-56
4.3.6 TRANSPORTATION 4-60
4.3,7 HOUSING 4-66
4.3.8 ECONOMY 4-68
4.3.9 AIR QUALITY 4-69
4.3.10 WATER RESOURCES 4-71
4.3.11 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4-73
xii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont.
Section Page
4.3.12 ENERGY CONSUMPTION 4-74
4.3.13 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 4-77
4.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 4-79
4.4.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE
SELECTED PLAN 4-79
4.4.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF GROWTH . . 4-80
4.5 IRREVERSIBLE, IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
OF RESOURCES • • 4-82
4.6 SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT VS.
LONG-TERM ENHANCEMENT 4-83
5.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION 5-1
5.2 COMMENT DOCUMENTS 5-3
5.3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 5-48
5.3.1 RESPONSE TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
(COMMENT DOCUMENT A) 5-48
5.3.2 RESPONSE TO THE FEDERAL ENERGY
REGULATORY COMMISSION
(COMMENT DOCUMENT B) 5-48
5.3.3 RESPONSES TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
(COMMENT DOCUMENT D) 5-48
5.3.4 RESPONSES TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
(COMMENT DOCUMENT E) 5-49
5.3.5 RESPONSES TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (COMMENT DOCUMENT G) . . . 5-50
5.3.6 RESPONSE TO THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH
DEPARTMENT, PLANNING AND EVALUATION
BRANCH (COMMENT DOCUMENT H) 5-51
5.3.7 RESPONSES TO THE ARIZONA STATE LAND
DEPARTMENT (COMMENT DOCUMENT I) 5-51
5.3.8 RESPONSES TO THE ARIZONA WATER
COMMISSION (COMMENT DOCUMENT J) 5-52
xiii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS Cont.
Section Page
5.3.9 RESPONSE TO ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC SECURITY (COMMENT DOCUMENT Kl) . 5-54
5.3.10 RESPONSES TO THE GILA RIVER INDIAN
COMMUNITY (COMMENT DOCUMENT L) 5-54
5.3.11 RESPONSES TO ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMPANY (COMMENT DOCUMENT M) 5-56
5.3.12 RESPONSES TO JOHN S. SCHAPER
(COMMENT DOCUMENT N) 5-66
5.3.13 RESPONSES TO DAVID E. CREIGHTON
(COMMENT DOCUMENT 0) 5-74
5.3.14 RESPONSE TO ORME LEWIS, JR.
(COMMENT DOCUMENT P) 5-79
5.3.15 RESPONSE TO THOMAS S. ROTHWEILER
(COMMENT DOCUMENT Q) 5-79
5.3.16 RESPONSE TO ADRON W. REICHERT
(COMMENT DOCUMENT R) 5-79
5.3.17 RESPONSES TO GILBERT T. VENABLE
(COMMENT DOCUMENT S) 5-80
REFERENCES CITED R-l
GLOSSARY G-l
LIST OF APPENDICES
A PERTINENT NUMERICAL CRITERIA FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED ARIZONA
SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
B ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES REGULATIONS FOR RECLAIMED
WASTES
C WASTEWATER FLOWS FROM THE 91ST AND 23RD AVENUE TREATMENT PLANTS
VS. EXISTING COMMITMENTS AND OTHER CLAIMS ON EFFLUENT FOR REUSE
D ADVISORY GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS AND MAG REGIONAL COUNCIL
RESOLUTIONS CONCERNING SELECTED PLAN
E MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS AND THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
BUREAU OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 PROJECTED POPULATION IN MARICOPA COUNTY, 1975-2000 . 2-5
2-2 UNIT FLOW PROJECTIONS 2-7
2-3 PROJECTED AVERAGE WASTEWATER FLOWS BY SERVICE AREA
IN MARICOPA COUNTY, 1980-2000 2-9
2-4 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS IN METRO PHOENIX .... 2-14
2-5 FACILITIES IN SELECTED PLAN 2-24
2-6 PREFERRED TREATMENT PROCESSES AND EFFLUENT REUSES
FOR POINT SOURCE METRO FACILITIES 2-28
2-7 COSTS AND STAGING OF TREATMENT PLANT AND
INTERCEPTOR PROJECTS 2-32
2-8 FACILITY COSTS BY PARTICIPATING COMMUNITY 2-37
2-9 PROPOSED 91ST AVENUE TREATMENT PLANT INTERCEPTORS
PROJECTED PEAK FLOW 2-47
2-10 CHANDLER POPULATION AND FLOWS 2-52
2-11 CROPPING PATTERNS 2-53
2-12 CHANDLER IRRIGATION LAND REQUIREMENTS 2-53
2-13 TOLLESON SERVICE AREA POPULATION AND FLOWS 2-54
2-14 REEMS ROAD SERVICE AREA POPULATION AND FLOWS .... 2-56
2-15 REEMS ROAD IRRIGATION LAND REQUIREMENTS 2-57
2-16 GILBERT POPULATION AND FLOWS 2-58
2-17 NORTH GILBERT IRRIGATION LAND REQUIREMENTS 2-59
2-18 SOUTH GILBERT IRRIGATION LAND REQUIREMENTS 2-60
2-19 FOUNTAIN HILLS POPULATION AND FLOWS 2-61
2-20 CAREFREE/CAVE CREEK POPULATION AND FLOWS 2-62
2-21 BUCKEYE POPULATION AND FLOWS 2-63
2-22 YEAR 2000 FLOWS FOR AREAWIDE ALTERNATIVES 2-67
2-23 SUMMARY OF AREAWIDE ALTERNATIVE COSTS 2-77
3-1 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED
CONSTITUENTS IN SALT, VERDE, AND GILA RIVER
WATERS, 1972-1976 3-21
3-2 EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS 3-23
xv
-------
LIST OF TABLES Cont.
Table Page
3-3 WATER QUALITY OF SALT RIVER AT FLUSHING MEADOWS
FOR 1977 3-25
3-4 FEDERAL AND ARIZONA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS . . 3-31
3-5 1977 OXIDANTS DATA SUMMARY 3-32
3-6 1977 CARBON MONOXIDE DATA SUMMARY 3-33
3-7 1977 PARTICIPATES DATA SUMMARY,
HIGH-VOLUME SAMPLER 3-34
3-8 SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL ANALYSIS FOR OZONE AND CARBON
MONOXIDE (BASE YEAR 1977) 3-35
3-9 ESTIMATED WATER SUPPLY AND DISPOSITION IN SALT-GILA
SYSTEM FROM 23RD AVENUE TO GILLESPIE DAM, 1976 ... 3-39
3-10 MARICOPA COUNTY POPULATION, 1940-1977 3-45
3-11 POPULATION OF MARICOPA COUNTY BY RACIAL AND ETHNIC
GROUP, 1975 3-46
3-12 LAND USE IN THE URBAN STUDY AREA 3-48
4-1 EFFLUENT REUSE COMMITMENTS 4-7
4-2 NITROGEN UPTAKE RATES 4-10
4-3 SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS 4-17
4-4 DISPOSITION OF EFFLUENT FROM 91ST AVENUE AND
23RD AVENUE TREATMENT PLANTS, 1980-2000 4-21
4-5 CHARACTERISTICS OF LAND TO BE UTILIZED FOR
TREATMENT PLANT FACILITIES IN SELECTED PLAN 4-26
4-6 TEMPORARY SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS OF INTERCEPTOR
CONSTRUCTION 4-30
4-7 POTENTIAL LAND AREA FARMED WITH EFFLUENT 4-32
4-8 UNCOMMITTED EFFLUENT AVAILABLE FROM 91ST AVENUE
AND 23RD AVENUE TREATMENT PLANTS, 1980-2000 4-35
4-9 DIRECT EMPLOYMENT AT PROPOSED FACILITIES 4-39
4-10 PROJECT COSTS FOR NEW FACILITIES BY COMMUNITY .... 4-41
4-11 MILES OF INTERCEPTOR LINE IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SENSITIVITY ZONES 4-46
4-12 MITIGATIVE MEASURES 4-48
xvi
-------
LIST OF TABLES Cont.
Table Page
4-13 FUTURE QUANTITIES OF SEWERED AND UNSEWERED WATER
(WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS) 4-54
4-14 PROJECTED POPULATION DENSITIES AND NET POPULATION
GAIN OR LOSS BY CAPM ZONE, YEAR 2000
(WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS) 4-57
4-15 SUMMARY OF POPULATION REALLOCATED BETWEEN SERVICE
AREAS, YEAR 2000 (WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS) .... 4-59
4-16 PROJECTED CHANGES IN LAND USE WITH AND WITHOUT NEW
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES,
1975-2000 4-64
4-17 PROJECTED FUTURE HOUSING DEMAND, MARICOPA COUNTY . . 4-67
4-18 PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS AND
NONMETHANE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS, PROJECT
CONDITIONS, 1980-2000 4-70
4-19 ARIZONA ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN 1975 4-75
4-20 FUEL SOURCES FOR ARIZONA ENERGY CONSUMPTION, 1975 . . 4-75
xvii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 MAG 208 STUDY AREA 2-3
2-2 EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM 2-13
2-3 SELECTED POINT SOURCE METRO PHOENIX PLAN 2-26
2-4 SELECTED POINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 2-40
2-5 POINT SOURCE METRO PLAN DEVELOPMENT 2-66
2-6 ALTERNATIVE 1 2-68
2-7 ALTERNATIVE 2 2-69
2-8 ALTERNATIVE 3 2-70
2-9 ALTERNATIVE 4 2-71
2-10 DRAFT EIS SUMMARY IMPACT MATRIX 2-78
3-1 STUDY AREA IN MARICOPA COUNTY 3-3
3-2 WATER BODIES AND MAJOR RELATED STRUCTURES 3-5
4-1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF FACILITIES Map
Pocket
4-2 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 2.5 MILLION, METRO AREA .... 4-61
4-3 EXISTING AND FUTURE AREAS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT . . . 4-63
4-4 LAND USE BY TYPE - METRO PHOENIX 4-65
xviii
-------
Chapter 1
introduction
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 ACTION COVERED
Under provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), an environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared
by any Federal agency responsible for a major action which may
have a significant effect on the human environment. The proposed
action covered in this EIS is approval of a plan to manage point
source water pollution in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona ("point
source metro plan"). The plan consists of a number of existing
and proposed wastewater treatment plants, collectors, and effluent
reuses in the Phoenix area, and an areawide wastewater management
system.
The point source metro plan was developed by the Maricopa
Association of Governments (MAG) as the major element in the MAG
208 Water Quality Management Program. The program was conducted
under the provisions of Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) and the Clean Water Act
of 1977 (PL 95-217), which amends PL 92-500. Section 208 of the
Act specifies steps that communities are to take to develop and
implement areawide water quality management plans (208 plans).
The Governor of the State of Arizona designated MAG as the
208 planning agency for Maricopa County. MAG was assisted in the
preparation of the 208 plan by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Los Angeles District, and by numerous consultants. The plan was
reviewed by the three advisory groups to the 208 program—the
Agricultural Advisory Group (AAG), Citizen Advisory Group (CAG),
and Technical Advisory Group (TAG)—and by the MAG Management
Committee and 208 Executive Committee. Ultimate decision-making
responsibility for the 208 plan rests with MAG's Regional Council,
subject to approval by the State and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Funding was provided by MAG, EPA, and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
It is the responsibility of EPA to oversee the planning
efforts necessary to meet requirements of Section 208 and the
overall goals of the Act. EPA has a review and approval function
1-1
-------
after the plan has been completed and the Governor of the State
has certified it for approval. EPA must also approve the proposed
designation of management agencies with responsibility for carry-
ing out each portion of the plan. In addition, EPA administers a
grant program under Section 201 of the Act for those areas that
complete 208 plans and qualify for funding.
EPA, Region IX participated extensively in the development of
the MAG 208 plan. EPA reviewed and approved MAG's original Work
Plan on November 1, 1976, and on September 26, 1978, approved a
Revised Work Plan prepared in response to EPA's request. EPA has
also provided guidance on the meaning of laws and regulations,
technical and management assistance, and constant assessments of
the quality and suitability of MAG's work.
The 208 plan has been finalized by MAG and, upon certifica-
tion by the Governor of Arizona, will be submitted to EPA for
approval. EPA proposes to approve the plan with conditions. In
approving the plan, EPA agrees to accept the provisions of the
plan and MAG's designation of management agencies for carrying out
the plan.
Approval also includes a commitment to make funds available
to designated agencies in the area for the design and construction
of wastewater treatment facilities. EPA makes 75 percent grants
available under Section 201 of the Act for this purpose, subject
to availability of funds through the State's priority system. MAG
estimates the total cost of construction which EPA might assist in
funding at $160 million. Facilities applying for grant funds will
be evaluated by EPA on a case-by-case basis. For each project
funded, EPA will either prepare an EIS or issue a declaration of
no significant environmental impact following an environmental
assessment.
1.2 EIS OBJECTIVES
The primary objective in preparing an EIS on a broad plan,
such as the point source metro plan, is to provide coverage of
impacts associated with the proposed action as a whole. More
site-specific impacts of components of the plan will be as-
sessed when detailed planning takes place. This process—called
"tiering"—is encouraged by the Council on Environmental Quality
in final NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.20 and 1508.28). By
assessing impacts of a plan or program to provide a basis for
more detailed coverage of impacts later on, tiering eliminates
1-2
-------
repetition and permits decision-makers to focus on impacts impor-
tant to the decision at hand. It is expected that this EIS will
provide a foundation for assessing impacts of wastewater treatment
facilities in the metro Phoenix area when more detailed planning
takes place.
The impacts emphasized in this EIS are areawide impacts, most
of which are cumulative or secondary in nature. To determine
cumulative areawide impacts, a preliminary assessment of local
impacts of the facilities was performed in the Draft EIS (DEIS)
and is summarized in matrix form in the Final EIS (FEIS). Al-
though local impacts could not be assessed in detail because of
the preliminary nature of facility planning, the EIS provides
direction for the facility-specific environmental assessments that
are to follow. These assessments will be made as part of detailed
facility planning that will be performed by local agencies in the
Phoenix area. In many cases, this EIS may provide sufficient
coverage of impacts for EPA to issue a declaration of no signif-
icant environmental impact for a facility.
1.3 DEIS REVISION
The assessment in the DEIS focused on differentiating among
the four alternative wastewater management plans to assist MAG and
the 208 advisory groups in selecting a preferred alternative and
EPA in determining the suitability of the plan. After the DEIS
45-day commenting period and the public hearing, the MAG Regional
Council made a decision on January 17, 1979, to adopt a 208 plan
which included Alternative 2 for the metro Phoenix area. The
impacts of this alternative—or selected plan—are assessed in the
FEIS.
By focusing on the selected plan, the FEIS is able to provide
greater coverage of regional and secondary impacts. In partic-
ular, EPA was concerned that the FEIS provide more complete
coverage of secondary impacts arising from the plan's support of
regional growth. An expanded analysis of these impacts was
developed for the FEIS and may be found in Section 4.3. In
addition, revisions were made to respond to comments on the DEIS
(see Chapter 5). EPA attempted to respond to comments on the DEIS
as fully as possible.
Revisions were made using new NEPA regulations for prepara-
tion of environmental impact statements (40 CFR 1500-1508) as a
guide. Although these regulations were not required for this EIS,
1-3
-------
they were used because of the logic of the recommended EIS organi-
zation, the emphasis on conciseness, and the general guidance
provided in the regulations for preparing a document helpful to
decision-makers. The resulting FEIS is a more concise and clearly
focused document.
In revising the EIS, some information that appeared in the
DEIS was condensed or eliminated. The comparative evaluation of
the alternatives, which formed the major part of the Environmental
Consequences chapter in the DEIS (Chapter 4), is summarized
briefly in Section 2.3 of the PEIS. The evaluation of environ-
mental effects of the individual facilities (DEIS Section 4.2) is
also summarized in the FEIS (Figure 4-1).
Information eliminated from the document was mainly in the
Environmental Setting chapter (Chapter 3) of the DEIS. In keeping
with the new NEPA regulations, this chapter was considerably
reduced in size. (See CFR 40 1502.15, Affected Environment, which
indicates that descriptions of the environment "shall be no longer
than is necessary to understand the effects of the alternatives.")
Finally, the section in the DEIS on the No Action Alternative
(Section 3.2) was not reprinted in the FEIS, but information from
this section was used in condensed form in Section 4.3 (Impacts of
Growth) in the FEIS.
1.4 EIS FORMAT
The FEIS was organized to highlight the issues and impacts
associated with the selected plan. The four remaining chapters in
the FEIS are as follows:
Chapter 2^ Proposed jAc_tio_n _and_Alternatiye_s> describes the
need for and purpose of action, the proposed action, and the
alternatives.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment, presents a concise descrip-
tion of the metro Phoenix area environment.
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, describes impacts of
the selected plan, including mitigation measures, impacts of
the plan's support of regional growth, unavoidable adverse
impacts, irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources, and short-term uses of the environment vs. long-
term enhancement.
1-4
-------
Chapter 5, Comments and Responses, includes comments received
on the DEIS and responses prepared by EPA and MAG.
References, Glossary, and Appendices complete the FEIS.
1.5 AVAILABILITY OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
Supporting documents from the MAG 208 Program are available
at information depositories established by MAG in the metropolitan
Phoenix area. Depositories include public libraries in the
Phoenix area, the Hayden Library at Arizona State University,
Tempe, and the State Capitol Library, Phoenix. A full list of
libraries may be found on pp. ix-x. In addition, supporting
documents are available at EPA, Region IX, offices in San Fran-
cisco, California; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles
District, Los Angeles, California; the U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, Urban Study Office, Phoenix; the Maricopa Association
of Governments, Phoenix; and the Maricopa County Planning Depart-
ment, Phoenix.
1-5
-------
Chapter 2
Proposed Action and Alternatives
-------
2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
The proposed action for this Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) is EPA approval of the selected 208 wastewater
management plan for metropolitan Phoenix. In this chapter, the
selected plan and alternatives are described. The first section
in the chapter presents the need for action and purpose of the
plan. The second section describes the plan. The third section
describes alternatives to the plan and the selection process.
2-1
-------
2.1 NEED FOR AND PURPOSE OF ACTION
Preparation of a 208 plan for Maricopa County was mandated by
Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (PL 92-500) and the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217),
which amends PL 92-500. Section 208 of the Act requires areas
with water quality problems to develop areawide plans for protect-
ing and improving water quality. By means of Section 208 areawide
planning and Section 201 wastewater treatment facilities construc-
tion grants, communities are provided assistance in achieving the
Act's overall goal of protecting, restoring, and maintaining water
quality.
In 1975, Maricopa County was designated by the Governor of
the State of Arizona as an area requiring preparation of a water
quality plan under Section 208, and the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG) was identified as the 208 planning agency. To
develop the 208 plan for Maricopa County, the MAG 208 Water
Quality Management Program (MAG 208 Program) identified the water
quality problems specific to the area and devised a work plan
consisting of three major technical elements: the point source
study, the nonpoint source study, and the management study. The
largest element was the point source study, which resulted in the
development of a plan for collection, treatment, and reuse of
wastewater in Maricopa County.
Point sources are stationary, readily identifiable sources of
pollution, such as private or municipal waste treatment plants.*
The point source study focused on the metropolitan Phoenix area,
where 93 percent of the residents of Maricopa County live. The
nonmetropolitan area of Maricopa County contains only two other
communities that required study: Wickenburg and Gila Bend.
Separate studies were conducted for these communities. The
geographical division of Maricopa County into metro and nonmetro
areas for the 208 study is shown on Figure 2-1.
The point source plan for metro Phoenix (point source metro
plan) was developed to respond to the following problems:
1. The Phoenix area is expected to continue to grow
rapidly over the next 20 years. This population will require
a significantly enlarged wastewater treatment system to
handle increased flow.
*A glossary of terms and abbreviations is provided at
the end of this report.
2-2
-------
•
NONMETRO
Gila Bend
J
KEY MAP
MAG 208 STUDY AREA
Figure 2-1
2-3
-------
2. Water quality problems in some parts of the area are
caused by poor quality discharges from wastewater treatment
plants.
3. Water resources are being depleted in the area, and
reuse of wastewater could help conserve these resources.
4. The existing wastewater treatment system is operat-
ing near capacity, and most facilities are in need of up-
grading to handle flows and improve water quality. Future
growth will place additional stress on the system.
5. Wastewater treatment facilities are managed by local
or multi-city entities. A regional wastewater management
system is required to implement the 208 plan, because only
such a system is capable of handling region-wide problems,
particularly where coordination with other regional planning
efforts is needed.
The plan that was developed responded to the problems by providing
for wastewater treatment facilities that will handle the projected
population growth and improve and protect water quality and by
establishing an areawide wastewater management system. The
problems that led to the development of this plan are discussed in
greater detail in the following parts of this section.
2.1.1 POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND FUTURE FLOWS
Maricopa County is one of the fastest growing areas in the
United States and one of the few metropolitan areas in the nation
that has continued to grow in recent years. Projections from the
Arizona Department of Economic Security (DBS), the designated
state planning agency, show that Maricopa County will continue to
grow rapidly over the next twenty years, reaching a population of
2,297,000 by the year 2000. The DBS issued revised projections in
July 1978. These revised projections indicate a slightly larger
population for the year 2000 and an earlier staging of population
growth. Although these revised projections were not available in
time to be used in preparation of the MAG 208 Plan, they will be
used in future updates of the plan.
To determine future wastewater flows, population was allo-
cated by MAG to Municipal Planning Areas (MPA) within the county,
unit flows for wastewater treatment service areas were estimated,
and a waste flow reduction plan was developed. Future population
by MPA within the county is shown in Table 2-1. Unit flows used
to develop future flow projections are shown in Table 2-2.
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-1
KJ
J,
PROJECTED
Planning Area
Carefree-Cave Creek
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Gilbert
Litchfield Park
Luke AFB
Peoria
Sun City
POPULATION IN
1975
11,405
2,675a
2,170
22,496
3,954
1,497
7,091
71,292
3,187
4,285
2,558
4,900
117,099
11,532
13,302
699,006
78,065
37,500
3.400
MARICOPA
1980
11,700
3,000
2,800
30,000
5,700
5,000
10,800
80,000
3,750
4,500
3,250
4,900
137,200
13,500
19,800
741,000
84,500
40,192
3,600
COUNTY, 1975-2000
1985
14,100
3,800
4,045
42 , 500
7,500
7,005
14,700
97,700
5,260
5,000
4,140
5,000
160,800
15,800
23 , 400
802,200
92,700
47,817
3.700
1990
21,300
5,100
5,800
58,800
9,400
10,000
24 , 800
115,800
9,800
6,000
8,300
5,000
180,400
16,200
37,900
875,900
96,600
48,310
4.700
1995
28,600
6,500
8,300
75 , 200
11,400
15,000
34,800
134,400
14,250
6,900
12,550
5,000
200,500
16,700
52 , 300
952,100
100,700
48,439
5.700
2000
36,300
8,000
9,000
92,700
13,500
22,500
45 , 500
1 54 , 800
19,000
8,000
16,900
5,000
223,500
17,400
67 , 700
1,042,100
106,400
48,755
6.800
-------
TABLE 2-1 (Cont.)
NJ
Planning Area
Tolleson
Williams AFB
Maricopa County inside
Subtotal, metro planning area ..
Maricopa County outside
Subtotal , remainder
1975
94,063
3,778
3,280
2,000
31,460
1,231,995 1
2,300a
2,908a
9,297
14,505
1,246,500 1
1980
126,800
4,100
3,338
2,000
47,155
,388,600
2,600
3,500
10,300
16,400
,405,000
1985
162,700
4,700
3,400
2,000
61 ,453
1,591,445
3,300
4,500
12,755
20,555
1,612,000
1990
168,600
9,400
3,469
2,000
80,271
1,803,900
3,800
5,600
13,700
23,100
1,827,000
1995
175,100
14,100
3,472
2,100
96,989
2,021,200
4,200
6,700
14,900
25,800
2,047,000
2000
184,000
19,000
3,507
2,200
115,338
2,268,000
4,800
8,000
16,200
29,000
2,297,000
3Existing city limits only.
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security, 1977a; Maricopa Association of Governments,
1978.
-------
TABLE 2-2
UNIT FLOW PROJECTIONS
Service Area Unit Flowsa
Gila Bend 128
Glendale 110
Luke Air Force Base 1.5 mgd
Mesa 85
Phoenix (23rd Avenue plant) 105
Phoenix (91st Avenue plant) 100
Scottsdale 105
Sun City 70
Tempe—Commercial/industrial 1,760 g/ac/day
—Residential 65
Tolleson 110
Young town 70
All other areas 100
a
In gallons per capita per day unless otherwise noted.
2-7
-------
Unit flow projections were developed by community on the
basis of historical trends, actual flow records, and resident
census data for 1975. These unit flows were used as a basis for
flow projections in the MAG 208 study.
A waste flow reduction study conducted by MAG determined that
conservation efforts could result in a probable flow reduction of
4 percent for existing (1980) residents and 15 percent for new
residents, assuming that they would occupy new homes built for
water conservation. The net result is an overall reduction of
almost 10 percent by the year 2000.
The future flows developed from the population projections,
unit flows, and water conservation projections are shown in
Table 2-3 by service area. In developing these future flows, MAG
assumed that centralized wastewater treatment would be needed
wherever population densities are expected to exceed 1.5 persons
per acre. EPA requires that more detailed analysis be made of the
most suitable treatment methods for low-density areas. Further
studies by individual communities in the study area will define
areas to be sewered on the basis of land use and zoning, soil
conditions, ground water conditions, environmental inputs, manage-
ment requirements, and costs.
2.1.2 WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
Streams in the Phoenix area are usually dry, except during
and after storms. However, flow in the Salt and Gila Rivers
immediately downstream from the 91 st Avenue and 23rd Avenue
treatment plants in Phoenix is perennial, consisting predominantly
of effluent from the plants. Currently, the plants operating at
rated capacity produce approximately 115 million gallons per day
(mgd), or 130,000 acre-feet per year (af/yr), of effluent.
Discharges from smaller treatment plants also contribute to
flows in the area's streams. The Tolleson treatment plant occa-
sionally discharges portions of its effluent to a canal leading to
the Salt River. The Buckeye treatment plant discharges to the
Arlington Canal, which drains to the Gila River. The Avondale
treatment plant discharges to the Agua Fria River. The Chandler
plant discharges to the Gila Drain. These discharges are consid-
erably smaller in quantity than the discharges from the 23rd
Avenue and 91st Avenue plants.
The effluent discharged from the 23rd Avenue and 91st Avenue
plants dominates the flow in the Salt River from 23rd Avenue to
the confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers approximately 15 miles
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-3
PROJECTED AVERAGE WASTEWATER FLOWS BY SERVICE AREA
IN MARICOPA COUNTY, 1980-2000a
Projected Average
Metro service areas:
El Mirage
Fountain Hills
Gilbert
Litchfield Park
Luke AFB
Peoria
Sun City West
Tolleson
Williams AFB
Subtotal
Nonmetro service areas:
Gila Bend
Subtotal
Total
1980
0.7
0.3
0.3
3.0
0.4
0.5
1.0
8.6
0.3
0.5
0.3
1.5
13.9
1.4
1.8
75.9
8.9
2.8
0.4
0.2
0.4
12.7
0.5
1.0
0.1
137.4
0.3
0.4
0.7
138.1
1985
0.9
0.4
0.4
4.0
0.5
0.7
1.3
10.0
0.4
0.5
0.3
1.5
15.7
1.5
2.0
80.4
9.5
3.2
0.9
0.3
0.4
15.9
0.5
1.0
0.1
152.3
0.4
0.5
0.9
153.2
1990
1.5
0.5
0.5
5.4
0.5
0.9
2.2
11.5
0.8
0.6
0.6
1.5
17.2
1.5
3.1
86.0
9.8
3.2
1.5
0.4
0.5
17.5
0.9
1.0
0.1
169.2
0.4
0.6
1.0
170.2
Flows (mgd)
1995
2.1
0.6
0.7
6.8
0.5
1.3
3.1
12.9
1.1
0.6
0.9
1.5
18.9
1.5
4.2
91.7
10.0
3.2
2.0
0.5
0.5
19.2
1.4
1.0
0.1
186.3
0.5
0.7
1.2
187.5
2000
2.8
0.7
0.8
8.2
0.6
2.0
4.0
14.5
1.4
0.7
1.3
1.4
20.7
1.7
5.4
98.7
10.5
3.2
2.6
0.7
0.6
21.1
1.8
1.0
0.1
206.5
0.5
0.8
1.3
207.8
aFlows were projected assuming that centralized wastewater
treatment would be needed wherever population densities are
expected to exceed 1.5 persons per acre.
2-9
-------
downstream. The greatest flow is in the stretch of the river from
91st Avenue downstream 7 miles to the Buckeye Heading, where the
Buckeye Irrigation Company diverts a portion of the flow for
irrigation of crops within the Buckeye Irrigation District.
The water quality in the stretch of the Salt River immedi-
ately downstream from the 91st Avenue plant is not good. Fecal
coliform counts are very high, averaging 3 x 105 per 100 ml in
1977. Also in 1977 total dissolved solids averaged 1,075 milli-
grams per liter (mg/1), nitrate (as N) 27.4 mg/1, and suspended
solids 32.2 mg/1 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Water Conserva-
tion Laboratory, 1977). Access to the river is easily gained,
posing potential health hazards. When flooding occurs, this
effluent-dominated flow mixes with floodwaters and, though reduced
in concentration, may reach residential and business areas.
The problem of discharges not meeting NPDES permit require-
ments and State surface water quality standards has been compli-
cated by litigation and changing standards. The City of Phoenix
has engaged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
in litigation over NPDES permit requirements for the 91st Avenue
and 23rd Avenue plants. A recent Consent Decree (May 1979) grants
the facilities a waiver until December 1980 to meet discharge
requirements. The requirements have been set at 30 mg/1 (on a
30-day average) for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended
solids, and 1,000 units per 100 ml for fecal coliform. (See
Section 2.1.4 for a discussion of the needs of the treatment
plants to meet requirements.)
Under existing State of Arizona surface water quality regula-
tions, the Salt River from Granite Reef Dam to the confluence with
the Gila River and the Gila River from that point to Painted Rock
Dam are not specifically designated as having protected beneficial
uses. It is on the basis of protected uses that specific water
quality criteria are applied to individual stream segments.
General water quality standards apply to all stream segments.
Although the stream segments in question were not given
specifically designated beneficial uses in the State regulations,
the "tributary rule" in the regulations has been held to apply to
these segments. Under the tributary rule (R9-21-205A), where uses
of a watercourse are not specifically designated, the watercourse
assumes the use of the nearest downstream segment that is specif-
ically designated. The nearest downstream segment for which
designated uses have been set is Painted Rock Lake. Accordingly,
standards for Painted Rock Lake (partial body contact, warm water
2-10
-------
fishery, agriculture, and aquatic life and wildlife) apply to the
segments of the Salt and Gila Rivers for which no specific uses
were designated.
The State of Arizona is currently in the process of reviewing
and revising surface water quality standards. Public meetings
were held throughout the State in January, February, and March of
1978, focusing on designating water uses to be protected for
specific segments and portions of all rivers, streams, and lakes
in Arizona. The associated numerical limits allowed for specific
contaminants in the water for each designated protected use were
also reviewed. Recommended changes will be presented at further
public meetings in mid-1979, and final revisions will be adopted
by the Water Quality Control Council in 1979.
As of July 1979, proposed regulations designate protected
beneficial uses of partial body contact, agricultural irrigation,
and riparian habitat for the effluent-dominated portions of the
Salt and Gila Rivers. Numerical criteria for both the existing
and proposed standards are included in Appendix A. Under both
sets of standards, the highest protected use for the effluent-
dominated portions of the Salt and Gila Rivers is partial body
contact, with numerical criteria of 1,000 fecal coliform units per
100 ml. Coliform counts in these segments are greatly in excess
of this standard. To meet standards, the treatment plants dis-
charging to the river will be required to provide well-functioning
secondary treatment plus disinfection.
2.1.3 NEED TO CONSERVE WATER RESOURCES
The Phoenix area is semiarid and water-short. Ground water
overdraft is a serious problem. In 1975, the total consumptive
use of water supplies in the Salt River Valley was about 1.9
million acre-feet. Of this, 1 million acre-feet was overdraft
from ground water (Arizona Water Commission, 1978).
In the study area, reuse of wastewater can help conserve
water resources. By reusing wastewater for agricultural irriga-
tion, for example, other better-quality water is made available
for higher uses. In addition, recharge of the aquifer may occur
as a result of infiltration/percolation, helping to reduce ground
water overdraft. Because water resources are being depleted, the
point source metro study included increased reuse of effluent
within the study area as one goal in developing alternative
regional wastewater treatment systems. A separate study in the
MAG 208 Water Quality Management Program developed a plan for
conservation of wastewater, implementation of which has already
begun.
2-11
-------
2.1.4 NEEDS OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
At the time the MAG 208 study began, the existing wastewater
treatment system was already strained. Rapid growth in the area
had placed stress on all public service sectors, including this
system. Most wastewater treatment plants were operating near
capacity, had not been adequately upgraded in recent years, and
were poorly operated and maintained. This existing system is
briefly described below, along with the needs of the system to
respond to future population growth and protect water quality.
Wastewater treatment in the metro area is provided largely by
facilities managed under the Multi-City Sewer Agreement that was
negotiated in 1967 among Phoenix, Glendale, Tempe, Mesa, Scotts-
dale, and Youngtown. Under this Multi-City Agreement, the cities
jointly develop interceptor sewers and plant capacity as needed.
The Phoenix 91st Avenue plant, with a design capacity of 95
million gallons per day (mgd) and a rated capacity of 84 mgd,
serves Phoenix, Scottsdale, Mesa, Tempe, Glendale, Youngtown,
Peoria, and Sun City. Peoria and Sun City rent capacity from
Glendale1s portion of the 91st Avenue plant. The Phoenix 23rd
Avenue plant (design capacity of 40 mgd and rated capacity of
31 mgd) serves portions of Phoenix and Paradise Valley. Other
major wastewater treatment plants serve the communities of Avon-
dale/Goodyear, Buckeye, Carefree/Cave Creek, Chandler, Fountain
Hills, Gilbert, Litchfield Park, Mesa, Tolleson, and Luke and
Williams Air Force Bases. The locations of these plants are shown
on Figure 2-2, and an inventory of the plants is provided in Table
2-4. A summary of the needs and problems of the plants and major
interceptors is as follows.
Avondale/G oodyear
The existing plant uses an aerated lagoon process and has an
NPDES permit capacity of 1.0 mgd. Discharge is to the Agua Fria
River. Projected growth for the Avondale/Goodyear area indicates
that additional treatment and interceptor capacity will be re-
quired by the early 1980's.
At present, the plant cannot meet NPDES permit requirements
for discharge to the Agua Fria River. The plant is subject to
flooding, and in the 1978 floods it was badly damaged by flood-
waters. Interim holding/percolation ponds have been built, but
these are considered only a temporary solution.
2-12
-------
Treatment Plant
•^^^ Interceptors & Trunks
I Force Main
1 , '
/: \
,x / , J
EXISTING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEM
Figure 2-2
-------
TABLE 2-4
NS
I
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS IN METRO PHOENIX
Plant
Avondale3 .......
Buckeye^
Carefree/
Cave Creek .....
Chandler3
Fountain Hills ..
Gilbert
Litchfield Park .
Luke AFBa
Type
Aerated
lagoon
Oxidation
pond
Extended
aeration
Aerated
lagoon
Stabiliza-
tion pond
Oxidation
pond
Aerated
lagoon
Trickling
filter
Capac- Ave" NPDES
T 9.O &
(mgd)
1.0C 0.68 0020214
0.6d 0.14 0020222
0. ld — None
3.5C 1.73 0021091
0.5d — None
0.5d — None
0.4d — None
1.5C 0.57 0110221
1978
Average
Effluent
(mg/1)
BOD SS
63 90
64 71
16 32
25 28
Discharge
Location
Agua Fria
Arlington
Canal
Land ap-
plication
Gila Drain
Land ap-
plication
Land ap-
plication
Land ap-
plication
Agua Fria
River
Year
Reuse Built
None 1958
Irrigation
Irrigation
Irrigation 1968
Irrigation 1974
Irrigation
Irrigation 1966
None 1942
-------
TABLE 2-4 (cont.)
Rated . _ Average
D1 „ _ Capac- Ve~ NPDES Effluent Discharge _ Year
Plant Type .. rage _ . * , / nN T . Reuse
}V ity ,B Permit # (mg/1) Location
Flow
(mgd)
BOD SS
Mesa Trickling 3.3d 3.30 None 34 30 Holding Irrigation 1960
filter ponds
Phoenix
23rd Avenue3 ... Activated 31.Od 27.2 0020559 18 27 Salt River Irrigation 1960
sludge 1967
Phoenix
91st Avenue9 ... Activated 84.Od 85.5 0020524 29 49 Salt River Irrigation 1976
sludge
Tollesona Trickling 4.lc 0.33 0020338 29 8 Salt River Turf irri- 1969
filter gatlon
Williams AFBa ... Trickling 1.0d 0.90 00110230 12 9 Land ap- Irrigation Remdl
filter plication 1977
Effluent Requirements
BOD mg/1 SS mg/1
a 30 30
b 30 90
Rated Capacity
c NPDES stated capacity
d Capacity based upon ADHS Requirements
-------
Buckeye
The community of Buckeye, located in the extreme southwest
portion of the metro area, operates and maintains its own water
and sewer systems. The existing sewage treatment system in
Buckeye consists of two oxidation ponds, which operate in series
and discharge to the Arlington Canal. Effluent is taken up from
the canal for agricultural irrigation. The capacity of the
Buckeye system is 0.6 mgd, and population projections indicate
that capacity of an additional 0.1 mgd will be required by the
year 2000.
The plant generally meets NPDES permit requirements of 30
mg/1 BOD and 90 mg/1 suspended solids. A chlorination system was
under construction at the time of the December 1978 floods and was
badly damaged by floodwaters. When this system is completed,
coliform requirements of the permit will also be met.
Carefree/Cave Creek
At present, two small privately owned treatment plants with a
combined capacity of 0.14 mgd serve the communities of Carefree
and Cave Creek. The plants operate as extended aeration units
with oxidation ponds that discharge to golf course irrigation
ponds. One plant has a capacity of 0.12 mgd and serves the
downtown Carefree and Boulders areas. The other small plant has a
capacity of 0.015 mgd and serves a residential development. By
the year 2000, Carefree is projected to have a population of
5,400, requiring treatment of 0.5 mgd; Cave Creek is projected to
have a population of 3,600 and flows of 0.3 mgd. To meet popula-
tion growth, wastewater treatment service will have to be expanded
in the Carefree/Cave Creek area and an appropriate disposal/reuse
option selected.
Chandler
The present Chandler plant uses an aerated lagoon system,
with an NPDES capacity of 3.5 mgd. The treatment plant is operat-
ing well, but population growth will exceed plant capacity in the
early 1980's. By the year 2000, the population in the Chandler
area is projeced to be 92,700, requiring treatment plant capacity
of 8.2 mgd.
The plant is located on Gila River Indian Community lands.
Effluent from the plant belongs to the Indian Community under an
agreement between the Indians and the City of Chandler. Histor-
ically, the effluent has been discharged to the Gila Drain and
2-16
-------
periodically taken up by a local farmer for use as irrigation
water or discharged into the Gila River. Presently, the discharge
enters the Gila Drain and flows until it infiltrates and perco-
lates into the stream bed. The agreement with the Gila Indian
Community does not include the right to discharge to the Gila
Drain, and the Indian Community does not favor the continued use
of Indian lands for Chandler's wastewater treatment plant. The
quality of the effluent does not currently meet NPDES permit
requirements for BOD and suspended solids of 30 mg/1. The City of
Chandler is attempting to negotiate a new agreement with the
Indians in order to upgrade the quality of the effluent and to
expand the plant's capacity.
Fountain Hills
The Fountain Hills Sanitary District operates a recently
built (1974) modified activated sludge secondary treatment facil-
ity. The capacity of the facility is 0.5 mgd. Population for
Fountain Hills is expected to reach 22,500 by the year 2000,
requiring treatment capacity of 2.0 mgd. The plant has no dis-
charge permit; effluent is reused for golf course irrigation.
Gilbert
The Town of Gilbert operates a stabilization lagoon system
with discharge to a local farming operation for restricted agri-
cultural irrigation. The plant is operating at capacity, and the
local farming operation will cease using effluent for irrigation
in the near future. Population growth in the area will create
demand for increased capacity. By the year 2000, population in
the Gilbert area is expected to reach 45,500, requiring treatment
of flows of 4.0 mgd.
Litchfield Park
Litchfield Park presently operates an aerated lagoon system
with discharge to a land site. The plant is now operating at
capacity (0.4 mgd), and the Litchfield Park Service Company plans
to install a package plant for interim treatment of wastewaters.
Luke Air Force Base
The present trickling filter plant, built in 1942, cannot
meet NPDES permit requirements for discharge to the Agua Fria
River. In addition, the Base has indicated a desire to phase out
use of the plant if other treatment operations are available.
2-17
-------
Mesa
The present trickling filter plant, with a design capacity of
5.0 mgd, operates at 3.3 mgd in order to maintain effluent qual-
ity. Development has encroached upon the plant in recent years.
The plant is scheduled to be closed down as soon as additional
capacity is available at the Phoenix 91st Avenue treatment plant.
Phoenix 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue Plants
The 91st Avenue plant is an activated sludge secondary
treatment facility with a design capacity of 95 mgd, including a
5 mgd on-site trickling filter unit which is not available for
service. The plant's rated capacity is 84 mgd, and in 1978 the
plant's average daily flows were 85.5 mgd. Plant facilities are
in need of retrofitting and upgrading to meet current demands for
treatment and to comply with NPDES permit requirements.
NPDES permit inspections conducted in 1978 and 1979 indicate
that plant equipment is obsolete and that major deficiencies are
occurring because of equipment failure, poor operation and main-
tenance procedures, and overloads due to rapid population growth.
Average values for 91st Avenue effluent discharged to the Salt
River in 1978 were 29 mg/1 BOD and 49 mg/1 suspended solids.
Permit requirements for the 91st Avenue plant are 30 mg/1 BOD and
suspended solids.
In order to bring the 91st Avenue plant into better operating
condition, accommodate the current growth in the service area, and
improve water quality in the Salt and Gila Rivers, immediate
upgrading and retrofitting are required. Plans call for these
actions to take place by 1981, with the plant capacity increased
to 90 mgd by that time.
The 23rd Avenue plant is an activated sludge secondary
treatment facility with a design capacity of 40 mgd and a rated
capacity of 31 mgd. In 1978, the average daily flow rate was 27.2
mgd. This plant, like the 91st Avenue plant, is operating with
outdated, deteriorated equipment. Complaints have been registered
against both the 23rd Avenue and 91st Avenue plants because of
odor episodes and proliferation of insects around the treatment
facilities. Effluent from the 23rd Avenue plant meets NPDES
permit requirements for BOD and suspended solids, according to
data from the NPDES inspection reports. Average values for 23rd
Avenue effluent in 1978 were 18 mg/1 BOD and 27 mg/1 suspended
solids.
2-18
-------
The NPDES permits for both the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue
plants require that effluent contain average fecal coliform counts
equal to or less than 1,000 per 100 ml. As neither plant cur-
rently disinfects all effluent, fecal coliform counts are greatly
in excess of the limit.
Effluent from the 91st Avenue plant is discharged to the Salt
River immediately downstream from the plant. A portion of the
flow (7,300 af/yr) is committed to the Arizona Game and Fish
Department for maintenance of a wildlife management area in the
riverbed near 115th Avenue. Other flow in the river is partially
diverted at the Buckeye Heading to the Buckeye Irrigation Canal.
This effluent is used in the Buckeye Irrigation District for
restricted agricultural irrigation. A future commitment of up to
140,000 af/yr of effluent has been made by the Multi-City Partners
for use as cooling water at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station. This commitment is discussed more fully in Section
2.2.2, under the part describing project actions associated with
the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue plants (pp. 2-44 - 2-46).
Effluent from the 23rd Avenue plant is currently discharged
to a canal which empties into the Salt River. An undetermined
amount of effluent is taken up from the canal by McDonald Farms, a
private farming operation, for use in irrigation of restricted
crops. Effluent from the plant is also committed for use at the
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, if effluent from the 91st
Avenue plant is not available in sufficient quantities. The
Roosevelt Irrigation District has an option on up to 20,000 af/yr
of effluent from the 23rd Avenue plant provided it is treated to a
level appropriate for unrestricted agricultural irrigation and the
effluent is not required for Palo Verde.
91st Avenue Interceptor System
Major interceptor sewers for the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue
plants are shown on Figure 2-2. Existing capacities of major
interceptors were compared against future flows by 5-year incre-
ments to determine system deficiencies. This analysis may be
found in the Point Source Final Plan (MAG 208 Program, 1979b).
Northwest communities presently not sewered to the 91st
Avenue plant are projected to have a total peak flow of 47.8 mgd
by the year 2000. Interceptor capacity will be required for these
communities, which include Surprise, El Mirage, Youngtown, Sun
City, Glendale, Luke Air Force Base, and portions of Phoenix. In
addition, the eastside community of Mesa, currently served by
its own treatment plant, will require a collection system to the
2-19
-------
91st Avenue plant when the Mesa plant is decommissioned in the
mid-1980's.
Analysis of the Salt River Outfall (SRO), a large interceptor
that transports flows from eastside communities to the 91st Avenue
plant, indicates deficiencies for some of the communities that
jointly own the interceptor. Capacity in the SRO is owned by
Phoenix, Scottsdale, Mesa, and Tempe in varying percentages for
each of the three segments of the interceptor. While excess
capacity is owned by Phoenix in all segments to and beyond the
year 2000, the remaining communities will have large deficiencies.
These deficiencies occur as early as 1980 for Mesa and Tempe in
all segments, and for Scottsdale in two of three segments.
Tolleson
The Tolleson plant is a trickling filter system that provides
secondary treatment for flows of up to 4.1 mgd. The plant is in
excellent operating condition, and effluent quality is well within
NPDES requirements. The plant's permit allows discharge of up to
4.1 mgd of effluent to a channel that leads to the Salt River.
However, effluent is currently being used as needed for sod-
growing near the plant site. Flows from Peoria and increased
flows from Tolleson would require expansion of the plant to
reach a capacity of 7.2 mgd by the year 2000. Population ser-
viced in the year 2000 would be approximately 86,700 for the two
communities.
Williams Air Force Base
Williams AFB presently operates a trickling filter secondary
treatment system with a capacity of 1.0 mgd. Effluent is pres-
ently reused for golf course irrigation on the base during most of
the year. Excess effluent which cannot be utilized on the golf
course overflows to an adjacent private farm where it is reused
for restricted agricultural irrigation. If all effluent produced
cannot be utilized on the golf course or the farm, it then is
discharged to an irrigation canal used by the Roosevelt Water
Conservation District.
NPDES permit requirements of 30 mg/1 BOD and suspended solids
were met by the treatment facility. However, in August 1978 EPA
changed requirements to 10 mg/1 BOD and suspended solids because
waters in the irrigation canal are used at a downstream location
for unrestricted agriculture, and the effluent does not meet State
standards for use of reclaimed wastewater in unrestricted agricul-
tural operations. Future flows at the base will not require
2-20
-------
expansion of the facility, but a solution to the problem of not
meeting NPDES requirements will need to be developed. Williams
AFB is presently considering expansion of the golf course, which
will utilize all effluent produced.
2.1.5 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM NEEDS
In order to implement an areawide wastewater treatment plan
under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act, an areawide management
system to operate, finance, and manage the plan is required. An
Inventory and Assessment of the Existing Waste Treatment Manage-
ment Agencies (Ferguson, Morris, & Simpson, 1977a) was prepared
to determine whether the provisions of the Clean Water Act were
currently being met by local governments of Maricopa County.
Based on this study, it was determined that the existing system
did not meet requirements of the Act at the planning, operating,
financing, and management levels and could not provide effective
areawide wastewater management.
The study concluded that there was no authority for an agency
to adopt an areawide waste treatment plan which would be binding
upon local governments of Maricopa County. In addition, no
agency was found to have the power to assure the operation and
maintenance of waste treatment works in conformance with the plan.
The study found that local governments of the area possessed
adequate statutory authority to individually or by contract
jointly meet these requirements, but that the existing system was
fragmented, uncoordinated, and unable to make decisions that could
be enforced.
2-21
-------
2.2 POINT SOURCE METRO PLAN
The selected point source metro plan would provide wastewater
treatment for the projected population of the metro Phoenix area
and control point source pollution by (1) upgrading and expanding
existing wastewater treatment facilities, (2) constructing new
facilities, (3) increasing reuse of effluent, and (4) providing an
areawide management system to analyze and solve wastewater prob-
lems of the Phoenix area.
Under the plan, approximately 85 percent of the area's
wastewater would be treated at the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue
treatment plants in Phoenix, with the remainder treated at nine
satellite plants. Reuse of effluent from the plants would include
agricultural irrigation, cooling water for the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station, maintenance of a wildlife management area,
sod-growing, and golf course irrigation. Other reuses may also be
developed in continued planning.
The areawide management system calls for MAG to be respon-
sible for ongoing regional waste treatment management planning,
208 plan implementation, and coordination of municipalities and
private agencies in meeting the requirements of the Clean Water
Act. Subregional operating groups (SROG's) composed of cities and
towns would have planning and operational responsibilities for
designated areas, and lead agencies from the SROG's would be
responsible for day-to-day management of the individual facilities
and enforcement of pretreatment requirements, NPDES requirements,
and water quality standards.
These provisions of the plan are described in the following
three sections (Sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2, and 2.2.3). More detailed
information on elements of the plan may be found in the MAG 208
Final Plan (MAG 208 Program, 1979a) and in the Point Source Final
Plan (MAG~208 Program, 1979b).
The 208 planning program used a level of detail sufficient to
provide the following information: service area flows, plant
capacity, responsible planning agency, preferred reuse of ef-
fluent, treatment level for preferred reuse, preferred plant
location, interceptor capacity and routing, and preferred reuse
location. Further study of the facilities may necessitate chang-
ing sites within a general locale or altering treatment process
and reuse schemes. However, MAG's overall strategy for providing
wastewater treatment and protecting water quality is not subject
to change without revising the 208 plan. There will be yearly
2-22
-------
updates of the 208 plan to comply with Clean Water Act require-
ments that 208 planning be a continuous planning/implementation
process with annual updating.
2.2.1 PLAN DESCRIPTION
Facilities
The proposed plan includes thirteen facilities, with inter-
ceptor systems. Seven of these facilities comprised Alternative
2, which was selected from the final four alternatives as the
preferred plan by the MAG Regional Council (see Section 2.3,
Alternatives). In addition, six other facilities (Buckeye,
Carefree/Cave Creek, Fountain Hills, Williams Air Force Base,
Sun City West, and Sun Lakes) are included in the plan. These
facilities serve communities that chose to pursue local options
for wastewater treatment early in the development of alternatives.
The facilities included in the selected plan are listed in
Table 2-5, and their locations are shown on Figure 2-3. Each
facility is described in detail in Section 2.2.3.
Several facilities that were eliminated from consideration
during the process of developing alternative plans may be consid-
ered further in the future. The Northeast plant, which would have
serviced Scottsdale and Paradise Valley, was included in two of
the four final alternatives. The 48th Street plant was considered
in the earlier subregional evaluation. The MAG Regional Council,
in adopting the Draft 208 Plan, provided that these plants be
considered for possible inclusion in the plan at a later time.
Provisions for Service
Under the plan, existing plants in Avondale, Litchfield Park,
Mesa, and at Luke AFB would close down. Flows from Avondale,
Goodyear, and Litchfield Park would be treated at the new Reems
Road plant. Flows from Mesa and Luke AFB would be treated at the
91st Avenue plant.
It is proposed that by the year 2000 the Phoenix 91st Avenue
and 23rd Avenue plants would handle flows from all areas except
Tolleson/Peoria, Avondale/Goodyear/Litchfield Park, Chandler,
portions of Gilbert, Buckeye, Carefree/Cave Creek, Fountain Hills,
Williams Air Force Base, Sun City West, and Sun Lakes. These
communities would be served by subregional or local treatment
plants. The proposed expansion and new construction of treatment
plants are as follows:
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-5
FACILITIES IN SELECTED PLAN
Facility
Project Action
Year
2000
Flow
(mgd)
91st Avenue
23rd Avenue
Chandler
Tolleson
Reems Road
Gilbert (north)
Gilbert (south)
Sun City West
Fountain Hills
Williams AFB
Carefree/Cave Creek
Buckeye
Sun Lakes
Total
Expansion
Expansion
Expansion
Expansion
New construction
New construction
New construction
Under construction
Expansion
Alternate effluent reuse
Plan for construction
Expansion
Expansion
137.0
37.2
8.2
7.2
5.4
2.7
0.9
2.6
2.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.7
206.4
2-24
-------
PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITIES
Existing Plants
New Plant
Pump Station
Inti r ' pl'il
•Illlll Force Main
CAVE CREEK/CAREf REE
... ;... VV
'
SELECTED POINT SOURCE
METRO PHOENIX PLAN
Figure 2-3
-------
The 91st Avenue plant would be upgraded immediately to handle
flows of 90 mgd. A 30-mgd expansion would take place by 1982, and
a 17-mgd expansion would be added in 1990 or sooner to handle
flows of 137.0 mgd through the year 2000.
Major new interceptors would be required to carry flows to
the 91st Avenue plant. An interceptor would be constructed along
99th Avenue to transport flows from Surprise, El Mirage, Young-
town, Glendale, Luke AFB, Sun City East, and portions of Phoenix
to the plant. The Southern Avenue Interceptor (SAI) would be
constructed to transport flows from Mesa, Tempe, Gilbert, Guada-
lupe, Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, and Phoenix to the plant. A
number of subsystems to both the 99th Avenue Interceptor and the
SAI would be required.
The 23rd Avenue plant would be upgraded to handle flows of
37.2 mgd from portions of Phoenix and Paradise Valley through the
year 2000.
The Tolleson plant would be expanded to handle a year 2000
flow of 7.2 mgd from Tolleson and Peoria. Flows from Peoria would
be collected and carried to the expanded Tolleson plant via a new
interceptor along 99th Avenue, or via the 99th Avenue Interceptor
proposed for the 91st Avenue plant, with a diversion to the
Tolleson plant. MAG has not reached a final decision on whether
to have one or two lines.
A new facility at Reems Road would treat flows of 5.4 mgd by
the year 2000. Flows would be transported to the facility from
Avondale, Goodyear, and Litchfield Park via a major new intercep-
tor from Thomas and El Mirage Roads to the plant.
The existing Chandler plant would be expanded to handle year
2000 flows of 8.2 mgd from Chandler. Major new interceptors along
Pecos and Ray Roads would be constructed to carry flows to the
plant. If negotiations for the continued use of the plant site on
Gila River Indian Community lands cannot be concluded success-
fully, the Chandler plant would be relocated off Indian lands and
an entirely new plant would be constructed.
Two plants would be staged for construction in the Gilbert
area. The Gilbert north plant would handle flows of 2.7 mgd by
the year 2000. The Gilbert south plant would accommodate flows of
0.9 mgd by the year 2000. An interceptor system would be required
to transport flows from Gilbert to the plants.
2-26
-------
The new development of Sun City West will have its own
privately owned and operated treatment plant. Its year 2000
capacity is expected to be 2.6 mgd, and the effluent will be
reused for golf course irrigation.
The Fountain Hills Sanitary District will expand the exist-
ing plant to a capacity of 2.0 mgd by the year 2000.
Williams Air Force Base will provide local treatment and
reuse of 1.0 mgd of wastewater.
Carefree and Cave Creek will engage in planning for a single
treatment plant or multiple plants to serve the needs of the two
communities. Facilities to handle flows of 0.8 mgd will be
required by the year 2000.
The existing Buckeye treatment plant will be upgraded imme-
diately and expanded in 1995 to handle flows of 0.7 mgd through
the year 2000.
The private development at Sun Lakes will expand its existing
treatment plant to handle flows of 0.7 mgd by the year 2000.
Treatment Process and Effluent Reuse
Preferred secondary treatment processes in the point source
metro plan include: (1) mechanical aeration followed by stabiliza-
tion lagoons and disinfection ("lagoon systems"), or (2) expansion
of an existing activated sludge or trickling filter system. The
processes selected were for the purpose of preparing cost com-
parisons in order to make decisions on the regional system.
Subsequent 201 studies will have to complete detailed analysis of
alternative processes in order to make final determinations for
construction. Preferred processes for facilities are listed in
Table 2-6, along with preferred reuses and required levels of
treatment.
Treatment processes and levels were developed in accordance
with EPA requirements and State standards. Plants larger than
2.0 mgd discharging to rivers or tributaries of rivers (including
irrigation canals and dry washes) must meet EPA requirements for
BOD and suspended solids of 30 mg/1 or less (30-day average).
Plants smaller than 2.0 mgd discharging to rivers or tributaries
must meet requirements of 30 mg/1 or less for BOD and 90 mg/1 or
less for suspended solids (30-day average). In the proposed plan,
only the Buckeye plant is smaller than 2.0 mgd and discharges to a
river or tributary (the Arlington Canal).
2-27
-------
TABLE 2-6
PREFERRED3 TREATMENT PROCESSES AND EFFLUENT REUSES FOR POINT SOURCE METRO FACILITIES
Facility
91st
Avenue
Year
2000
Size
(mgd)
137.0
Preferred
Treatment
Process
Upgrade/ expansion of
existing activated
Preferred Effluent
Disposal or Reuse
-Restricted agriculture ]
(Buckeye Irrig. District) ]
Level of
Treatment
Required*5
sludge system &
disinfection
to
to
oo
23rd
Avenue
37.2
Upgrade existing
activated sludge
system & disinfec-
tion
Chandler
8.2
Upgrade/expansion of
existing lagoon system
& disinfection
-Make-up water for Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating ]
Station (PVNGS) ]
-Discharge to Salt River
(maintenance of wildlife
management area)
-Restricted agriculture
(McDonald Farms)
-Unrestricted agriculture
(Roosevelt Irrigation
District)
-Make-up water for PVNGS
-Discharge to Salt River
-Partially restricted ag-
riculture (near-site reuse)
> Secondary (30/30)
Secondary (30/30) +
disinfection
Secondary (30/30)
Advanced waste
treatment (10/10)
Secondary (30/30)
Secondary (30/30) +
disinfection
Secondary (30/135) +
disinfection
-------
TABLE 2-6 (Cont.)
Facility
Year
2000
Size
(mgd)
Preferred
Treatment
Process
Preferred
Disposal
Effluent
or Reuse
Level of
Treatment
Required*5
Tolleson 7.2 Expansion of existing -Sod farm irrigation
trickling filter system -Discharge to Salt River
Secondary (30/30)
Secondary (30/30) +
disinfection
Reems
Road
5.4 Lagoon system with
disinfection
-Partially restricted agri-
culture (near-site reuse)
Secondary (30/135) +
disinfection
[Gilbert 2.7 Lagoon system with
[(north) disinfection
-Partially restricted agri-
culture (near-site reuse)
Secondary (30/135) +
disinfection
[Gilbert 0.9 Lagoon system with
[(south) disinfection
-Partially restricted agri-
culture (near-site reuse)
Secondary (30/135) +
disinfection
Sun City 2.6 Secondary (under
West construction)
-Golf course irrigation
Secondary (30/30) +
disinfection
Fountain 2.0 Upgrade/expansion of
Hills existing activated
sludge system
-Turf and golf course
irrigation
Secondary (30/30) +
disinfection
-------
TABLE 2-6 (Cont.)
Facility
Williams
AFB
Carefree/
Cave Creek
Year
2000
Size
(mgd)
1.0
0.8
Preferred
Treatment
Process
Existing trickling
filter
To be determined in
detailed planning
Preferred Effluent
Disposal or Reuse
-Expand existing golf course
irrigation
Level of
Treatment
Requiredb
Secondary (30/30) +
disinfection
Buckeye
Sun Lakes
0.7 Upgrade/expansion of -Discharge to Arlington
existing lagoon system Canal
0.7 Existing secondary
-Golf course irrigation
Secondary (30/90) +
disinfection
Secondary (30/30) +
disinfection
Preferred treatment processes and reuses developed in 208 planning are subject to
change in detailed facility planning.
Numerical criteria in parentheses indicate maximum permitted levels of BOD and
suspended solids in mg/1.
-------
If effluent is not discharged to a river or tributary, but is
instead reused, then Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS)
regulations for reclaimed wastes apply. These regulations are
presented in Appendix B.
Three categories of reuse are provided for in the regula-
tions: restricted, partially restricted, and unrestricted. Most
reuses in the selected plan are restricted or partially restricted
agricultural irrigation. Secondary treatment is required for
restricted uses and secondary treatment plus disinfection for
partially restricted uses. Unrestricted uses require advanced
wastewater treatment.
ADHS secondary treatment levels for conventional treatment
plants are 30 mg/1 for BOD and suspended solids. For lagoon sys-
tems, requirements are 30 mg/1 for BOD and 135 mg/1 for suspended
solids. Lagoon systems are prohibited from discharging to a
receiving stream because the discharge would not meet EPA require-
ments. If near-site or on-site reuses for effluent from lagoon
systems cannot be developed in detailed facility planning, the
treatment process would be altered so that discharge or other
reuse requirements could be met.
Costs
The total cost of upgrading and expanding existing facilities
and constructing new facilities in the metro area is estimated to
be approximately $160 million. Costs of the individual treatment
plant and interceptor projects are shown in Table 2-7, along with
the staging of the projects. Participating communities will
prepare 201 facility plans in order to apply for 75 percent
funding from EPA. These funds will be made available on the basis
of the State's priority system. Costs of the facilities by
participating community are presented in Table 2-8. Project costs
and annual operation and maintenance costs are included in this
table.
These cost estimates were developed on the basis of cost cri-
teria prepared for the final four areawide alternatives. Criteria
are described briefly in the Point Source Final Plan (MAG 208 Pro-
gram, 1979b) and in detail in the Small Array of Wastewater Land
Treatment Alternatives, East and West Side Design and Cost Appen-
dix, prepared by Boyle Engineering Corporation for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (1979) and the Conventional Treatment Design
and Cost Appendix, prepared by Morris, Clester, and Abegglen and
STRAAM Engineering for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1979).
2-31
-------
TABLE 2-7
COSTS AND STAGING OF TREATMENT PLANT AND INTERCEPTOR PROJECTS
Project
Estimated
Cost
(millions
of $)
(Jan.
1978)
Comple-
tion
Date
Participating
Communities
Multi-City System
Treatment Plants
91st Ave. treatment plant
expansion and upgrading:
1st stage 32.58 1982 Phoenix
2nd stage 18.80 1990-95 Tempe
Mesa
Gilbert
Guadalupe
Scottsdale
Paradise Valley
Surprise
El Mirage
Sun City
Glendale
Luke AFB
23rd Ave. treatment plant
upgrading 6.00 1983 Phoenix
Paradise Valley
Collection System
Southern Ave. interceptor 28.68 1983 Phoenix
Tempe
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Gilbert
Guadalupe
2-32
-------
TABLE 2-7 (Cont.)
Project
Estimated
Cost
(millions
of $)
(Jan.
1978)
Comple-
tion
Date
Participating
Communities
Salt River Outfall paral-
lel interceptor (23rd Ave.
to 59th Ave.)
East Mesa interceptors ..
Mesa STP bypass
interceptor ,
North Scottsdale
interceptors ....
South Tempe interceptors
and pumping system
Guadalupe interceptor ....
South Ahwatukee pumping
system
Greenway Rd. to Olive Ave.
interceptor
Olive Ave. pumping system
Youngtown interceptor ....
Luke AFB pumping system ,.
Indian School Rd.
pumping system
5.83
2.69
1985-90
1985
0.99 1983
2.37 1983
Phoenix
Tempe
Mesa
Scottsdale
Mesa
Mesa
Scottsdale
1.95
0.16
0.42
1.63
0.22
0.13
0.51
1984
1984
1985-90
1985
1985
1985
1983
Tempe
Guadalupe
Phoenix
El Mirage
Surprise
El Mirage
Surprise
Youngtown
Luke AFB
0.27 1985-90 Phoenix
2-33
-------
TABLE 2-7 (Cont.)
Project
Estimated
Cost
(millions
of $)
(Jan.
1978)
tion
Date
Participating
Communities
Indian School Rd.
pumping system 0.27 1985-90 Phoenix
99th Ave. interceptor
from lllth Ave. to
Indian School Rd 3.44 1983 El Mirage
Glendale
Luke AFB
Sun City
Surprise
Youngtown
99th Ave. interceptor
from Indian School Rd.
to 91st Ave. VWTP 8.10 1983 El Mirage
Glendale
Luke AFB
Phoenix
Sun City
Surprise
Youngtown
Multi-System Subtotal .... 114.77
AVONDALE/GOODYEAR SYSTEM
Reems Road plant 7.75 1983 Goodyear
Avondale
Interceptor 4.17 1983 Litchfield Park
Subtotal 11.92
BUCKEYE SYSTEM
Plant upgrade 0.83 1983 Buckeye
Expansion 0.04 1990-95
Subtotal 0.87
2-34
-------
TABLE 2-7 (Cont.)
Project
Estimated
Cost
(millions
of $)
(Jan.
1978)
Comple-
tion
Date
Par t ic i pa t ing
Communities
CAVE CREEK/CAREFREE SYSTEM
Plant 0.81 1980-85 Cave Creek
Interceptor 1.00 1980-85 Carefree
Subtotal 1.81
CHANDLER SYSTEM
Plant expansion:
1st stage 1.42 1982 Chandler
2nd stage 1.46 1990-95
Interceptors: Chandler
Ray Rd. int ] 1982
Ray Rd. int I , 1982
Williams Field Rd. int. f 1982
Gila River int ] 1982
Price int 0.09 1990-95
Subtotal 10.42
FOUNTAIN HILLS SYSTEM
Plant expansion 3.15 1984 Fountain Hills
GILBERT SYSTEM
North plant:
1st stage 1.91 1981 Gilbert
2nd stage 1.11 1990-95
Interceptors:
Elliot Rd. int ] 1983
McQueen Rd. Int > 2.75 1983
Gilbert Rd. int ] 1983
Elliot Rd. int 0.27 1985
South Plant:
Plant 1.43 1990-95 Gilbert
2-35
-------
TABLE 2-7 (Cont.)
Project
Estimated
Cost
(millions
of $)
(Jan.
1978)
Comple-
tion
Date
Participating
Communities
Interceptors:
Williams Field Rd.
int ]
Pecos Rd. int > 2.38
Germann Rd. int ]
Subtotal
SUN CITY WEST SYSTEM
SUN LAKES SYSTEM
TOLLESON/PEORIA SYSTEM
Plant expansion .......
Interceptors
Subtotal
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE ..
Total (all systems)
9.85
1.80
1.30
5.53
6.83
0.16
$161.58
1990-95
1979
1985
1981
1981
1979
Sun City West
Sun Lakes
Tolleson
Peoria
Williams AFB
2-36
-------
TABLE 2-8
FACILITY COSTS BY PARTICIPATING COMMUNITY
(Millions of Dollars—January 1978)
Facility/Participating
Community
Project
Cost3
Annual
0&Mb
91ST AVENUE
El Mirage
Gilbert
Glendale
Guadalupe
Luke Air Force Base
Mesa
Paradise Valley ....
Phoenix
Scottsdale
Sun City ,
Surprise
Tempe
Youngtown ,
Subtotal ,
23RD AVENUE
Phoenix
Paradise Valley ...
Subtotal
REEMS ROAD
Avondale
Goodyear
Litchfield Park ...
Subtotal
BUCKEYE
Buckeye
2
1
10
1
2
29
1
19
5
6
2
25
0
.234
.004
.539
.376
.931
.273
.568
.591
.332
.179
.504
.943
.286
108.760
6.000
0.000
6.000
6.064
2.345
3.508
11.917
NAC
NA
0.113
0.052
0.055
0.220
0.870 0.003
2-37
-------
TABLE 2-8 (Cont.)
Facility/Participating Project Annual
Community Costa 0&Mb
CAREFREE/CAVE CREEK
Carefree/Cave Creek 1.810 0.050
CHANDLER
Chandler 10.425 0.455
FOUNTAIN HILLS
Fountain Hills 3.150 0.200
GILBERT
North plant 6.044 0.203
South plant 3.805 0.058
Subtotal 9.849 0.261
TOLLESON
Peoria 6.834 0.222
Tolleson 0.000 0.070
Subtotal 6.834 0.292
SUN LAKES
Sun Lakes 1.800 NA
WILLIAMS AIR FORCE BASE
Williams Air Force Base 0.160 NA
TOTAL 161.575 3.126
aProject cost includes interceptor, treatment facility, and
reuse costs.
bAnnual operation and maintenance cost calculated for pro-
posed projects and not for existing equipment.
°Not available.
2-38
-------
2.2.2 MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Section 208 of the Clean Water Act requires that there be
"adequate authority to carry out appropriate portions of an
areawide waste treatment management plan" [§208(c)(2)(A)1 and
"adequate authority to manage effectively waste treatment works
and related facilities serving such area in conformance with the
plan" [§208(c)(2)(D>] . To fulfill these requirements, a manage-
ment system was developed for the point source plan.
The management system calls for MAG, with the assistance of a
Water Quality Policy Advisory Committee and the existing MAG
Management Committee, to be responsible for ongoing areawide
waste treatment management planning, 208 plan implementation, and
coordination of municipalities and private agencies in meeting the
requirements of the Clean Water Act. MAG's chief responsibility
is to carry out the existing plan and to continue developing
further solutions to problems that have been identified.
Subregional operating groups (SROG's), composed of local
governments and private agencies, were created by MAG to have
coordination, planning, grants management, and operational respon-
sibilities for designated areas. The day-to-day operation of the
system will be accomplished by lead agencies from each SROG.
Three multiple-member and five single-member SROG's have been
designated by MAG for Maricopa County.
An organizational chart for the selected management system is
provided on Figure 2-4. The responsibilities of MAG, the SROG's,
lead agencies, and other agencies are briefly described in the
following subsections. More information on the management system
may be found in the Final Point Source Management Plan (MAG 208
Program, 1979c).
MAG Regional Council
Under the selected management system, MAG assumes a major
new role in the planning and implementation of areawide waste
treatment. MAG's major responsibility will be to adopt and assure
implementation of the areawide water quality management plan and
to further develop solutions to water quality problems through
continued planning. MAG is also responsible for arbitration of
disagreements among local governments and private agencies for
noncompliance with the plan.
2-39
-------
MAG
MEMBER AGENCIES
WATER QUALITY
POLICY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MAG
REGIONAL
COUNCIL
NS
MAG ADMINISTRATION
WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
STAFF
MAG
MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE
SUBREGIONAL
OPERATING
GROUPS
SUBREGIONAL
OPERATING
GROUPS
U.S. EPA
STATE OF ARIZONA
— OEPAD
— DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH SERVICES
— CORPORATION
COMMISSION
— WATER QUALITY
CONTROL COUNCIL
— GOVERNOR
MARICOPA COUNTY
HEALTH DEPARTMENT
SUBREGIONAL
OPERATING
GROUPS
SELECTED POINT SOURCE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Figure 2-4
-------
MAG Water Quality Policy Advisory Committee
This new committee of MAG will provide assistance to the
Regional Council. EPA expects the Committee to provide recommen-
dations for further plan development and to assist the Regional
Council in overseeing plan implementation.
The committee includes representatives of the SROG's, local
governments, private agencies, other water and waste treatment
interests in the planning area, and selected members of the MAG
208 Technical, Agricultural, and Citizen Advisory Groups. The
committee is intended to continue the spirit of public participa-
tion in waste treatment planning that was developed in the 208
advisory groups. EPA expects the SROG's to carry out public
participation programs in the same spirit.
MAG Management Committee
The MAG Management Committee will provide the first level of
coordination of programs, plans, and activities of local govern-
ments. The Management Committee is responsible for coordinating
the waste treatment plan with other regional plans and with
appropriate State and Federal agencies. The committee is also
responsible for monitoring compliance of local governments and
private agencies with the plan. The financial aspects of the
plan, including user fees and industrial cost recovery charges,
are coordinated by the committee as well.
MAG Water Quality Management Staff
The Water Quality Management Staff will continue the work of
the present MAG 208 Program staff. The major duty of the staff
will be to provide assistance, as required, to the Management
Committee, the Wastewater Management Policy Advisory Committee,
and the Regional Council.
Subregional Operating Groups
The subregional operating group (SROG) concept expands the
existing Multi-City Sewer Agreement concept by creating a series
of new intergovernmental cooperative agreements. Three multiple-
member SROG's have been designated by MAG:
-Multi-City SROG (Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale,
Glendale, Youngtown, Gilbert)
-Avondale-Coodyear SROG
-Tolleson-Peoria SROG
2-41
-------
Five single-member SROG's have been designated:
-Buckeye
-Gila Bend
-Gilbert
-Chandler
-Wickenburg
Multiple-member SROG's are established by the adoption of a
resolution by participating communities and the execution of
intergovernmental agreements among the communities. A SROG Board,
composed of officials appointed by the governing body of member
agencies, will have responsibilities for coordinating arrangements
for financing wastewater treatment, operating and maintaining
treatment plants and collection facilities, and monitoring and
enforcing State and Federal standards and guidelines.
SROG members are responsible for supplying the SROG Board
with information concerning facility needs, population projec-
tions, major developments, capacity of the existing system, and
the relationship of new proposals to the water quality plan.
Within each multiple-member SROG, a lead agency will fulfill staff
duties and responsibilities. In single-member SROG's, the govern-
ing body of the city or town will serve as the SROG Board and lead
agency.
Lead Agencies
In most cases, the lead agency will be responsible for
operation and maintenance of jointly owned wastewater collection
and treatment facilities of multiple-member SROG's. The lead
agency will also serve as a key contact with the EPA, Arizona
Department of Health Services, and Maricopa County Health Depart-
ment for implementation of various Federal and State water quality
standards and NPDES permits. The lead agency in most situations
will be the NPDES permit holder and 201 grantee and will be
responsible for operating and maintaining wastewater collection
and treatment facilities in conformance with Federal and State
water quality standards and NPDES permit requirements.
2.2.3 INDIVIDUAL FACILITY DESCRIPTION
91st and 23rd Avenue Plants
These two plants treat most of the watewater in the Phoenix
area, are located close together, and share in a major effluent
reuse agreement. For these reasons, the two plants are described
together.
2-42
-------
Project Action
The 23rd Avenue plant is projected to treat flows of 37.2 mgd
for a population of 372,550 by the year 2000. Portions of Para-
dise Valley and Phoenix will be served by the plant. To handle
these flows, the plant will be upgraded in the near future and
disinfection facilties added.
The 91st Avenue plant will treat flows of 137.0 mgd for a
population of 1,466,236 by the year 2000. Communities served by
the plant include all or portions of Scottsdale, Paradise Valley,
Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, Gilbert, Guadalupe, El Mirage, Glendale,
Luke AFB, Sun City, Surprise, and Youngtown.
Plans call for an addition to the 91st Avenue plant, which
currently uses an existing activated sludge secondary treatment
process, to accommodate projected flows and provide disinfection
of effluent. The plant's existing rated capacity of 84 mgd will
be increased to 90 mgd in the near future through modifications
planned prior to the 208 study. Under the proposed plan, expan-
sion beyond 90 mgd capacity would be staged in two phases: a
30 mgd expansion in 1981 and a 17 mgd expansion in 1990 or sooner,
depending upon population growth and needs.
Problems and Options
Detailed planning has begun on the upgrading and expansion of
the 23rd Avenue and 91st Avenue plants. The facility plan for the
91st Avenue plant will identify, develop, evaluate, and select the
following: a system to disinfect effluent being discharged to the
Salt River, minor modifications to improve plant performance, and
a treatment process for the initial 30-mgd expansion to the plant.
The facility plan for the 23rd Avenue plant will identify, de-
velop, evaluate, and select a system to disinfect effluent and a
method to upgrade the plant to 37.2 mgd. The expansion of the
23rd Avenue plant beyond a capacity of 37.2 mgd will also be
examined in detailed planning. Any expansion of the facility
beyond 37.2 mgd would be accompanied by a commensurate reduction
in the capacity of the 91st Avenue plant.
Environmental assessments will be required in facility plans
for both the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue plants. Both plants have
been contributing to odor and insect problems in the vicinity of
the plants, as well as creating potential health hazards at river
crossings immediately downstream of the plants. Mitigation of
odor and insect problems can be achieved through improved mainte-
nance of existing facilities, through upgrading and replacing
2-43
-------
existing facilities, and through construction of new facilities.
Additional mitigation of odor and insect problems can be achieved
through design and construction of improved sludge handling facil-
ities and better operating procedures. Reduction of potential
health hazards can be accomplished through disinfection of efflu-
ent and through provision of adequate buffers, fencing, and
warning signs. Mitigation of adverse impacts will be required
before EPA approves specific plans.
Sludge from the 23rd Avenue and 91st Avenue treatment plants
is being stockpiled at the plant sites under a contract for its
sale to Kellogg of Arizona. The 208 sludge management study
resulted in a recommendation to dispose of sludge by sanitary
landfill after mechanical dewatering (Ferguson, Morris, & Simpson,
1978a). This recommendation was made on the basis of cost effec-
tiveness and technical criteria. Serious questions were raised in
the 208 nonpoint study concerning potential ground water pollution
resulting from residual waste disposal in landfills (MAG 208
Program, 1979d). The 91st Avenue facility plan will address the
problem of sludge disposal/reuse for both the 91st Avenue plant
and the 23rd Avenue plant. In addition, special problems of
effluent disposal/reuse will be identified and solved in the
residuals study. Some of these problems with effluent are dis-
cussed in the next subsection. MAG will also be responsible for
developing a residual solids plan for the region in cooperation
with the affected SROG's.
Effluent Reuse
Effluent from the 23rd Avenue plant is currently discharged
to a canal which empties into the Salt River. An undetermined
amount of effluent is taken up from the canal for use by McDonald
Farms, a private farming operation. The Roosevelt Irrigation
District has an option for 20,000 af/yr of 23rd Avenue plant
effluent, provided that: (1) it meets standards for unrestricted
agriculture, (2) it can be economically transported to the dis-
trict's existing canal system, and (3) it is not required as
cooling water by the Arizona Nuclear Power Project (ANPP).
Effluent from the 91st Avenue plant is committed to ANPP for
use as cooling water (up to 140,000 af/yr), to the Buckeye Irriga-
tion Company for restricted agricultural irrigation (30,000 af/
yr), and to the Arizona Game and Fish Department for maintenance
of a wildlife management area in the Salt River bed near 115th
Avenue (7,300 af/yr). Although these reuse commitments were made
prior to MAG 208 planning, the commitments are now part of the
proposed action of the plan.
2-44
-------
The contract for sale of effluent for use at the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station was negotiated in 1973 between the
cities in the Multi-City Sewer Agreement and the Arizona Public
Service Company (APS) and the Salt River Project (SRP). APS is
the project manager for the station, which is being constructed by
a consortium of utilities.
The amount of effluent optioned in the contract is 140,000
af/yr. Treatment level is specified as secondary treatment (BOD
and suspended solids equal to or less than 30 mg/1). If the
amount of effluent at the 91st Avenue plant is insufficient to
meet the requirements of the commitment, then the contract calls
for use of effluent from the 23rd Avenue plant. Commitments of
30,000 af/yr to the Buckeye Irrigation Company and 7,300 af/yr
to the Arizona Game and Fish Department are recognized in the
contract as prior to the commitment to ANPP.
The actual amount of effluent that is projected to be re-
quired by the generating station annually is less than the 140,000
af/yr optioned. Each unit at Palo Verde is estimated to require
21,400 af/yr of effluent (Arizona Public Service, 1978).1 Three
units have been approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion, and an additional two units are pending approval. All five
units would require an annual allotment of 107,000 af/yr of
effluent, although monthly allotments would vary considerably from
this estimate. According to the Final Environmental Statement
Relating to Construction of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
Units 1,2, and 3 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1975), 99
percent of the station's water needs will be supplied by the
treated effluent, which will be further treated on-site to levels
required for operation of the station. The water will be used
primarily for cooling condensers.
Effluent will be transported via a pipeline directly from the
91st Avenue plant and/or 23rd Avenue plant to the Palo Verde site
and the Buckeye Irrigation District, which will divert flows from
the pipeline for use in the district. The transport of effluent
to Palo Verde and the District will eliminate the discharge of a
estimate of water use per unit at Palo Verde was
furnished to the MAG 208 Program on August 10, 1978, by E.E. Van
Brunt, APS Vice President and ANPP Project Director. More recent
estimates in the Palo Verde Units 4 and 5 Draft Environmental
Statement (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1979) vary from
21,300 to 23,500 af/yr per unit.
2-45
-------
large amount of effluent currently discharged to the Salt River.
Assuming all five units are in operation at Palo Verde, approxi-
mately 70 percent of the year 2000 flows from the 91st and 23rd
Avenue plants would be transported via the pipeline (137,000 of
194,880 af/yr) on an annual basis.
A more detailed analysis of availability of flows from the
91st and 23rd Avenue treatment plants to meet peak requirements
for cooling water at Palo Verde is included in Appendix C. This
analysis concludes that maximum flows available under the existing
contract with ANPP are not sufficient to meet the peak monthly
needs of all five units under the high estimate of needs (2,600
af/mo). With the exception of the Arizona Game and Fish Depart-
ment's flow of 7,300 af/yr, flow in the Salt River would be
eliminated during the peak months starting in 1988 under the high
peak month estimate and in 1990 under the low peak month estimate
(2,200 af/mo). High and low peak need estimates were supplied by
APS (1978) for this analysis.
Some design problems that will need to be addressed in the
facility plans for the 91st and 23rd Avenue plants concern the
varying amounts of effluent that will be discharged to the Salt
River from the plants and the differences in treatment level
required for effluent to be delivered through the pipeline or
discharged to the river. Effluent discharged to the river will
require secondary treatment plus disinfection, while the effluent
delivered to Palo Verde and the Buckeye Irrigation District
requires only secondary treatment. The amount of effluent dis-
charged to the river at any given time will be contingent upon the
water needs and operational requirements of the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station, as well as the requirements of the Buckeye
Irrigation District and the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
EPA may condition grants for expansion of the 23rd Avenue and 91st
Avenue treatment plants on minimizing diversions and protecting
habitat in the Salt and Gila Rivers.
91st Avenue Interceptors
New interceptors will be required to serve the 91st Avenue
plant. Table 2-9 lists the proposed interceptors and shows the
projected peak flows from contributing communities to the year
2000. The projected flows shown in this table do not include
flows that can be transported in existing interceptors.
Two major systems of interceptors are represented in Table
2-9. The first is the 99th Avenue Interceptor system, and the
second is the Southern Avenue Interceptor/Salt River Outfall
system.
2-46
-------
TABLE 2-9
PROPOSED 91ST AVENUE TREATMENT PLANT INTERCEPTORS
PROJECTED PEAK FLOW (mgd)a
Interceptor
99th Avenue System
Greenway Road to Olive
Avenue Interceptor ....
Olive Avenue Pumping
Youngtown Interceptor .
Luke AFB Pumping
99th Avenue Interceptor
from lllth Avenue and
Olive Avenue to 99th
Avenue and Indian
Indian School Road
99th Avenue Intercep-
tor from Indian School
Road to the 91st Avenue
Contributing
Community
El Mirage
Surprise
El Mirage
Surprise
Youngtown
Luke AFB
El Mirage
Glendale
Luke AFB
Sun City
Surprise
Youngtown
Phoenix
El Mirage
Glendale
Luke AFB
Phoenix
Sun City
Surprise
Young town
1980
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.3
3.3
0.9
13.6
3.3
6.2
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.9
13.6
3.3
2.0
6.2
0.9
0.3
1985
1.2
0.9
1.2
0.9
0.3
3.3
1.1
16.7
3.3
7.0
0.9
0.3
0.4
1.1
16.7
3.3
2.8
7.0
0.9
0.3
1990
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.3
3.3
1.1
20.0
3.3
7.0
1.1
0.3
0.5
1.1
20.0
3.3
4.4
7.0
1.1
0.3
1995
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
0.3
3.3
1.1
23.1
3.3
7.0
1.1
0.3
0.7
1.1
23.1
3.3
5.9
7.0
1.1
0.3
2000
1.3
1.3
2.6
1.3
1.3
2.6
0.3
3.1
1.3
26.6
3.1
7.0
1.3
0.3
39.6
2.1
1.3
26.6
3.1
8.1
7.0
1.3
0.3
Subtotal
47.8
2-47
-------
TABLE 2-9 (Cont.)
Interceptor
Southern Avenue Inter-
ceptor/Salt River Out-
Fall System
Salt River Outfall
Parallel Line - 23rd to
59th Avenues (peaking
factor * 2.2)
Subtotal
Southern Avenue Inter-
ceptor, 59th Avenue to
91st Avenue (peaking
factor * 1.9)
Subtotal
SAI, 56th Street to 59th
Avenue ( peaking fac-
tor = 2.2)
Subtotal
SAI, Tempe Canal to 56th
Street (peaking fac-
tor » 2.2)
Subtotal
SAI, Cooper Road to
Tempe Canal (peaking
f ac tor « 2 . 2 )
Subtotal
Contributing
Community
Mesa (incl.
East Mesa)
Scottsdale
Tempe
Gilbert
Guadalupe
Mesa
Paradise
Valley
Scottsdale
Tempe
Gilbert
Guadalupe
Mesa
Paradise
Valley
Phoenix
Tempe
Gilbert
Mesa
Tempe
Gilbert
Mesa
198!
18.
8.
10.
0.
1.
16.
1.
7.
18.
0.
1.
1.
1.
9.
10.
0.
3.
2.
0.
0.
D
1
3
8
2
0
7
3
2
2
2
2
3
5
7
3
2
5
3
2
0
198
18.
9.
10.
0.
1.
20.
1.
8.
24.
0.
1.
">.
1.
11.
17.
0.
7.
6.
0.
3.
5
1
7
8
2
0
1
3
4
3
2
2
2
5
5
4
2
4
7
2
7
199'
18.
10.
10.
0.
1.
23.
1.
8.
27.
0.
1.
8.
1.
13.
21.
0.
10.
9.
0.
7.
0
1
3
8
4
1
0
3
9
4
5
3
6
5
9
0
5
7
8
5
0
199
18.
10.
10.
0.
1.
26.
1.
9.
30.
0.
1.
12.
1.
16.
24.
0.
14.
12.
0.
10.
5
1
8
8
6
1
2
3
3
6
7
3
3
5
3
7
7
0
9
7
3
200
18.
11.
10.
40.
0.
1.
29.
1.
10.
34.
77.
0.
1.
16.
2.
20.
28.
69.
0.
18.
16.
35.
0.
14.
15.
0
1
9
8
8
8
3
6
7
3
2
9
9
5
2
0
5
8
9
9
0
4
3
9
3
2
2-48
-------
TABLE 2-9 (Cont.)
Interceptor
Contributing 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Community
East Mesa Interceptors
(Baseline Road and
Bush Highway) ,
Mesa Bypass Intercep-
tors (Mesa WWTP to
Salt River Outfall) ...
Northeast Interceptors
(Pima and Doubletree
Ranch Road)
South Tempe System
(Along Canal Drive at
Baseline and Canal
Drive) ,
(Western Canal and
56th Street) ,
Guadalupe Interceptors
(Baseline and 56th
Street) ,
South Ahwatukee
System
Mesa
Mesa
Tempe
Tempe
Phoenix
4.8 5.3 5.9 6.6 7.3
4.4 4.6 4.8 4.8 5.1
Scottsdale 0.5 1.2 2.1 2.6 3.3
6.6 9.5 11.9 14.7 18.0
3.6 4.0 4.2 4.2 4.4
Guadalupe 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.6
0.1 0.2 0.3 1.0 1.5
aThis table shows flows in interceptors proposed in the 208
plan. Distribution of flows between interceptors may change in
detailed planning; however, total flows will not change.
2-49
-------
99th Avenue Interceptor System
A new interceptor is proposed for construction along 99th
Avenue (see Figure 2-3) to carry flows from Surprise, El Mirage,
Youngtown, Glendale, Luke AFB, Sun City East, and portions of
Phoenix to the 91st Avenue plant. These areas are presently not
sewered to the plant.
Subsystems connecting to the interceptor include:
-El Mirage/Surprise interceptor, pump station, and force
main
-Indian School/107th Avenue pump station and force main
-Luke AFB pump station and force main
-Youngtown interceptor
Southern Avenue Interceptor/Salt River Outfall System
The Southern Avenue Interceptor (SAI) would carry flows from
Mesa, Gilbert, Guadalupe, Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, Tempe, and
Phoenix to the 91st Avenue plant. The location of the SAI is
shown on Figure 2-3. Subsystems and related interceptors include:
-Guadalupe interceptor—to carry flows from Guadalupe to
the SAI
-East Mesa interceptor—to carry flows from Mesa to the
SAI
-Mesa bypass—to carry flows from the decommissioned
Mesa plant to the Salt River Outfall (SRO)
-Salt River Outfall Parallel Interceptor—to alleviate
capacity deficiencies in the existing SRO from 23rd
Avenue to 59th Avenue for Scottsdale, Tempe, and Mesa
-Northeast interceptor—to carry flows from Scottsdale
and portions of Paradise Valley to the SAI and SRO
-South Tempe pumping system
-South Ahwatukee pumping system
MAG has proposed sizing the SAI to accommodate eastside flows
based on not fully utilizing the existing SRO. The SRO was
constructed by Tempe, Mesa, Scottsdale, and Phoenix in the 1960's
and was planned to serve the needs of the communities as far into
the future as was foreseeable at the time. In particular, the
City of Phoenix designed the SRO's capacity to serve the projected
ultimate needs of Phoenix north of the Salt River beyond the year
2000.
2-50
-------
The SRO Parallel Interceptor is proposed to carry flows from
Tempe, Mesa, and Scottsdale to the SAI at 59th Avenue, and the SAI
has been sized to accommodate these and other flows (Table 2-9).
Under this proposal, the eastside communities would purchase the
needed capacity in the SAI and the SRO Parallel Line from 23rd
Avenue to 91st Avenue.
EPA cannot at this time approve MAG's proposal for sizing the
SAI. The population which could be served by it would exceed the
projected population data base used in the Nonattainment Area Plan
(Arizona Department of Health Services, 1978) for projecting
pollutant emissions and air quality impacts. The proposal would
also exceed EPA's criteria for funding treatment works under
Section 201 of the Clean Water Act, and no cost-effectiveness
justification has been provided. Finally, no assessment of
environmental impacts has been made for the sizing of the SAI.
Therefore, EPA will not approve MAG's proposal to build capacity
beyond the year 2000 without further analysis.
Chandler System
Population and flows for the Chandler service area in 5-year
increments from 1980 to the year 2000 are shown in Table 2-10.
The population figures given in this table and in Tables 2-13,
2-14, 2-16, 2-19, 2-20, and 2-21 are for areas within the individ-
ual communities that are expected to be sewered in the 1980-2000
period. Centralized wastewater treatment was assumed to be needed
wherever population densities are expected to exceed 1.5 persons
per acre. Further studies by the communities will define areas to
be sewered on the basis of land use and zoning, soil conditions,
ground water conditions, environmental inputs, management require-
ments, and costs.
2-51
-------
TABLE 2-10
CHANDLER POPULATION AND FLOWS
Year Population
1980 30,000
1985 42,500
1990 58,800
1995 75,200
2000 92,700
Flow
(mgd)
3.0
4.0
5.4
6.8
8.2
Project Action
The proposed project action for this facility would consist
of expanding the existing lagoon treatment system, constructing
new interceptors, and reusing effluent for near-site partially
restricted or restricted agricultural irrigation.
The existing facility is located on Gila River Indian Commu-
nity lands, and negotiations are taking place between the City of
Chandler and the Tribal Council for the continued use of the site.
The Tribal Council is opposed to the proposed expansion of the
facility, and unless satisfactory agreements can be reached the
Chandler facility will be relocated off Indian lands. At the time
of preparation of this EIS, negotiations between the Tribe and the
City of Chandler had not been concluded.
The Chandler irrigation reuse site would be located just
southwest of the existing wastewater lagoons on lands currently
being irrigated with ground water pumped from wells on the reser-
vation. Sufficient effluent for irrigation of from 725 to 2,065
acres in the year 2000 would be provided by the facility. The
variation in potential acreages supported by effluent is dependent
upon the cropping patterns used. The cropping patterns used in
planning reuse sites are shown in Table 2-11 below.
2-52
-------
Pattern 1
TABLE 2-11
CROPPING PATTERNS
Pattern 2
1 year:
wheat and sorghum
3 years:
wheat and sorghum
Pattern 3
2 years:
cotton
3 years:
alfalfa
2 years:
cotton
3 years:
alfalfa
Bermuda :
April-September
Rye:
October-March
Irrigation of the following areas (including storage areas)
would be provided by the Chandler facility:
TABLE 2-12
Cropping
Pattern
I
II
III
CHANDLER IRRIGATION LAND
First
Stage
1,415 acres
1,325 acres
495 acres
REQUIREMENTS
Year
2000
2,065 acres
1,940 acres
725 acres
2-53
-------
Problems and Options
As noted earlier, the Chandler facility may be relocated off
Indian lands if satisfactory agreements cannot be reached with the
Gila River Indian Community. If the required reuse agreements
cannot be reached, the lagoon system as proposed would not be
implementable because effluent produced would not meet applicable
discharge requirements. If the proposed treatment/reuse scheme
cannot be implemented, possible options include:
1. A higher (and more costly) level of treatment to meet
discharge requirements.
2. A completely new site not on Indian lands with other reuse
or discharge options.
Tolleson System
Population and flows for the Peoria and Tolleson service area
in 5-year increments from 1980 to the year 2000 are as follows:
TABLE 2-13
TOLLESON SERVICE AREA POPULATION AND FLOWS
Community 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Population
Peoria 18,008 20,432 33,691 46,933 61,067
Tolleson 4.085 4,675 9,350 14,000 18,900
Total 22,093 25,107 43,041 60,933 79,967
Flows (mgd)
Peoria 1.8 2.0 3.1 4.2 5.4
Tolleson 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.4 1.8
Total 2.3 2.5 4.0 5.6 7.2
2-54
-------
Project Action
The proposed project action for the Tolleson system includes
expanding the existing trickling filter treatment facility,
constructing new interceptors, and continuing to reuse effluent
for an expanded sod-farming operation adjacent to the site.
Expansion of the plant would take place at the existing site.
Land area required for the necessary additions would be negli-
gible. Due to immediate community needs, construction of the
additions to the Tolleson plant would be staged to occur in
1980-85.
Flows from Peoria would be transported to the Tolleson plant
via an interceptor along 99th Avenue. Two alternatives will be
studied in the Tolleson facility plan: use of capacity in the
proposed 99th Avenue interceptor to the 91st Avenue plant with a
diversion to the Tolleson plant or construction of a separate
interceptor along 99th Avenue to carry only flows from Peoria to
the Tolleson plant. MAG will make a decision in the near future
on this issue, subject to EPA approval.
Problems and Options
If at some future date the existing sod farm ceases to
require effluent from the Tolleson plant, the participating com-
munities would need to develop an alternative method of disposal/
reuse. The following options are available:
1. Establish the necessary agreements with local farmers to
use all the effluent for irrigation.
2. Discharge up to 4.1 mgd to the Salt River (as allowed
under the plant's NPDES permit) and establish the neces-
sary agreements with local farmers to use the remainder.
3. Modify the NPDES permit to allow discharge of all of the
effluent to the Salt River.
4. Contract for use of the effluent at the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station.
Reems Road System
Projected population and flows for Avondale, Goodyear, and
Litchfield Park (the Reems Road plant service area) in 5-year
increments from 1980 to the year 2000 are as follows:
2-55
-------
TABLE 2-14
REEMS ROAD SERVICE AREA POPULATION AND FLOWS
Community
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
Litchfield Park ...
Total
Population
7,090 9,486
3,284 4,191
2,847 3,298
13.221
16.975
16,673
8,179
6,927
31.779
23,910
12,077
10,636
46.623
31,512
16,207
14,056
61,775
Flows (mgd)
Litchfield Park ...
Total
0.7
0,3
0.3
1.3
0.9
0.4
0.3
1.6
1.5
0.7
0.6
2.8
2.1
1.1
0.9
4.1
2.8
1.4
1.2
5.4
Project Action
The proposed project action for this facility is the con-
struction of a new wastewater treatment plant and required inter-
ceptors, with reuse of effluent for near-site partially restricted
or restricted agricultural irrigation.
The proposed plant would be located approximately 1/2 mile
west of Reems Road just north of the Buckeye Irrigation District
Canal. The plant would be designed to treat an ultimate (year
2000) flow of 5.4 mgd. The preferred treatment process is a
lagoon system.
To transport flows to the plant, an interceptor system would
be required from Thomas and El Mirage Roads to the plant site.
The system would include: (1) Thomas Road pumping system from
1/2 mile west of Dysart Road to El Mirage Road, (2) El Mirage
interceptor from Thomas Road to Lower Buckeye Road, and (3) Lower
Agua Fria interceptor from Lower Buckeye Road to the Reems Road
plant.
If the lagoon system is used, effluent from the plant would
be of suitable quality for near-site restricted or partially
restricted agricultural irrigation. Disposal of the effluent to
2-56
-------
the Buckeye Irrigation Canal or the Gila River would not be
permitted due to its inability to meet NPDES permit discharge
requirements. The proposed irrigation site is located south of
the Buckeye Canal and east of Sarival Avenue. The land required
for irrigation of crops (including storage areas) is as follows:
TABLE 2-15
REEMS ROAD IRRIGATION LAND REQUIREMENTS
Cropping Year
Pattern 2000
I 1,360 acres
II 1,280 acres
III 480 acres
See Table 2-11 for a listing of crops included in cropping
patterns.
Problems^md Options
As discussed earlier, effluent from the proposed lagoon sys-
tem would not meet EPA requirements for discharge to a receiving
stream (the Gila River or Buckeye Irrigation Canal). Effluent
also would not meet State standards for unrestricted agricultural
operations. Therefore, the development and continued operation of
this facility with a lagoon system is contingent upon the develop-
ment of long-term agreements for near-site use of effluent for
partially restricted or restricted agricultural operations. If
these agreements cannot be reached, the following options are
possible:
1. Develop a more advanced treatment system that would allow
either direct discharge or unrestricted agricultural
reuse.
2. Negotiate for reuse of effluent as cooling water at the
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Although effluent
from the lagoon system would not meet the quality stan-
dards called for in the ANPP agreement, it is possible
2-57
-------
that after dilution with effluent from the 91st Avenue
plant the combined effluent would be acceptable for this
reuse.
Gilbert (North and South) Facilities
The Town of Gilbert is located in the southeastern portion of
the metro area. The Gilbert wastewater treatment service area
would be serviced by the 91st Avenue plant and by two new treat-
ment plants in Gilbert. The northernmost population zone in the
Gilbert planning area would be tributary to the 91st Avenue plant
via the Southern Avenue Interceptor. Based on the topography of
the area, the remaining portions of the Gilbert service area would
be sewered to the two new facilities. One facility would be
located in the northern part of the planning area near McQueen
Road and the Western Canal. The second would be located in the
southern part of the planning area near Germann and Gilbert
Roads.
Population and flow projections for the north and south
Gilbert facilities in 5-year increments from 1980 to the year 2000
are as follows:
TABLE 2-16
GILBERT POPULATION AND FLOWS
Plant 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Population
North area 8,010 11,450 18,960 25,455 30,170
South area 1,290 1,365 2,905 5.300 10.145
Total 9,300 12,815 21,865 30,755 40,315
Flows (mgd)
North area 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.7
South area 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9
Total 0.9 1.2 2.0 2.8 3.6
2-58
-------
Project Action
The proposed action for the Gilbert service area consists of
construction of the north and south plants, construction of an
interceptor system, and reuse of effluent for near-site partially
restricted or restricted agricultural irrigation. The preferred
treatment process for the plants is the lagoon system.
At the present time, the Town of Gilbert operates a stabili-
zation lagoon system near the proposed north plant site. Effluent
from this plant is presently being used by a local farmer for
restricted agricultural irrigation. The farmer has decided,
however, to discontinue his use of effluent in the near future.
Thus, the Town is faced with an immediate need to develop an
alternate treatment and disposal system. Construction of the pro-
posed north plant would be staged to accomplish this as follows:
1. Immediate: Construct a facility with a capacity of 1.0
mgd to satisfy the Town's immediate need for treatment.
2. 1980: Construct an addition to yield a combined plant
capacity of 1.8 mgd.
3. 1990: Construct another addition to provide plant capac-
ity of 2.7 mgd.
The irrigation/disposal site for the north plant would be
located between Cooper and McQueen Roads and Guadalupe and Elliot
Roads. Total acreages, including storage requirements, for each
of the three cropping options (see Table 2-11) are listed below.
TABLE 2-17
NORTH GILBERT IRRIGATION LAND REQUIREMENTS
Cropping First Year
Pattern Stage 2000
I 455 acres 680 acres
II 430 acres 640 acres
III 160 acres 240 acres
2-59
-------
The south plant would be built in 1990 and provide capacity
of 0.9 mgd. The preferred treatment process of aerated lagoons
would produce effluent that could be used for restricted or
partially restricted agricultural irrigation. The use of effluent
for irrigation on private lands near the proposed plant site has
been proposed and will be evaluated in the facility plan.
The irrigation/disposal site for the south plant would be
capable of handling 0.9 mgd of effluent and would be located
southwest of the intersection of Germann and Gilbert Roads. The
required land area, including storage, for each of the three
cropping patterns (see Table 2-11) is as follows:
TABLE 2-18
SOUTH GILBERT IRRIGATION LAND REQUIREMENTS
Cropping Year
Pattern 2000
I 230 acres
II 215 acres
III 80 acres
Problems and Options
The preferred treatment process for both Gilbert plants was
selected with the intention that effluent could be reused for
restricted agriculture on private farmland in the vicinity of
the treatment plant sites. Should the required reuse agree-
ments not be obtainable, alternate treatment reuse or discharge
schemes would have to be considered. Possible options include the
following:
1. Collection and treatment at the 91st Avenue plant.
2. Development of a system to provide a higher level of
treatment for discharge to the Western Canal or for
unrestricted agricultural irrigation.
2-60
-------
3. Development of other reuse options in the vicinity of the
treatment plants.
If land purchase is necessary at the north and south irriga-
tion sites to retain control of the proposed operation, the costs
incurred may be prohibitively high. Local realtors indicate that
land near the north site would cost between $8,000 and $10,000 per
acre. Land near the south site, somewhat farther removed from
development, would cost around $6,000 per acre.
Fountain Hills
Projected population and flows for the Fountain Hills Sanitary
District service area to the year 2000 in 5-year increments are as
follows:
TABLE 2-19
FOUNTAIN HILLS POPULATION AND FLOWS
Projected 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Population 5,000 7,005 10,000 15,000 22,500
Flow (mgd) 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.3 2.0
The existing 0.5 mgd modified activated sludge secondary
treatment plant would be required to expand capacity by 1.5 mgd to
meet year 2000 flows. Plant effluent would continue to be used
for turf and golf course irrigation.
Williams Air Force Base
The existing trickling filter secondary treatment facility
with a capacity of 1.0 mgd is adequate to meet the needs of
Williams Air Force Base through the year 2000. However, recently
revised EPA requirements for discharge of effluent to a Roosevelt
Water District irrigation canal cannot be met by the facility.
These requirements set limits of 10 mg/1 for BOD and suspended
solids. The Air Force Base is presently considering expansion of
the existing golf course, which is irrigated with effluent from
2-61
-------
the treatment plant. The expanded golf course, plus another
nearby private agricultural operation, could utilize all effluent
that is produced.
Carefree/Cave Creek
The Carefree/Cave Creek area is located in the extreme
northeastern portion of the metro Phoenix area and is relatively
remote from other communities. Both Carefree and Cave Creek are
unincorporated.
The projected population and flows for the two communities
are as follows:
TABLE 2-20
CAREFREE/CAVE CREEK POPULATION AND FLOWS
Community
Cave Creek ........
Total
Carefree
Cave Creek
Total
1980 1985
Population
1,680 2,427
1,120 1,618
2,800 4,045
Flows (mgd)
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.2
0.3 0.4
1990
3,480
2,320
5,800
0.3
0.2
0.5
1995
4,980
3,320
8,300
0.4
0.3
0.7
2000
5,400
3,600
9,000
0.5
0.3
0.8
A preliminary study of regional and local alternatives for
Carefree/Cave Creek determined that conveyance of flows to a
regional treatment system in Phoenix would not be economically
feasible. Two local alternatives were identified for the area:
2-62
-------
1. Local treatment at a single facility serving both Carefree
and Cave Creek.
2. Local treatment at multiple facilities. Two plants would
serve Carefree and a single plant would serve Cave Creek.
Cost estimates of these two alternatives indicate that either op-
tion is impletaen table with little difference in cost. A detailed
facility plan study will be required to provide a basis for final
plan selection by the two communities.
If local collection, treatment, and reuse systems cannot be
implemented for the area, the communities have the option of
restricting any future high-density growth in the area. Under
this option, the existing high-density development areas could be
served by the existing package treatment plants, and all other
areas would be served by individual systems. Lot sizes and zoning
requirements would have to be predicated on soil suitability on a
site-specific basis for this option to be viable.
Buckeye
The community of Buckeye is located in the extreme south-
western portion of the metro area and is relatively remote from
other communities. Buckeye operates a small municipal wastewater
treatment facility with a capacity of 0.6 mgd.
Projected population and flows for the Buckeye area to the
year 2000 are as follows:
TABLE 2-21
BUCKEYE POPULATION AND FLOWS
Projected 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Population 3,000 3,800 5,100 6,500 8,000
Flow (mgd) 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
2-63
-------
A preliminary study of regional and local alternatives for
Buckeye determined that regional treatment of flows would be
prohibitively expensive. Since the existing lagoon system has a
capacity of 0.6 mgd and with upgrading could accommodate flows
through 1995, the proposed project action for Buckeye consists of
the following:
1. Immediate: Upgrade the existing system to include flood
protection, disinfection, lining, fencing, and laboratory
facilities.
2. 1995: Add a third lagoon to provide a total capacity
adequate to accommodate the projected flows through the
year 2000.
Some problems are associated with expanding the existing
facility. The lagoons are located approximately 1/4 mile from
existing developed areas and approximately 3/4 mile from the
downtown Buckeye area. The lagoon system provides the potential
for insects to proliferate and odors to occur. Proximity to
encroaching urbanization could mean that the plant could become
Increasingly unacceptable to nearby residents.
Another problem concerns the location of the plant within
the flood plain of the Gila River. Even though flood protection
is proposed for the plant, the potential exists for a flood of
greater magnitude than a 100-year flood damaging or destroying the
plant.
If potential odor, insect, or flooding problems force
abandonment of the plant, the Town of Buckeye would have to
investigate alternative treatment plant locations and select a
site to mitigate potential problems.
2-64
-------
2.3 ALTERNATIVES
2.3.1. OVERVIEW OF PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process used to select the preferred alternative
for areawide wastewater treatment and collection is shown on
Figure 2-5. This chart indicates a gradual transition from 36
conceptual alternatives through the large (20) and small (7) array
of regional alternatives. At this point, the metro area was
divided into east and west subregions, and alternatives were
developed for these areas. Ultimately, two alternatives from the
east and west areas were selected for integration into four
areawide alternatives. The final plan was then selected from
these four.
Evaluations of alternatives developed prior to the integrated
areawide alternatives may be found in the following short list of
MAG 208 reports:
Large Array of Collection and Treatment Alternatives (Fer-
guson, Morris & Simpson, 1977b).
Wastewater Treatment Alternatives, Conventional Treatment
Progress Report (Ferguson, Morris & Simpson, 1977c).
Eastside Subregional Alternatives (Ferguson, Morris & Simp-
son, 1978b)
Metropolitan Phoenix Facility Plan, Evaluation of Alternate
Plans (Westside Planning Area) (John Carollo Engineers,
1978a).
Westside Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Summary Report
(John Carollo Engineers, 1978b).
Environmental Evaluation of Westside Alternatives, Draft
Memorandum No. 4 (Arthur Beard Engineers, 1978a).
2-65
-------
November 1975
July 1976
START
Conceptual Array of
Regional Alternatives
36
December 1976
Large Array of
Regional Alternatives
20
May 1977
Conceptual land treatment
Initial Flows
Conceptual Reuses
Large Array of land treatment
Specific Reuses
Environmental Evaluation
Small Array of Regional
Alternatives
7
Westside Subregional
Alternatives
9
Detailed
Evaluation
o»NW Plant
Preferred Westside
Alternatives
3
July 1978
July 1978
Eastside Subreflional
Alternatives
6
Land vs Conventional Treatment
Site Evaluations
Reuse
Sludge Management Alternatives
Flow Reductions
Revised Populations
Environmental Evaluation
Selected Eastside
Alternatives
2
I
Selected Westside
Alternatives
2
September 1978
August 1978
Integrated Areawide
Alternatives
4
November 1978
January 1979
January 1979
Specific Treatment Process
Specific Reuses
Specific Sites
Detailed Costs
Environmental Assessment
Selected Areawide
Plan
1
Pubic Hearing
DEIS & 206
MAG Adoption
206 Plan
POINT SOURCE METRO
PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Figure 2-5
2-66
-------
2.3.2 FINAL POINT SOURCE METRO ALTERNATIVES
Four alternative plans for metro area wastewater collection
and treatment were developed by September 1978. The plans
included six to eight treatment plants, the necessary interceptor/
collector lines, preferred plant locations, and preferred treat-
ment levels and reuses. The eight plants included in the alterna-
tives were: Northeast (new construction); Gilbert, north and
south (new construction); Chandler (expansion); Reems Road (new
construction); Tolleson (expansion); 91st Avenue (expansion); and
23rd Avenue (expansion). Flows to the plants in the year 2000 are
shown in Table 2-22 below. The layouts of the alternatives are
shown on Figures 2-6 through 2-9.
TABLE 2-22
YEAR 2000 FLOWS FOR AREAWIDE ALTERNATIVES
(in mgd)
Plant
Gilbert (north)
(south)
Total flow
Alternative
1
2.7
0.9
8.2
7.2
142.4
37.2
198.6
2
2.7
0.9
8.2
5.4
7.2
137.0
37.2
198.6
3
9.1
2.7
0.9
8.2
7.2
133.3
37.2
198.6
4
9.1
2.7
0.9
8.2
5.4
7.2
127.9
37.2
198.6
2-67
-------
PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITits
I idling I'laril-.
Pump Station
••••••• i ..I "
,/ /'
X /- \
X 7 ': \
f j ^ u
1" '
CflANDLER PLANT
ALTERNATIVE 1
Figure 2-6
-------
PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITIES
Existing Plants
New Plant
Pump Station
Interceptor
•f Force Main
<:\ 91STAVENU
.._;:-, PLANT
i-.?-"•«:••. in ,
.;„.„,,. '.,A-
SOUTHERN KVEIIUE " j'l'
k IHTERC^fTOR..-;.
•-".I L-.y.f,
CHANDLER PLANT
ALTERNATIVE 2
Figure 2-7
-------
PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILIIIkb
ExUling Planti
New Plant
Pump Slation
• T, • i •, '
••••••I fair* Main
ALTERNATIVE 3
Figure 2-8
-------
PROPOSED TREATMENT FACILITIES
Existing Plants
New Plant
Pump Station
Interceptor
••••••I Force Main
ALTERNATIVE 4
Figure 2-9
-------
The facilities included in the four areawide alternatives
represented communities involved in planning a regional wastewater
treatment system. At an early stage of planning, four other small
communities chose to develop local plans for wastewater treatment
and collection. These communities were Fountain Hills, Carefree/
Cave Creek, Buckeye, Williams Air Force Base, Sun City West, and
Sun Lakes. During evaluation of the areawide alternatives, these
six facilities were independent of the regional system of treat-
ment plants and were therefore not included as components of
the alternatives. Facilities to service these communities are
included in the selected plan described in Section 2.2.
Alternative 1
This alternative provides for the greatest amount of waste-
water to be treated at the 91st Avenue plant. Six plants would
serve the metro area to the year 2000: 91st Avenue, 23rd Avenue,
Tolleson, Gilbert (north and south), and Chandler. The 91st
Avenue plant would be expanded to 142.4 mgd to serve all areas
except Tolleson/Peoria, portions of Gilbert, and Chandler, which
would be served by their own treatment facilities.
The 91st Avenue plant would be expanded by 30 mgd immediately
to handle flows from the contributing service areas. Between 1990
and 1995, an additional expansion to 142.4 mgd would come on line
to handle flows through the year 2000.
Flows from northeast Phoenix and portions of Paradise Valley
would be served to the 23rd Avenue plant. The plant would be
upgraded to handle flows of 37.2 mgd.
A major new interceptor system and pump stations would be
constructed to collect and carry flows to the 91st Avenue plant
from Surprise, El Mirage, Youngtown, Glendale, Avondale/Goodyear,
Litchfield Park, Luke AFB, Sun City East, and Phoenix to a major
new interceptor along 99th Avenue. Flows from the northeast area,
Mesa, and the northernmost portion of Gilbert would be delivered
to the 91st Avenue plant by the existing collection system plus a
major new interceptor along Baseline Road and Southern Avenue (the
Southern Avenue interceptor). No pumping would be required. A
new interceptor system would be required to collect and carry
flows from east Mesa to the Southern Avenue interceptor. New
interceptors would be required in the northeast area to collect
flows to the Hayden interceptor.
2-72
-------
Flows from Peoria would be collected and carried to the
expanded Tolleson facility via a new interceptor along 99th
Avenue. The Tolleson plant, with an existing capacity of 2,5 mgd,
would be expanded to handle year 2000 flows of 7.2 mgd.
The existing Chandler plant would be expanded from 2.8 mgd to
8.2 mgd by the year 2000. New interceptors along Pecos and Ray
Roads would carry flows to the expanded plant.
Two new facilities would be built in the Gilbert area to
handle total flows of 3.6 mgd by the year 2000.
Alternative 2
Under this alternative, flows from the metro area would be
served as described in Alternative 1, except that flows from
Litchfield Park, Avondale, and Goodyear would be carried to a new
facility at Reems Road via a major new interceptor from Thomas
Road to the plant. A new pump station and pressure sewer would be
required to lift and carry flows from Litchfield Park to the
interceptor. A new lift station would also be required at Reems
Road to lift flows to the plant. The Reems Road plant would
handle flows of 5.4 mgd.
The 91st Avenue plant would be expanded to 137.0 mgd by the
year 2000. A 30 mgd expansion would be constructed immediately,
with a 7 mgd expansion added in 1990.
Alternative 3
Under this alternative, the metro area would be served as
described in Alternative 1, except that flows from the northeast
portion of the metro area would be treated at a new 9.1 mgd
facility located on Salt River Indian Community lands. The
facility would handle flows from portions of Scottsdale, Paradise
Valley, and Phoenix. A new pump station and force main would be
required to lift flows to the proposed site.
The remaining service areas would be served as described
under Alternative 1. The 91st Avenue plant would be expanded to
133.3 mgd by the year 2000 to handle flows from all service areas
except Chandler, portions of Gilbert, Tolleson/Peoria, and the
northeast area. Staging of construction would be the same as
described for Alternative 1.
2-73
-------
Alternative 4
Under this alternative, eight treatment facilities would
serve the metro area. Both the Reems Road and Northeast plants
would be constructed. The 91st Avenue plant would be expanded
to 127.9 mgd by the year 2000 to handle flows from El Mirage,
Glendale, Luke AFB, Phoenix, Sun City, Surprise, and Youngtown.
Staging of construction would be as previously described.
Treatment and Reuse
The following list of facilities provides information on
treatment process and level and effluent reuse assumed for the
alternatives.
-Northeast: Advanced wastewater treatment either by con-
ventional process or land treatment, with effluent of
sufficient quality for unrestricted agricultural use.
-Gilbert (north and south): Aerated lagoons, stabilization
lagoons, and disinfection, with effluent to be used for
restricted agricultural irrigation on private farmland.
-Chandler: Upgrade/expand lagoon system, with effluent to be
used for restricted agricultural irrigation on Lone Butte
Ranch on the Gila River Indian Community.
-Tolleson: Expand trickling filter system, with effluent to
be used for turf irrigation, discharge to the Salt River, or
potential sale to ANPP.
-Reems Road: Aerated lagoons, stabilization lagoons, and
disinfection, with effluent to be used for near-site re-
stricted agricultural operations or potential sale to ANPP.
-91st Avenue: Expand activated sludge process and add dis-
infection facilities, with effluent to ANPP for cooling
water, Buckeye Irrigation District for restricted agricul-
ture , and the Arizona Game and Fish Department for mainte-
nance of a wildlife management area.
-23rd Avenue: Expand activated sludge process and add
disinfection facilities, with effluent to McDonald Farms,
ANPP, and/or Roosevelt Irrigation District (only if land
treated).
2.3.3 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives were evaluated for technical and environmental
criteria. The primary technical criteria were flexibility and
costs. The environmental evaluation included an assessment of
impacts to the physical, biological, socioeconomic, and cultural
environment. Following is a summary of the technical and environ-
mental evaluation.
2-74
-------
Technical Evaluation
Flexibility
In evaluating the flexibility of each of the four alterna-
tives, the primary concern was to identify the alternative offer-
ing the most options to the region as a whole for wastewater
collection and treatment. In general, a small local plant can be
expanded more readily than a large regional plant and as such is
more flexible to respond to future population changes.
On the westside, construction of the Reems Road plant (Alter-
natives 2 and 4) would offer considerably more flexibility than
would treatment at the 91st Avenue plant. Without the Reems Road
plant, the westside communities of Avondale, Goodyear, and Litch-
field Park would be required to develop a costly pumpback system
to the 91st Avenue plant.
On the eastside, the Northeast plant (Alternatives 3 and 4)
would offer more flexibility for the participating communities.
However, construction of the plant would affect the sizing of the
proposed Southern Avenue interceptor, which would carry flows from
the east side to the 91st Avenue plant. If a plan were selected
that included the Northeast plant, then the size of the Southern
Avenue interceptor would necessarily be reduced. If the Northeast
plant were not included, then the interceptor could be sized to
serve projected flows from the northeast communities. This would
permit the option of adding the Northeast plant at a later date if
more flows were generated than are currently projected.
In summary, Alternative 4, which includes both the Reems Road
and Northeast plants, would offer the greatest flexibility, but
concerns about the effect of the Northeast plant on other com-
ponents of the plan offset the advantages of this alternative.
Alternative 1, which provides for neither the Reems Road nor the
Northeast facility, would be rated lowest in terms of flexibility.
Alternative 2 would be rated moderately flexible because of
inclusion of the Reems Road facility. Alternative 3 would also be
rated moderately flexible because of inclusion of the Northeast
facility, but would have the disadvantages discussed in regard to
Alternative 4.
Costs
In order to evaluate costs of the alternatives, the various
components of the plans were costed and combined as required for
each areawide alternative. Components of the plans are collection
systems, treatment facilities, and reuse/disposal systems.
2-75
-------
Capital and annual operation and maintenance costs were de-
veloped; and because not all facilities are scheduled to be
constructed at the same time, present worth and equivalent annual
costs were developed in order to form an equal basis for compari-
son along the alternatives. A summary of costs for the four
alternatives is presented in Table 2-23.
As may be seen in Table 2-23, Alternative 1 costs least and
Alternative 4 costs most. There is a 7 percent difference between
capital costs of these two alternatives and a 10 percent differ-
ence between total annual costs.
Environmental Assessment
The Point Source Metro Phoenix Alternatives Draft Environmen-
tal Assessment/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)evalu-
ated the four "project" alternatives against a "no action" alter-
native using 13 broad environmental categories. For purposes
of the assessment, no action was defined as no new construction of
municipal wastewater treatment facilities or no expansion of
existing facilities. It was assumed that all flows not sewered
would be treated by individual septic tank systems or small,
privately owned package plants.
Under the no action alternative, the DEIS projected that the
absence of new municipally owned or operated wastewater treatment
facilities would result in lower density new development, which
would expand in an area 65 to 70 percent greater than that pro-
jected by MAG in the Guide for Regional Development, Transporta-
tion and Housing (1978). By the year 2000, 45 percent of the
population would rely on septic tanks or private package plants
for wastewater treatment. A proliferation of single-family
dwellings on relatively large homesites would occur in order to
accommodate septic tank use.
In contrast to the no action alternative, the four project
alternatives were developed in conformance with the MAG Guide,
which was also used to develop the air quality Nonattainment Area
Plan (Arizona Department of Health Services, 1978a) and includes a
regional transportation plan. By conforming to the MAG Guide, the
208 plan ensures compatibility with these other plans.
Impacts of the no action alternative and the project alterna-
tives were evaluated in 13 environmental categories in the DEIS.
Figure 2-10 shows a summary matrix of impacts of the alternatives
in these categories. As may be seen, all of the project alterna-
tives are superior to the no action alternative. In most cate-
2-76
-------
TABLE 2-23
SUMMARY OF AREAWIDE ALTERNATIVE COSTS3
(Millions of Dollars)
Alternative
1. 91st Avenue
Tolleson
Gilbert
Chandler
Total
Tolleson
Gilbert
Total
4. 91st Avenue
Tolleson
Gilbert
Chandler
Total
Capital
Cost
114 91
6.83
9.85
10.43
142.02
107.39
6.83
9.85
10.43
11.92
146.42
105.59
6 83
9.85
10.43
15.54
148.24
97.26
6.83
9.85
10.43
11.92
15.54
151.83
Annual
0 & M
1 87
0 29
0 26
0.46
2.88
1.64
0 29
0 26
0.46
0.22
2 87
1.64
0 29
0.26
0.46
0.51
3.16
1.42
0.29
0.26
0.46
0.22
0.51
3.16
Total
Annual
\li 06
0 89
0 66
1.10
16 71
13 54
0 89
0 66
1 10
1.29
17 48
12 97
0 89
0.66
1 10
1.82
17 44
12.59
0 89
0 66
1.10
1.29
1.82
18.35
Costs of upgrading 23rd Avenue plant and 91st Avenue plant
not included in this cost comparison.
2-77
-------
GROUND WATER
ALTERNATIVES
NO
ACTION
UJ
E
§
UJ
BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
CULTURAL
RESOURCES
AESTHETICS
Z
UJ
PUBLIC HEALTH
o
OC
5; LAND USE
UJ
POPULATION
PUBLIC FACILITIES
AND SERVICES
ECONOMIC
ACTIVITY
PUBLIC AND
INSTITUTIONAL
ACCEPTABILITY
unmitigated
IMPACTS
MO ACTION
HA HIGHLY ADVERSE
A ADVERSE
MA MILDLY ADVERSE
M MINOR
MB MILDLY BENEFICIAL
B BENEFICIAL
HB HIGHLY BENEFICIAL
ALTERNATIVES COMPARED
TO NO ACTION
A MUCH BETTER
| BETTER
9 SAME
G WORSE
A MUCH WORSE
mltigiUd
DRAFT EIS
SUMMARY IMPACT MATRIX
Figure 2-10
2-78
-------
gories, mitigation is shown to lessen the severity of adverse
impacts or enhance beneficial impacts.
Few differences can be drawn among the project alternatives,
with the exception of surface water impacts. Alternatives 3 and 4
provide greater beneficial impacts to surface water because they
provide for wider distribution of effluent within the metro area.
The Northeast plant, which is included in these alternatives,
offered the opportunity for an effluent-for-ground-water exchange
that could have augmented municipal water supplies in Paradise
Valley and Scottsdale. However, the Northeast plant would also
have diverted flows from the 91st Avenue plant, and reduced the
amount of effluent available to meet existing commitments. The
contract for sale of effluent to ANPP from the 91st Avenue plant
specifies that no upstream treatment plants may be built that
would divert flows to the extent that the commitment of effluent
could not be met. This provision of the contract acted as a
constraint to choosing alternatives containing the Northeast
plant, along with considerations discussed earlier under technical
criteria. In addition, APS vigorously opposed alternatives
including the Northeast plan.
Most adverse impacts were assessed as common to all alterna-
tives. These included short-term construction impacts associated
with new facilities, potential insect and odor problems associated
with operation of facilities close to developed areas, and poten-
tial ground water degradation that might occur at some reuse/
disposal sites. As noted earlier, mitigation measures would
lessen the severity of these adverse impacts.
2.3.4 PLAN SELECTION AND APPROVAL
Following the technical and environmental analyses of the
four areawide alternatives by the MAG 208 staff and consultants,
the alternatives were presented to the public, the MAG 208 advi-
sory groups, and the MAG Regional Council. A brochure was pre-
pared that summarized the four alternatives and presented the
estimated costs of each. This brochure, Metro 208 Areawide
Alternatives (MAG 208 Program, 1978), was distributed to the
public and the MAG 208 advisory groups. Presentations were made
to the Citizen Advisory Group (GAG), Agricultural Advisory Group
(AAG), Technical Advisory Group (TAG), MAG 208 Management Sub-
committee, and the MAG 208 Executive Committee. Votes were taken
on the alternatives at these advisory group and committee meet-
ings. The results of the voting are as follows.
2-79
-------
The Citizen Advisory Group selected Alternative 4 as the pre-
ferred wastewater treatment and collection plan. The group's
decision was based on a desire to retain as much effluent as
possible for reuse within the generating community, rather than
export the water to a regional plant at 91st Avenue. Also, the
group viewed this alternative as the most flexible, leaving the
most options open for the future on a community level.
The Agricultural Advisory Group voted unanimously to select
Alternative 2, which includes the Reems Road plant but not the
Northeast plant. The group recommended, however, that the North-
east plant be considered for inclusion in the plan at a later
date. The reasons the AAG approved Alternative 2 were given as
follows:
1. Moderate cost
2. Existing commitments for effluent from the 91st Avenue
plant that might not be met with a Northeast plant.
3. The inclusion of the Northeast plant at this time re-
quiring downsizing of the Southern Avenue interceptor.
4. The fact that the Northeast plant could be built at a
later time.
The Technical Advisory Group voted unanimously to select
Alternative 2. The group's decision was based on two primary
concerns: (1) the required downsizing of the Southern Avenue
interceptor if the Northeast plant were included in the se-
lected plan and (2) the need for the Reems Road plant on the
westside.
The TAG was concerned that the Southern Avenue interceptor
and other downstream interceptors would necessarily be downsized
if Alternatives 3 or 4 (which include the Northeast plant) were
selected. It was thought that the timing of the Northeast plant
decision was critical. Since the proposed plant would be located
on Salt River Indian Community lands, extensive negotiations on a
long-term agreement for the use of the land and for the proposed
effluent-for-ground-water exchange might be required prior to
implementation. Should these negotiations fail, the Southern
Avenue interceptor and other downstream interceptors would be
undersized and would have to be paralleled with relief sewers
prior to the year 2000. Thus, it was felt that to exclude the
Northeast plant now would ensure adequate capacity in the Southern
Avenue interceptor and downstream interceptors. In addition, the
2-80
-------
Northeast plant could be considered for inclusion at a later date
if it is needed.
The second of the group's concerns had to do with the west-
side communities' growth. It was felt that the Reems Road plant
would best serve these communities and would eliminate a costly
pumpback system to the 91st Avenue plant.
For reasons similar to those expressed by the advisory
groups, the MAG 208 Management Subcommittee and the Executive
Committee voted for Alternative 2. The MAG Regional Council
tentatively approved the selection of Alternative 2 in November
1978. The resolution adopted by the Regional Council in regard to
the alternative is included in Appendix D.
A public hearing on the Draft 208 Plan and Draft Environmen-
tal Impact Statement on the Point Source Metro Phoenix Alterna-
tives was held on January 15, 1979. Prior to the public hearing,
the advisory groups, Management Subcommittee, and Executive
Committee made recommendations to the MAG Regional Council. These
recommendations may be found in Appendix D. On January 17, 1979,
the Regional Council voted to adopt the MAG 208 Draft Plan, which
included Alternative 2 as the preferred plan for wastewater col-
lection and treatment in the metro area. On June 27, 1979, the
Regional Council adopted the Final 208 Plan, which was essentially
the same as the Draft 208 Plan. The Regional Council's resolution
to approve the final plan is included in Appendix D. The plan has
been submitted to the Governor of the State of Arizona, and
certification is expected in late July 1979.
EPA proposes to approve MAG's point source metro plan because
it satisfies the requirements of the Clean Water Act and there are
no adverse impacts of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the bene-
fits to be derived. When the plan has been certified by the
Governor of Arizona, EPA will take final action, which may include
imposition of conditions.
2-81
-------
Chapter 3
Affected Environment
-------
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The MAG 208 metropolitan Phoenix study area is shown on
Figure 3-1. The study area is located in Maricopa County in
south-central Arizona and includes communities that are presently
within, or are expected to be within, a contiguous metropolitan
area centered around the City of Phoenix, and whose water supplies
and problems are interrelated. The area encompasses approximately
2,300 square miles and includes five major cities, a number of
smaller cities and towns, two Air Force bases, and all or portions
of three Indian communities.
The physical, biological, socioeconomic, and cultural charac-
teristics of the study area are briefly described in the Study
Area Profile (Section 3.1). Sensitive environmental features are
described in more detail in Section 3.2. The features that are
included in Section 3.2 are water resources, air quality, the
Salt-Gila system downstream from the 91st Avenue treatment plant,
and population and land use.
3-1
-------
3.1 STUDY AREA PROFILE
3.1.1 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Geography and Geology
The metropolitan Phoenix area is located in the Salt River
Valley at approximately 1,500 feet elevation. The Salt River
Valley, which is approximately one-third larger than the metro-
politan area as shown on Figure 3-1, is a wide, flat, alluvium-
filled valley surrounded by rugged, low-relief mountain ranges.
The Phoenix, Salt River, McDowell, Usury, Sierra Estrella, and
White Tank Mountains are ranges that surround the Phoenix area.
Uplifting and down faulting of the land surface formed these fault
block mountains. Erosion filled the valleys with alluvium, which
consists of silts, clays, sands, and gravels deposited in layers.
The study area is in a region with no significant earthquake
hazards.
The soil types in the study area are derived from parent
materials characteristic of the Basin and Range Physiographic
Province. General soil types in the area are sandy loams, limy
clay loams, and limy loamy soils (U.S. Department of Agriculture,
1977). When irrigation is available, soils in the Salt River
Valley can be developed into good cropland.
Water Resources
The study area is entirely within the Gila River drainage
basin and is drained by the Salt and Agua Fria Rivers and their
tributaries. New River, Skunk Creek, Cave Creek, and Indian Bend
Wash drain parts of the study area to the Salt and Agua Fria
Rivers. The Verde River is a major tributary to the Salt River.
The Salt River has a drainage area of 16,040 square miles and the
Agua Fria River an area of 2,340 square miles. The Salt and Agua
Fria converge into the Gila River in the southwestern corner of
the study area.
Upstream of the study area, the flows of the Salt, Verde, and
Agua Fria Rivers are controlled by dams and reservoirs (see Fig-
ure 3-1) that provide a steady surface water supply. Joint flow
from the Salt and Verde Rivers is distributed at the Granite Reef
Diversion Dam to the Arizona Canal and South Canal, from which it
is further distributed into the canal system of the Salt River
Valley (see Figure 3-2). Flow in the Agua Fria is diverted to the
Beardsley Canal. Because of upstream impoundments, there is no
steady natural flow in the Salt and Agua Fria Rivers within the
3-2
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
study area. The permanent pools of water in the Salt River result
from wastewater treatment plant effluent, stormwater runoff, and
return flows from irrigated agricultural land.
The reservoirs on the Salt and Verde Rivers are part of the
Salt River Project (SRP). The SRP distributes surface and ground
water through a canal system for use in urban and agricultural
irrigation and for supply of a portion of the municipal water for
Phoenix, Glendale, Mesa, Tempe, and Scottsdale. Agua Fria water
is used to irrigate agricultural land. The average surface water
diversion from 1930 to 1972 was 860,000 af/yr from the Salt-Verde
system and 32,000 af/yr from the Agua Fria River (Arizona Water
Commission, 1978).
According to the Arizona Water Commission (1978), consumptive
use of water in the Salt River Valley in 1975 was 1,897,000 af/yr,
while dependable supplies were 878,000 af/yr. Ground water re-
serves were overdrafted at a rate of 1,019,000 af/yr to supplement
the dependable surface supply. In 1975, agriculture accounted
for about 83 percent and urban uses for 16 percent of total
withdrawals. As increasing areas are urbanized, agricultural use
is expected to decline over the next 20 years.
Surface and ground water quality varies throughout the study
area. In general, the water quality of surface water supplies
from the Salt and Verde Rivers upstream of the study area is
better than the quality of the Salt and Gila Rivers draining the
area. For the most part, pollutants in upstream waters consist of
dissolved salts and are from natural nonpoint sources. Discharges
from wastewater treatment plants are the major sources of pollu-
tion in the study area. Discharges from the 91st Avenue and 23rd
Avenue treatment plants maintain a permanent flow in the Salt and
Gila Rivers from 91st Avenue to the Buckeye Heading. This flow is
characterized by high concentrations of dissolved solids, nitro-
gen, and suspended solids, and very high bacterial counts.
Ground water quality varies from fewer than 500 parts per
million (ppm) total dissolved solids northwest of Luke Air Force
Base, in Paradise Valley, and near Apache Junction and Chandler
Heights, to more than 3,000 ppm along and near the Gila River
from its confluence with the Salt River to Gillespie Dam (Arizona
Water Commission, 1978). Other constituents, such as fluorides,
nitrates, chromium, arsenic, sulfates, hardness, lead, and radio-
activity are found locally. Concentrations of these constituents
are attributed mainly to natural sources, although the effects of
man-related activities, such as long-term application of agricul-
tural and irrigation waters, also are believed to have an effect
3-7
-------
but have not been studied conclusively in the study area. MAG is
carrying on continuing 208 studies to analyze the impacts of these
activities on ground water.
(See Section 3.2.1 for a more detailed description of water
resources.)
Climate and Air Quality
The climate of the Phoenix area is semiarid, characterized by
low annual rainfall, hot summers, and mild winters. Maximum daily
temperatures range from 65°F (18°C) in January to 105°F (41°C)
in July. Low temperatures range from 78°F (26°C) in July to
38°F (3°C) in January. The annual rainfall in Phoenix averages
7 inches per year.
The Phoenix area has long been known for its clean air and
clear skies. However, with its rapid growth, Phoenix has experi-
enced increasing air pollution, largely as a result of automobile
emissions. The location of the metropolitan area in a broad
valley is conducive to the accumulation of air pollutants. In
addition, general atmospheric conditions favor the development of
temperature inversions that may persist for extended periods of
time, allowing ambient pollutant concentrations to exceed levels
defined in State and Federal standards.
Three kinds of air pollutants generally exceed health-based
standards in Phoenix: photochemical oxidants (ozone), carbon
monoxide, and total suspended participates. Because of problems
with these air pollutants, the Phoenix metropolitan area has been
designated a nonattainment area for the pollutants. A Nonattain-
ment Area Plan has been prepared (Arizona Department of Health
Services, 1978a) that proposes air quality control strategies that
are projected to result in attainment and maintenance of standards
over the next 20 years.
Air quality in the study area is described in more detail in
Section 3.2.2.
3.1.2 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Vegetation cover within the metropolitan Phoenix area in-
cludes several natural vegetation communities of the Sonoran
Desert, as well as irrigated agricultural cropland and vegetation
associated with urban development. Both urban expansion and
agricultural interests have significantly reduced the extent of
the natural communities in the area. What was once Sonoran Desert
3-8
-------
has been preempted by commercial, residential, and industrial
construction, while additional thousands of acres have been
converted to irrigated cropland. Desert communities still exist
in outlying areas and in regional parks.
The natural desert communities in the Phoenix area are
characterized by plants and animals that are adapted to the hot,
arid climate. Plant species tolerate the arid climate primarily
through water conservation mechanisms. Adaptive traits include
sparse foliage, spines, small leaves, or the absence of leaves
altogether; a thick, waxy covering on leaves and stems to reduce
drying out; water storage; and extensive root systems. Adapta-
tions to the desert environment vary among plant species, with
plant life tending to be distributed to conform to the "moisture
gradient," or the availability of water.
The major natural desert communities in the Phoenix area are:
(1) paloverde-saguaro in upland areas, (2) creosotebush-bursage in
lower, drier outwash plain areas, (3) desert saltbush in the fine-
grained alluvium of the Salt-Gila flood plain, and (4) riparian
vegetation along major stream channels and associated terraces and
in areas of shallow ground water. Some of the characteristics of
these communities are as follows.
The giant saguaro cactus and its co-dominant, the little-leaf
paloverde, occur on dry mountain slopes and upper reaches of
bajadas (outwash plains) in Maricopa County. The paloverde and
saguaro mix with a variety of cacti (such as the fishhook cactus,
barrel cactus, hedgehog cactus, cholla, and prickly pear) and
various shrubs (creosotebush, crucifixion thorn, bursage, and
brittlebrush) in this paloverde-saguaro upland community.
The creosotebush-bursage community, unlike the paloverde-
saguaro community, does not have emergent (i.e., rising above
the rest of the vegetation) cacti and paloverde trees; rather,
the shrub cover of sparse creosotebush and triangle bursage or
white bursage is of a fairly uniform height throughout. The
larger shrubs, cacti, and trees are absent, except along desert
washes where ironwood, mesquite, blue paloverde, andd catclaw may
persist.
On the low-lying alkaline flood plain of the Salt and Gila
Rivers, the saltbush community replaces creosotebush-bursage.
This community is dominated by desert saltbush, a short, gray-
green shrub that grows in thick stands along with seep weed and
pickle weed.
3-9
-------
Along the major drainages, riparian communities occupy the
flood plain where moisture is sufficient to support growth.
Cottonwood and mesquite are important trees in the deciduous
riparian woodlands community, although the invasion of salt cedar
and the clearing of the cottonwoods and mesquite have all but
eliminated the cottonwood-mesquite woodlands that were widespread
along the Salt, Gila, and Agua Fria Rivers in the study area
before Anglo settlers arrived. Cattail marsh and other wetland
habitats have also been subjected to eradication through develop-
ment, although patches of wetland habitat persist where surface
flows exist, such as downstream from the 91st Avenue treatment
plant outfall, along irrigation ditches, and adjacent to impound-
ments. The riparian communities provide habitat for a great many
species of wildlife, particularly nesting birds, and are among the
most important links in maintaining the biological diversity and
productivity in the area.
Cropland is another important form of vegetation in the
Phoenix area, occupying approximately one-third of the study area.
Large tracts of irrigated cropland are located primarily in the
western and southeastern parts of the metropolitan area. Crops
grown are mainly cotton, alfalfa, grains, and vegetables. Nut
crops and citrus orchards are interspersed throughout the area,
with sizeable orchards in the eastern and southeastern portions of
the area. Other cultivated vegetation includes exotic trees and
shrubs and several varieties of grasses that have been introduced
for urban landscaping.
Wildlife are present in all the habitats, with the riparian
and paloverde-saguaro communities offering the richest habitat for
desert fauna. These habitats provide the most abundant source of
food for wildlife. Areas of intensive urban development and
agricultural activity usually have a limited wildlife diversity
and abundance, although some bird species flourish around agricul-
tural areas.
Representative Sonoran desert wildlife in the Phoenix area
include: amphibians and reptiles such as the spadefoot toad,
whiptail lizard, and gopher snake or bullsnake; birds such as the
roadrunner, desert sparrow, cactus wren, Gambel's quail, white-
winged dove, mourning dove, mockingbird, and red-winged blackbird;
and mammals such as the blacktail jackrabbit, rock squirrel,
pocket gopher, kangaroo rat, and striped skunk.
Wildlife, particularly birds, are attracted to vegetation in
desert washes and along major creeks and rivers. Cottonwood and
mesquite provide important nesting, feeding, resting, and roosting
3-10
-------
sites. A major riparian community, the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt,
extends along the Gila River from the Town of Liberty in the
southwest portion of the study area nearly 100 miles westward and
southwestward to the Town of Date Palm. The Green Belt is a
special use area for wildlife under the direction of the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and pro-
vides a major habitat for white-winged dove, mourning dove,
shorebirds, waterfowl, quail, and other wildlife.
Flows from the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue treatment plants
contribute to the support of riparian habitat along the Salt River
from 91st Avenue to 115th Avenue. At 115th Avenue, near the
confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers, the Arizona Game and Fish
Department maintains a wildlife management area. The City of
Phoenix has an agreement with the Department to discharge 7,300
af/yr of effluent at a constant rate from the 91st Avenue treat-
ment plant to help support this wildlife area. Vegetation in the
area includes cattails, willows, salt cedar, cottonwoods, and
various species of annual and perennial grasses and forbs.
Numerous species of birds, herpetofauna, and small mammals use the
wildlife area. (The wildlife management area and the Fred J.
Weiler Green Belt are described in greater detail in Section
3.2.3.)
Both the Federal Government and the State of Arizona have
published lists of "special status" biota. The most recent
Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants was
published in 1979 (U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1979). The Arizona Native Plant Law (Arizona Revised
Statutes, 1976) protects various native plants, among them species
of the lily, amaryllis, orchid, orpine, and cactus family. A list
of threatened wildlife in Arizona has been prepared by the Arizona
Game and Fish Department (1978).
Wildlife on the Federal list in the study area include the
peregrine falcon, Yuma clapper rail, and bald eagle. These
species also appear on the Arizona Game and Fish Department list
of threatened wildlife. Peregrine falcons were sighted in the
area in 1971, although they are not known to nest in the area.
Bald eagles are located peripheral to the study area along the
Verde River in the Fort McDowell Indian Reservation and Bartlett
Dam areas. The Yuma clapper rail was sighted in 1970 near 107th
Avenue along the Salt River and in 1976 near El Mirage Road on the
Gila River (Todd, 1976).
3-11
-------
3.1.3 SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Population and Land Use
Approximately 1.3 million people live in the metropolitan
area. The population of the area has grown steadily since 1940.
Total population is expected to reach approximately 2.3 million by
the year 2000. Growth in the area is caused by inmigration of
people attracted to the climate, job opportunities, nearby recrea-
tional areas, retirement communities, and other amenities of the
"sunbelt" region.
As a result of rapid growth in the area, the chief land use
changes over the last 20 to 40 years have consisted of urbaniza-
tion of agricultural and natural land. This urbanization is
characterized by low-density, single-family development. In 1975,
approximately 18 percent of the land area was devoted to urban
uses, while the remaining 82 percent was agricultural and natural
land. Over the next 20 years, agricultural and natural land area
is expected to continue to decrease, as urbanization increases.
(See Section 3.2.4 for a more detailed description of population
and land use. )
Economy
The economy of the Phoenix area has been influenced over the
last few decades by rapidly expanding urban development, which has
caused a relative decline in agricultural growth. Substantial
growth has occurred in the development of retirement communities,
housing, government, tourism, manufacturing, and other activities
related to the area's natural amenities.
The three leading industries in Maricopa County are manufac-
turing, tourism, and agriculture. Manufacturing, much of it in
electronics, is the leading income producer for Maricopa County,
the State of Arizona, and the Phoenix metropolitan area. The
State's manufacturing output grew from $926 million in 1966 to
$2.14 billion in 1976 (Arizona Department of Economic Security,
1977b). Metropolitan Phoenix's share was $1.60 billion in 1976.
Tourism and travel play a major role in the economy of the
metro area. As the second leading income producer in Maricopa
County in 1976, tourism generated approximately $1.25 billion in
revenue (Arizona Department of Economic Security, 1977b), an
increase of almost 11 percent over the previous year.
3-12
-------
While the Phoenix area is not nearly as dependent on agricul-
ture as is the remaining portion of Maricopa County, productivity
of farming in the County does have an impact on the economic
viability of the Phoenix area. Maricopa County has the highest
gross farm income of any county in Arizona. The County produces
the largest amount of crops and livestock in the State and the
fifth largest amount in the nation. Agricultural workers totaled
an estimated 13,900 persons in Maricopa County in 1976 (Arizona
Department of Economic Security, 1977c), or about 4 percent of
total County employment. Total County farm income increased from
$275 million in 1970 to $934 million in 1976.
Housing
Since at least 1960, the number of households in Maricopa
County has increased at a faster rate than the population, due to
a steady decrease in the average number of persons per household.
Single-family homes dominate the housing market. Of the almost
500,000 housing units estimated to be available in 1975 (Maricopa
Association of Governments, 1978), 63 percent were single-family
homes, 27 percent condominiums, townhouses, and apartments, and
about 10 percent mobile homes. Sixty-three percent of all housing
has been built since 1960 (Maricopa Association of Governments,
1978). Most newer homes, particularly single-family homes, have
been constructed in the outlying portions of the metropolitan
area.
Transportation
Rapid growth in the Phoenix area has strained the existing
transportation network. Approximately 94 percent of all residents
in the area commute to their places of work by automobile; 2
percent use public transportation (Phoenix Newspapers, 1977). A
recent MAG survey on transportation states that congestion is
one of the most critical areas of concern for local residents
(Maricopa Association of Governments, 1977).
There are 2,146 miles of major streets in the metropolitan
Phoenix area. Most major streets are located on section lines,
creating a grid pattern spaced at 1-mile intervals with north-
south and east-west orientation. The Black Canyon, Maricopa,
Pima, and Superstition Freeways service the area.
Public transportation is provided throughout the study area
by three major carriers and 200 buses. Air travel is served by
Sky Harbor International Airport, through which 4.4 million
passengers arrived and departed in 1976. An additional six
3-13
-------
general aviation airports also are located within the study
area. Other transportation services include two railroads, two
transcontinental buslines, ten transcontinental trucklines, 34
interstate trucklines, and 39 intrastate trucklines (Phoenix
Newspapers, 1977).
Water and Wastewater Services
The Salt River Project (SRP) distributes water from the Salt
and Verde Rivers via canals to the Phoenix area for municipal and
agricultural uses. Municipal and industrial water is supplied by
private and public water systems in the study area. Public
systems for the communities of Phoenix, Glendale, Mesa, Tempe , and
Scottsdale supply a mix of ground and surface water to consumers.
All other communities in the study area rely on ground water
sources alone. Treatment of ground water supplies varies from no
treatment to chlorination and desalting. Treatment of surface
water includes sedimentation, filtration, and chlorination.
Wastewater treatment is provided by 13 major treatment plants
in the area, and a number of smaller treatment plants and package
plants. The majority of the wastewater in the metropolitan area
is treated at the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue treatment plants in
Phoenix. The existing system is fully described in Section 2.1.3
of this report.
Energy
Electricity in the study area is provided primarily by SRP
and the Arizona Public Service Company (APS). Both SRP and APS
rely on fossil-fueled generating stations to produce the majority
of their power. Three fossil-fueled generating stations are
presently being constructed or expanded to provide a portion of
their generating capacity to the study area. These stations are
located outside the study area.
In addition, the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is
under construction at a site about 15 miles west of Buckeye and 50
miles west of downtown Phoenix. This is just outside the boundary
of the study area. A consortium of utilities from Arizona and
nearby states is developing the facility. Both SRP and APS are
part of the consortium, which is known as the Arizona Nuclear
Power Project (ANPP), and APS is the project manager and operator
of the station.
Three units of 1,270-Mwe each have been approved for Palo
Verde by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with two additional
3-14
-------
units pending approval. Units 1 through 3 are scheduled to go
on-line in 1982, 1984, and 1986. Cooling water for the station
will consist of treated wastewater from the 91st Avenue treatment
plant, with effluent from the 23rd Avenue plant utilized if flows
from 91st Avenue are not sufficient to meet demands. The effluent
will be piped directly from the plants to the station site.
3.1.4 CULTURAL AND AESTHETIC CHARACTERISTICS
Archaeology
The Phoenix metropolitan area was a major population center
during portions of the prehistoric past and contains abundant
archaeological remains. The Hohokam tradition, which appeared
about 350 B.C., is the principal cultural complex represented
within the study area. The riverine Hohokam, whose territory
centered on the Salt and Gila Rivers, were sedentary village
dwellers who practiced irrigated agriculture. They lived in
sizable communities and produced a wide variety of material goods
including plain and decorated ceramics. The Hohokam disappeared
from the area in about 1450 A.D. for reasons that have not been
determined.
Known Hohokam sites within the Salt River Valley are reported
to be in excess of 800 (Burton, 1977; Stone, 1976). Most of these
sites, located both along the area's major and tributary river
systems and on irrigable lands adjacent to rivers, consist of
villages or large permanent habitation sites, or of medium- to
large-sized shard areas which may also be the remains of habita-
tion sites. The remains of several major sites (for example,
Pueblo Grande) have been preserved and restored and are accessible
to the public. Several prehistoric sites, including the Pueblo
Grande Ruin (Phoenix), Hohokam-Mormon Canals (Mesa), and Hohokam-
Pima Irrigation Sites (Phoenix), have been entered on the National
Register of Historic Places. Numerous other archaeological sites
have either been nominated to or are considered to be potentially
eligible for inclusion in the State or National Registers of
Historic Places.
With the disappearance of the Hohokam culture in approxi-
mately A.D. 1450, a hiatus of about 300 years appears in the
archaeological record. The Pima and Papago Indians who inhabited
the area at the time of Spanish contact may have been the cultural
descendants of the Hohokam, but their development during this
"protohistoric" period is largely unknown.
3-15
-------
History
Although explorers, missionaries, trappers, and military per-
sonnel frequented the Salt River Valley, few data exist concerning
the Indian occupation of the valley between A.D. 1450 and the
establishment of the nearby Gila and Salt River Indian Reserva-
tions, in 1859 and 1879, respectively. Historic Indian groups who
are native to the study area include the Pima, Papago, Maricopa,
and Yavapai.
Between the late 1860's and 1900, a network of small irri-
gated agricultural communities was established by immigrant Anglo
settlers throughout the Salt River Valley. The establishment
of Fort HcDowell on the Verde River in 1865 and the passage of
the Homestead Act of 1862 provided military protection and the
opportunity to secure title to public lands. By 1870, "Phoenix
Settlement" (or "Mill City") had an established population of 300.
Construction of the Arizona Canal north of the Salt River and
other canals to the south, and the arrival of branchline railroads
connected to transcontinental routes, resulted in expansion of
agriculture with the subsequent growth of Phoenix and development
of a number of satellite communities during the 1880's and 1890's.
SRP's construction of Theodore Roosevelt Dam on the Salt
River provided irrigation water and hydroelectric power for the
area. This structure was the first multipurpose dam authorized
under the National Reclamation Act of 1902 and was completed in
1911. In the 1920's and 1930's three more dams were built by SRP
on the Salt River to conserve water and generate hydroelectric
power. Two dams were constructed on the Verde River as well.
In the early twentieth century, the economy of the area con-
tinued to be agriculturally based. The demand for cotton during
World War I induced an increase in its production, while more
truck crops were grown as transportation facilities made out-of-
state markets available. During World War II, the area was the
site of a number of military airfields and defense plants. After
the war, the area entered into a sustained period of urbanizatin
and economic growth. The development of air conditioning made
life in metropolitan Phoenix comfortable the year around. People
and businesses continue to be attracted by the climate, recrea-
tional and retirement amenities, and economic opportunities.
Arizona's State Historic Preservation Officer conducted an
initial survey of historical resources (sites, buildings, and
structures) within the metro area. This study (Hall, 1977) en-
compassed both research and evaluation of significant historical,
3-16
-------
architectural, and cultural resources. Field investigation
research was completed in an area of approximately 200 square
miles to verify resources located in the records search and to
identify resources that might be impacted in the near future.
This process led to an inventory containing more than 550 entries.
Seven sites in the Phoenix area have been entered on the
National Register of Historic Places. They are: Hackett House,
Tempe; Farmer Goodwin House, Tempe; Taliesin West, Scottsdale;
Rosson House, Phoenix; the Phoenix Carnegie Library and Library
Park, Phoenix; Evans House, Phoenix; and the Arizona State Capitol
Building, Phoenix. An additional 176 historic sites are consid-
ered to be potentially eligible for nomination to either the State
or National Register of Historic Places (Hall, 1977).
Aesthetics
Phoenix lies on a flat, gently sloping piedmont, broken only
by distinct, rugged mountains. The subtle, muted desert colors
are enhanced in the sharp light of early morning and late after-
noon. In the spring, following the winter rains, annual flowering
plants carpet the desert, and the perennial vegetation greens and
blooms. Until the late 1960's, clear visibility for 50 miles or
more was common; now degradation of air quality in the area often
reduces the usual visibility to 8 to 12 miles or less. Despite
smoke, dust, and other air pollutants, Arizona's sky is still
spectacular, especially in the summer when cumulus clouds build up
in the afternoon.
Man's activities have greatly altered the natural aesthetics
of the desert. The climate encourages outdoor recreation, and
private swimming pools are commonplace; 12 percent of the house-
holds in Maricopa County have swimming pools. Although a strong
concern exists for retention of open space and natural vegetation
in Maricopa County, some of the population who have migrated from
more humid climates prefer the appearance of green lawns, land-
scaped areas, and lakes to the appearance of the native desert.
As the land close to the urban core has become more densely
developed with multi-family and commercial construction, the
single-family developments have moved out into the desert and
agricultural lands in leapfrog fashion. More and more of the
desert is subject to urban sprawl; many large-scale developments,
complete with recreational lakes and green irrigated vegetation,
dot the valley floor.
3-17
-------
3.2 SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
3.2.1 WATER RESOURCES
Both water quantity and water quality are sensitive envi-
ronmental features in the Phoenix area. Water supply in the area
is considered critical due to a consistent ground water over-
draft. Water quality problems emerge locally in the form of high
nitrates, fluorides, arsenic, chromium, and salinity (total
dissolved solids). The existing wastewater system has contributed
to poor surface water quality in the Salt and Gila Rivers down-
stream from the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue treatment plants.
Water Use and Supply
Over much of the Phoenix area, water use patterns are chang-
ing, principally because of urban development. Since 1940, over
50 percent of the farmland within the Salt River Project boun-
daries has been urbanized (Arizona Water Commission, 1978).
Nevertheless, agricultural irrigation still accounts for a large
majority of water withdrawals. Total surface and ground water
withdrawals in 1975 in the Salt River Valley amounted to 2,690,000
acre-feet, with 2,223,000 acre-feet (83 percent) used for agri-
culture and 467,000 acre-feet (17 percent) used for all other
purposes (Arizona Water Commission, 1978). Municipal and indus-
trial per capita water demand was approximately 340 gallons per
capita per day in 1975.
Water depletion exceeds supplies in the area. Consumptive
use of water in the Salt River Valley in 1975 was 1,897,000 acre-
feet and dependable supplies were 878,000 acre-feet, resulting in
a ground water overdraft of 1,019,000 acre-feet (Arizona Water
Commission, 1978). Supplies are scheduled to be augmented begin-
ning in the 1980's with importation of Colorado River water
through the Central Arizona Project (CAP), a U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation Project.
The CAP proposes to bring approximately 1,200,000 af/yr of
Colorado River water from Lake Havasu into central and south-
eastern Arizona by means of aqueducts and pumping stations. The
project, authorized by Congress in 1968, is partially completed.
The Granite Reef Aqueduct, which will carry water from Lake Havasu
to the Phoenix area, is scheduled to be completed in the mid-
1980's. Final allocations of water have not been made, and there
are some uncertainties about flows in the Colorado River being
sufficient to supply Arizona's entitlement. However, assuming
that flows are adequate, the Arizona Water Commission (1978)
3-18
-------
estimated that 510,000 af/yr of CAP water would be introduced into
the Salt River Valley in 1990, with lesser amounts available after
the year 2000 as other entitlements are exercised.
Treated wastewater is another source of water in the metro-
politan area. Currently, approximately 38,800 af/yr of effluent,
or 25 percent of the estimated wastewater flows, are committed to
agricultural or golf course irrigation and support of wildlife.
This represents less than 2 percent of the total water withdrawals
for all purposes in the Salt River Valley in 1975. Remaining
wastewater flows enter ephemeral watercourses that drain the study
area.
Flooding
The study area is subject to large-scale floods, each
associated with a particular seasonal precipitation. During the
winter months, precipitation within the area is typically wide-
spread and of low intensity. The relatively low intensity of the
winter storms does not generally cause flooding problems along
the intermediate-sized ephemeral streams, which are numerous
throughout the area. A portion of the winter precipitation
generally accumulates at higher elevations and is stored until
gradual warming occurs in the spring. However, rapid melting of
the accumulated snow pack may occur with unseasonably warm
conditions. More commonly, rain melting the snow pack results
in heavy runoff into the Salt and Gila Rivers, which sometimes
causes widespread flooding. During the summer months, precipita-
tion comes in the form of thunderstorms, characterized by high-
intensity rainfall of short duration. These thunderstorms
sometimes cause flooding along the intermediate-sized streams but
seldom produce enough volume to cause serious flooding along the
larger watercourses (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1976).
Although the flow of the Salt River is controlled by dams and
reservoirs, these impoundments are operated with water conserva-
tion as the primary objective and as such do not provide adequate
flood protection. The flood of record on the Salt River was in
1891 with a flow of 300,000 cubic feet per second. More recently,
floods occurred in 1965-66, 1973, and 1978. The severe 1978
floods, with flows of 122,000 and 140,000 cubic feet per second on
the Salt River in March and December, have increased public
pressure for flood-control measures. The Central Arizona Water
Control Study, a joint U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation study, was initiated in 1979 to determine
the best plan for flood control and CAP water storage in the
Phoenix area. The study will examine alternatives to Orme Dam,
3-19
-------
which had been authorized to meet both of these needs but was
eliminated from CAP by the President in April 1977. Depending on
the alternative chosen, floodwaters can be conserved and used to
augment the area's water supplies in varying amounts.
Surface Water Quality
Surface water quality varies throughout the study area, but
in general supplies from the Salt and Verde Rivers upstream of the
study area are of good quality, compared to the water in segments
of the Salt and Gila Rivers draining the area. These downstream
reaches are subject to pollution from wastewater treatment plant
dicharges, irrigation return flow, tailwaters from irrigation
canals, and urban runoff.
This pattern of downstream degradation of surface waters is
shown in generalized water quality maps prepared by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) which indicate that total dissolved
solids (TDS) concentrations increase in a downstream direction
from headwater areas (Rainwater, 1962). The pattern is confirmed
in data collected during the period 1972-1976 at Salt, Verde, and
Gila River water quality stations (Table 3-1). Stations on the
Verde and Salt Rivers provide data on principal sources of surface
water supplies delivered to the study area, while the station on
the Gila River provides data on the principal source of surface
water draining the area.
The constituents selected for inclusion in Table 3-1 are
those for which data are available in USGS annual reports and
for which the EPA Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations or
Proposed Secondary Standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act of
1975 state a "mandatory limit" or "maximum contaminant level."
These standards are shown in Table 3-2. When primary standards
are exceeded, the water source can be rejected for drinking water
purposes. The secondary standards set desirable limits, and,
when exceeded, alternative sources should be used if they are
available. The data shown in Table 3-1 are for untreated river
water that is not being used for drinking or public water supply
without further treatment.
As shown in Table 3-1, water from the Verde River has the
best quality. An indicator of general overall water quality is
the concentration of TDS in water. TDS is a measure of salinity.
For the years 1972 to 1976, the Verde River reported TDS ranges of
between 116 and 402 mg/1, while the TDS of the Salt River was
between 349 and 788 mg/1. Both of these rivers have considerably
lower concentrations of TDS than the 202 to 4,740 mg/1 range of
the Gila River.
3-20
-------
TABLE 3-1
MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED CONSTITUENTS
IN SALT, VERDE, AND GILA RIVER WATERS, 1972-1976
(Concentrations in mg/l)a
Constituent
Sulfate
Chloride
Fluoride
Total dis-
solved sol-
ids (TDS)
Nitrate6
Arsenic'
Cadmium'
Chromium'8
Lead'
Mercury'
Selenium
Sulfate
Chloride
Fluoride
TDS
Nitrate6 .
Arsenic'
Cadmium'
Chromium'6
Lead'
Mercury'
Selenium
1972
Salt River
34-74
300*-320*
.3-. 5
708*-788*
.02-. 59
-
0
-
-
-
-
Verde
40-81
15-25
0-.5
281-402
00007-. 00029
-
-
-
-
—
1973
1974
1975
1976
Below Stewart Mountain Damb
44-75
100-280*
.2-. 5
353-760*
0-2.4
•
0
-
-
-
•
River Below
11-48
3.6-14
.1-.6
116-316
.04-3.6
•
-
<
-
—
41-49
99-150
.2-. 4
349-446
.00-. 00
004-.004
0-0
0-0
.1*
0-0
001 -.002
Bartlett
42-65
14-24
.2-. 6
254-364
0-.55
,015-. 021
0-0
C.01-.01
.1*
.o-.o
0-. 003
43-62
150-240
.3-. 5
463-649*
0-.02
.003-. 004
<.01-.01
0-0
-
0-. 0001
0-0
Damc
24-80
8.5-30
.2-.5
191-378
.02-. 31
.009-. 018*
<.01-.01
0-0
.!*-.!*
0-.0001
.001 -.001
44-72
220-280*
.2-. 4
628*-658*
.04-. 06
.003 -.004
<.01-.01
0-.01
.1*
0-0
0-0
21-69
5.7-26
.2-. 3
155-364
.01-. 29
.011-. 018*
<.01-.01
0-.01
.!*-.!*
0-.0002
0-. 0001
3-21
-------
TABLE 3-1 (Cont.)
Constituent 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976
Gila River Above Diversions at Gillespie
Sulfate - - 750*-1,100* 170-1,100* 22-1,100*
Chloride - - 1,300*-1,600* 250-1,500* 20-1,600*
Fluoride - - .4-5.6* .2-2.6* .5-2.8*
TDS - 3,500*-4,740* 384-4,310* 202-4,700*
Nitrate6 - - 9.7-11* .03-.28 6.8-12*
Arsenicf - - .008-.023 .009-.Oil .12*-.19*
Cadmiumf - - .01-.02* .01-.01 .01-.01
Chromiumf8 - - .01-. 03 0-.02 .02-. 02
Leadf - - .!*-.!* .!*-.!* .l*-.2*
Mercuryf - - 0-.0001 .001-.003* 0-.0003
Selenium - - .007-009 .008-.010* .0001-.019*
Concentrations equal to or exceeding EPA primary or secondary
standards (Table 3-2) are identified with an asterisk (*).
Sampling location below Stewart Mountain Dam, 9.5 miles upstream
from the Verde River.
cSampling location 1,300 feet below Bartlett Dam.
Sampling location 8 miles downstream from the Hassayampa River.
eSeveral of nitrate concentrations shown include nitrite.
Analyses shown for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury
are for "total," which is generally higher than "dissolved." EPA
standards do not differentiate between "total" and "dissolved."
^Analyses are for undifferentiated chromium. EPA primary standard
of 0.05 is for hexavalent chromium.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resource Data, 1972-76;
Dames & Moore, 1977
3-22
-------
TABLE 3-2
EPA DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
(concentrations in mg/1)
Constituent Primary3 Secondary*5
PH
Total dissolved solids (TDS)
Calcium
Sodium
Iron
Manganese
Copper
Hardness (as CaCC>3)
Alkalinity (as CaC03)
Chloride
Sulfate
Nitrate (as N)
Nitrate (as N03)
Fluorides
Bicarbonate
Phosphorus
Arsenic
Silver
Chromium (hexavalent)
Cadm ium
Lead
Selenium
Mercury
Zinc
Barium
Cyanide
Phenols
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
10
45
1.4
-
-
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.002
-
1
0.2
"
NNSC
500
NNS
NNS
0.3
0.05
1
NNS
NNS
250
250
-
-
-
NNS
NNS
0.01
—
-
-
-
-
-
5
-
-
0.001
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.
Proposed Secondary Standards under Safe Drinking Water Act of
1975.
Q
NNS - No numerical standard.
Source: Federal Register, 1975, 1977
3-23
-------
Comparing the data shown in Table 3-1 with EPA primary and
secondary standards (Table 3-2) indicates contravention of stan-
dards for a number of constituents, primarily in the Gila River.
The concentrations of TDS in the Salt River exceeded EPA secondary
standards of 500 mg/1 for 1972 and 1976 and for portions of 1973
and 1975. The TDS concentrations in the Verde River were within
the standard for all five years. The TDS concentrations in the
Gila River exceeded the standard in all three years for which data
are provided.
Verde River waters exceeded the primary standards for lead
and secondary standards for arsenic. In the Salt River, concen-
trations of lead exceeded the primary standard, while TDS and
chloride exceeded the secondary standards. In the Gila River,
concentrations of fluoride, nitrate, arsenic, cadmium, lead,
mercury, and selenium exceeded primary standards; concentrations
of sulfate, chloride, and TDS exceeded secondary standards.
Data from the City of Phoenix Water and Sewers Department
(1978) indicate that TDS levels in the waters of the Arizona and
South Canals are in an intermediate range between the upstream
Salt-Verde levels and the downstream Gila levels. For the period
from April 1977 through April 1978, the average TDS concentration
of canal water at the Val Vista Water Treatment Plant on the South
Canal, 4 to 5 miles south of Granite Reef Dam, was 646 mg/1. The
maximum average monthly concentration was 943 mg/1 in March 1978,
a high-discharge month, and the minimum was 451 mg/1 in February
1979.
At the Deer Valley Water Treatment Plant on the Arizona
Canal, approximately 30 miles west of Granite Reef Dam, the
average TDS concentration of canal water for the April 1977 to
April 1978 period was 667 mg/1. The maximum average monthly
concentration was 1,070 mg/1 for March 1978 and the minimum was
444 mg/1 for January 1978.
Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Water Conserva-
tion Laboratory (1977) for the effluent-dominated flow of the
Salt River approximately 1-1/2 miles downstream from the 91st
Avenue treatment plant show TDS levels higher than those found
upstream, but significantly lower than levels in the Gila River
farther downstream. These data are displayed in Table 3-3. As
indicated by Table 3-3, the flow in the river at this site is
almost entirely wastewater effluent. Fecal coliform levels
greatly exceed State surface water standards of 1,000 units per
100 ml for this reach of the Salt River. Criteria for these
standards are presented in Appendix A.
3-24
-------
TABLE 3-3
WATER QUALITY OF SALT RIVER AT FLUSHING MEADOWS3 FOR 1977
(Concentrations in mg/1 unless noted)
Constituent
Total dissolved solids
Nitrate (as N)
Fluoride
Phosphorus
Boron
Total organic carbon
Suspended solids
Fecal coliform
Maximum Minimum
1,165 800
33.9 19
2.88 1.1
0.68 0.45
70 9
Average
1,075
27.4
2.08
7.9
0.59
26
32.2
3 x 105/100 ml
1-1/2 miles west of 91st Avenue wastewater treatment
plant.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
Service, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, 1977.
3-25
-------
Ground Water Supply
The Salt River Valley contains two major ground water areas:
the East and West Basins. Natural rock barriers of low per-
meability restrict ground water movement between the basins. The
East Basin is bounded by the McDowell, Usury, Superstition, San
Tan, Salt River, and Phoenix Mountains. The Paradise Valley and
Chandler areas are subbasins of the East Basin. The West Basin is
bounded by the Hieroglyphic, New River, Phoenix, Salt River,
Sierra Estrella, and White Tank Mountains. The Deer Valley area
is a subbasin of the West Basin. The study area comprises a
sizable and highly developed portion of the two basins.
Water-bearing alluvial deposits exist in the upper several
thousand feet of the basins. A layer of low permeability 600 to
1,200 feet below the surface exists in the West Basin and about
1,100 feet below the surface in the East Basin. It is estimated
that about 100 million acre-feet of ground water is stored above a
depth of 700 feet, and 50 million acre-feet is stored below in the
next 500 feet of the basins (Arizona Water Commission, 1978).
Ground water inflow and natural recharge to the ground water
basins are estimated to be slight (Thiele, 1965). Rainfall is
normally low, and evapotranspiration losses are high. Primary
sources of recharge are return flow from irrigation, surface
water, and canal seepage. In the urban area, storm runoff is an
additional source of recharge. Ground water pumpage is the major
source of discharge. A small amount of ground water flows out of
the West Basin west of Buckeye. There is no significant ground
water outflow from the East Basin.
It has been estimated that more than 70 million acre-feet of
ground water has been pumped from the Salt River Valley since 1923
(Clark et al., 1975). Ground water is currently being pumped and
used at a rate exceeding the rate of recharge, resulting in a
gradual decline of ground water levels throughout the area. The
Arizona Water Commission (1978) estimates a ground water overdraft
of 1,019,000 acre-feet in 1975 for the Salt River Valley.
The study area is included in a designated critical ground
water basin. Critical ground water basins are designated by the
Arizona Land Commission when sufficient ground water supplies are
not available for irrigation of cultivated lands at current rates
of withdrawal. Drilling of irrigation wells for development of
new farmland is prohibited in critical ground water basins, but
there are no prohibitions against developing new wells for non-
irrigation purposes.
3-26
-------
Ground Water Flow
According to Schmidt (1978), ground water in the East Basin
prior to extensive withdrawals flowed from Paradise Valley south-
ward toward the Salt River; ground water in the Chandler subbasin
flowed northward toward the Salt River. Ground water also flowed
from the East Basin to the West Basin through the Tempe Narrows.
Under present conditions, the regional direction of ground water
flow in the East Basin is toward three large pumping depressions,
located in Scottsdale, east of Mesa, and in the Queen Creek area.
In the West Basin, ground water prior to extensive with-
drawals flowed southward from the Beardsley area and Deer Valley
toward the Salt and Gila Rivers. Ground water along the Salt
River flowed westward from the Tempe Narrows toward the confluence
with the Gila River. From the confluence, ground water flowed
westward past the Buckeye area and left the Salt River Valley.
Under present conditions, the regional direction of ground water
flow is toward a large pumping depression near Luke Air Force
Base. Smaller pumping depressions occur in Deer Valley and at
Glendale. Since about 1950, ground water near the Gila River
and in the eastern part of the Buckeye area has tended to flow
northward.
Ground Water Quality
Ground water is pumped for public supply by a number of
municipalities. Generally, the quality of well water is suitable
for public supply throughout the study area. Local water quality
problems are evident in northwestern and southwestern portions of
the area, and in isolated sites in the eastern portion of the
area. Ground water is also pumped by irrigation districts and
mixed with surface water for irrigation of crops. Some farmers in
the study area pump ground water for use without mixing. Ground
water is generally of suitable quality for irrigation of a variety
of crops except near the Gila River and in the Buckeye area.
Here, special cultivation practices have to be employed to accom-
modate the very high salts (3,000+ mg/1 IDS) in the ground waters.
Ground water of superior quality is found in the northern part of
the West Basin, in the northern part of Paradise Valley, and in
the eastern part of the East Basin.
According to Schmidt (1978), salinity in the East and West
Basins has remained fairly constant since the 1920's. This trend
is likely due to an equilibrium between factors that concentrate
salts in the ground water and those which dilute the ground water.
Despite the overall trend of constant salinity, levels have
3-27
-------
increased in the last 20 years near Gilbert (due to irrigation
return flow), Chandler (due to changing ground water movement
patterns), and Goodyear-Liberty (also due to changing ground water
patterns).
In the East Basin, lowest salinities are found in parts of
Paradise Valley and in the Queen Creek area, and highest salini-
ties occur southwest of Chandler. In the West Basin, lowest
salinities occur in the northern part of the basin, and highest
salinities occur to the south near the Gila River. In general,
salinity increases toward the southeast in the East Basin and
toward the southwest in the West Basin.
Chloride content is distributed much like salinity in ground
water. According to Schmidt (1978), in 1976 chloride generally
exceeded the 250 mg/1 secondary standard for drinking water (see
Table 3-2) in the Chandler/Gilbert area, west of Buckeye, and
near the confluence of the buted much like salinity in ground
content equalled or exceeded the 250 mg/1 secondary standard in
four areas: Buckeye-Liberty, near Tolleson, near Gilbert, and
south of Guadalupe.
Nitrate content is primarily a problem in the West Basin
(Schmidt, 1978). High nitrate contents have been found in ground
water in the West Basin since large-scale pumping first commenced
in the 1920's. Contents in a large area currently exceed the
primary standard of 45 mg/1 for nitrate (as N03). The area
averages 8 miles in width and extends southwest from Deer Valley
to the Hassayampa River. There are also other scattered loca-
tions throughout both basins where concentrations of 45 mg/1 are
exceeded. Historical well water data indicate that nitrate levels
are generally decreasing in most of the West Basin east of the
Agua Fria River. West of the river, primarily in the Buckeye
Irrigation District, levels are increasing. Schmidt (1978)
attributes increases in nitrates in the Buckeye Irrigation
District to use of treated wastewater effluent for irrigation over
the last 15 years. Schmidt identified these increased nitrate
concentrations in the eastern part of the District (east of
Buckeye).
Fluoride levels exceed the primary standard of 1.4 mg/1 west
of Jackrabbit Road and exceed 3.0 mg/1 just west of Buckeye.
Fluoride distribution is probably related to natural subsurface
deposits and movement of ground water. Higher fluoride levels may
be encountered in the future as deeper wells are drilled into the
alluvial deposits.
3-28
-------
Chromium content in well water of the West Basin is generally
below the primary standard of 0.05 mg/1 for hexavalent chromium in
drinking water. However, chromium content exceeds 0.02 mg/1 in
the Deer Valley and Glendale areas in the West Basin. In the East
Basin, chromium content often exceeds the maximum contaminant
level in parts of Paradise Valley. The data suggest that these
higher levels in parts of the Paradise Valley area are associated
with finer-grained facies in the alluvium. Higher chromium levels
are often found with higher water temperatures. Arsenic has a
distribution similar to that of hexavalent chromium in Paradise
Valley.
Lead content exceeds the primary standard of 0.05 mg/1 in
ground water in a 1-mile-wide, 10-mile-long area south of the Salt
River and east of the Gila River confluence.
In summary, the major ground water quality problems at pres-
ent in the Salt River Valley are increasing salinity in two areas
and high contents of salinity, chromium, arsenic, nitrate, and
fluorides in a number of areas in the valley. High salinity
adversely affects the usefulness of water for agricultural,
municipal, and industrial purposes. The other constituents affect
health and may result in expensive treatment, blending with
higher-quality water, or abandonment of the source for drinking
water purposes.
3.2.2 AIR QUALITY
Air quality in the Phoenix area has become degraded in recent
years because of urbanization and the increased number of automo-
biles in use. According to the Arizona Department of Health
Services (1978b), the major cause of air pollution in the Phoenix
area is the automobile. The major pollutants of concern in the
area are photochemical oxidants (ozone), carbon monoxide, and
total suspended participates. The Phoenix metropolitan area was
designated a nonattainment area for these three pollutants because
of violations of both primary and secondary standards.
Current Air Quality Conditions
The Administrator of the EPA has established two sets of
standards for air quality throughout the United States. Primary
standards define the maximum pollutant levels allowable and
necessary to protect the public health with an adequate margin of
safety. Secondary standards define the maximum pollutant levels
allowable and necessary to protect the public welfare from any
known or anticipated adverse effects. In addition, the State of
3-29
-------
Arizona Department of Health Services has established standard
maximum levels of pollutants considered to be in the best interest
of the health of the general public. The Federal and State
ambient air quality standards are summarized in Table 3-4.
Summaries of 1977 air quality data for oxidants, carbon
monoxide, and total suspended particulates are presented in Tables
3-5 through 3-7. Supplementary data relating to the chemical
composition of particulates are provided in 1977 Air Quality data
for Arizona (Arizona Department of Health Services, 1978c).
Standards for oxidants and the State standard for carbon
monoxide were violated at all of the sites where those pollutants
were monitored. A summary of the technical analysis for oxidants
and carbon monoxide (base year 1977) for the Phoenix area is
presented in Table 3-8. Concentrations of total suspended partic-
ulates (TSP) violated the State (and Federal annual) standards
at all locations where TSP was measured, except at the Valley
National Bank Center. The Federal 24-hour standard was exceeded
at all but three locations. At the sites where nitrogen dioxide
and sulfur dioxide were monitored, none of the current standards
were violated in 1977.
Plans to Control Air Quality Problems
Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, nonattainment
area plans must be prepared for areas in which pollutants are
shown by monitored data or modelling to exceed National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Nonattainment Area Plan must
include control strategies demonstrating expeditious attainment of
NAAQS by December 31, 1982. For carbon monoxide and oxidants an
extension to December 31, 1987, is permissible, provided the plan
demonstrates attainment as expeditiously as practical. To meet
this test a series of "Reasonably Available Control Technologies"
(RACT) for stationary pollution sources and "Reasonably Available
Control Measures" (RACM) for mobile sources must be developed.
The Nonattainment Area Plan for Carbon Monoxide and Photochemical
Oxidants. Maricopa County Urban Planning Area was prepared by the
Arizona Department of Health Services in December 1978. A plan
for TSP is in preparation.
The Nonattainment Area Plan calls for three mandatory strate-
gies, two voluntary strategies, three ongoing strategies, and a
number of additional transportation and stationary source strate-
gies. Use of these strategies is projected to lead to attainment
of carbon monoxide standards in 1982 and photochemical oxidant
standards in 1985, and for maintenance of these standards through
3-30
-------
TABLE 3-4
FEDERAL AND ARIZONA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
(Concentrations in ug/m3 unless noted)
Pollutant
Photochemical
oxidants (ozone)
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
Averaging
Time
1 hour3
1 hour3
8 hour3
Annual
3 hour3
24 hour3
Annual
Federal
Primary
Standard
235b
40 (mg/m3)
10 (mg/m3)
100
365
80
Secondary
Standard
235b
40 (mg/m3)
10 (mg/m3)
100
1,300
Arizona
Standard
160
40 (mg/m3)
10 (mg/m3)
100
1,300
260
50
Total suspended
participates
(TSP)
Hydrocarbons
(nonmethane)
24 hour3 260
Annual geo-
metric mean 75
3 hour3 160C
150
60C
160C
150
75
160
Federal standard is not to be exceeded more than once a year;
State standard is not to be exceeded.
As of April 10, 1979, the Federal standard for ozone (photochemi-
cal oxidants) was relaxed from 160 ug/m3 to 235 ug/m3.
CThese "standards" are actually guides to be used to monitor
progress in attaining other standards.
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1978c
3-31
-------
TABLE 3-5
1977 OXIDANTS DATA SUMMARY
(Concentrations in ug/m^)
Nearest
City
or Town
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Scottsdale
1-Hr. Avgs.
\f\ T^ 11 3 1
Site Location Annual
Avgs. Max-
imum
4732 S. Central 19 187
1845 E. Roosevelt 29 310
8531 N. 6th St. 27 196
15 E. Monroe 35 220
1740 W. Adams 33 275
2857 N. Miller Rd. 22 196
2nd
High
183
300
185
202
240
189
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1978c
3-32
-------
TABLE 3-6
1977 CARBON MONOXIDE DATA SUMMARY
(Concentrations in mg/m^)
Nearest
City
or Town
Mesa
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
An-
Site Location nual
Avgs.
3rd Place & Center 2
3300 W. Camelback 2
4732 S. Central 2
8531 N. 6th St. 2
1845 E. Roosevelt 3
15 E. Monroe, 3
Valley Bank Annex
1740 W. Adams 3
1-Hr.
Max-
imum
24
26
19
24
31
46
38
Avgs.
2nd
High
22
24
19
24
'30
45
37
8-Hr.
Max-
imum
13
22
11
10
24
21
29
Avgs.
2nd
High
11
21
11
9
23
18
23
Scottsdale 2857 N. Miller Rd. 2
31 30 14 14
Scottsdale 13665 N. Scottsdale 1
Rd.
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1978c
3-33
-------
TABLE 3-7
1977 PARTICULATES DATA SUMMARY
HIGH-VOLUME SAMPLER
(Concentrations in ug/np)
Nearest
City
or Town
Mesa
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Phoenix
Scottsdale
Scottsdale
Site Location
3rd Place & Center
1845 E. Roosevelt
4732 S. Central
8531 N. 6th Street
241 N. Central, Valley
Bank Center, Roof
15 E. Monroe, Valley
Bank Annex , 3rd floor
1740 W. Adams
1845 E. Roosevelt
2857 N. Miller Rd.
13665 N. Scottsdale Rd
Annual
Geom.
Mean
128
144
155
109
74
113
132
101
118
179
24-Hr.
Max-
imum
270
299
390
281
497
844
252
232
273
589
Avg.
2nd
High
259
254
356
226
417
678
246
202
248
417
Source: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1978c
3-34
-------
TABLE 3-8
SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL ANALYSIS FOR OZONE AND
CARBON MONOXIDE (BASE YEAR 1977)
Phoenix, Arizona
Ozone
Carbon
Monoxide
Standards
Federal standarda
Maximum recorded
Second highest
Number of violations
Extent of violations
Emissions
Traffic (%)
Nontraffic (%)
Total emissions
Controls
Present
Possible future
1-hr: 160 ug/m3 8-hr: 10 mg/m3
310 ug/m3
300 ug/m3
Approx. 175
Most of central
metro area
( nonmethane
hydrocarbons)
56
44
223 tons/day
29 mg/m3
2 4 mg/m-'
Approx. 187
Most of
metro area
95
5
940 tons/day
Vehicle inspection/maintenance,
computerize traffic signals,
carpooling, mass transit
Vapor recovery
Phases I & II
Attainment
Goal for attainment of
standard
Before Decem-
ber 31, 1985
Increased car-
pooling and
mass transit,
various volun-
tary strate-
gies (e.g.,
modified work
schedules)
Before Decem-
ber 31, 1982
See Table 3-4.
Sources: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1978a, 1978c.
3-35
-------
the year 2000. However, the recent revision of the Federal
standard for ozone (photochemical oxidants) from 160 ug/m^ to
235 ug/m3 (April 10, 1979) will result in attainment of the
oxidants standard in the Phoenix area by 1982. A revision of the
Nonattainment Area Plan to that effect is planned. The mandatory,
voluntary, and ongoing control strategies included in the plan are
as follows:
Mandatory Strategies:
1. Inspection/Maintenance (1/M) of vehicles. To be
continued in accordance with existing statutory
requirements. The emissions inspection standard will
be adjusted, as necessary, to attain the carbon
monoxide standard by 1982 and to assist in the
attainment of the oxidants standard by 1985. As a
result of the nonattainment analysis, the emissions
inspection standards became more stringent in January
1979.
2. Vapor Recovery—Stage I. To be implemented in accor-
dance with necessary rules and regulations by no
later than June 20, 1979 (process of adopting regula-
tions extends date to April 1, 1980).
3. Vapor Recovery—Stage II. The State proposes imple-
mentation by December 31, 1982, provided a prior
period of determination establishes the actual need
and feasibility. EPA requires expeditious attainment
of the ozone standard and, therefore, has prescribed
the adoption of RACT by July 1, 1982, for this source
category of hydrocarbons since the Nonattainment Area
Plan does not demonstrate attainment until 1985.
Voluntary Strategies:
1. Car poo ling. To be implemented on a voluntary basis
and administered with the objective of improving
automobile occupancy.
2. Modified Work Schedules. To be implemented on a
voluntary basis with emphasis on the winter period of
maximum temperature inversions.
3-36
-------
Ongoing Strategies:
1. Traffic System Improvements
2. Mass Transit Improvements
3. Regional Development Planning
The Nonattainment Area Plan is based on Arizona Department
of Economic Security (1977a) population projections for Maricopa
County with allocations within the County by MAG (1978). These
projections are also used by the MAG 208 Program. The Nonattain-
ment Area Plan is compatible with the 208 plan, the regional
transportation plan, and the regional development plan.
3.2.3 SALT-GILA RIVER SYSTEM DOWNSTREAM FROM 91ST AVENUE
The 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue treatment plants discharge
effluent to the Salt River that helps support vegetation down-
stream from the plants and is used by the Buckeye Irrigation
District to irrigate crops. The vegetation supported by effluent
is riparian habitat, which is biologically and aesthetically
valuable in the desert environment of the study area. The ex-
pected reduction in discharges that will occur with diversion of
flows to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is likely to
affect this riparian vegetation, at least in some segments of the
river (see p. 4-17).
The affected segments of the Salt and Gila Rivers are de-
scribed in this section, with reference to available literature.
Field investigations will be required in detailed studies to
sample vegetation and wildlife in these sensitive affected areas.
The River System
Studies by Halpenny and Greene (1975), Halpenny and Clark
(1977), Management Research, Inc. (1978), and the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (1975, 1979) provide descriptions of the
river system from the 23rd Avenue treatment plant in Phoenix to
Gillespie Dam (Figure 3-1). This 43-mile stretch of river con-
tains four distinct segments. Two segments of the river are fully
within the 208 metropolitan study area. Approximately one-half of
the third segment is within the study area, and the fourth segment
is entirely outside the study area.
The four segments of the river system are: (1) 23rd Avenue to
91st Avenue (Salt River), (2) 91st Avenue to the Buckeye Heading
3-37
-------
(Salt and Gila Rivers), (3) Buckeye Heading to South Extension
Canal Discharge (Gila River), and (4) South Extension Canal
Discharge to Gillespie Dam (Gila River). Wastewater effluent from
treatment plants is the major source of water supply in this
system. Other sources of water are deliveries from the Salt River
Project (SRP), irrigation tailwaters, drainage-well water, ground
water seepage, rainfall, storm runoff, and underflow (subsurface
stream flow). Major classes of water disposition are diversions
for irrigation, evapotranspiration, and recharge to ground water
through infiltration/percolation. Estimates of 1976 water supply
and disposition for these major elements by river segments are
shown in Table 3-9. A discussion of each of the segments follows,
with the major emphasis on Segment 2.
Segment 1; 23rd Avenue to 91st Avenue
This segment between the two treatment plants is approx-
imately 8-1/2 miles long. Effluent from the 23rd Avenue plant
is the major source of water in the segment (Table 3-9). The
effluent is discharged from the 23rd Avenue plant and flows
through a canal passing McDonald Farms, where an unmeasured
quantity is taken up for irrigation.
In 1976, only about 5 percent of this segment was vegetated.
An estimated 210 acres were vegetated, while 4,110 acres were
unvegetated (Management Research, Inc., 1978). The vegetation
consisted primarily of willows, cottonwoods, and salt cedar (U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1979), some portion of which was
eradicated from the river bottom in the March and December floods
of 1978.
Segment 2; 91st Avenue to Buckeye Heading
This segment of the river is 6-1/2 miles long and includes
the confluences of the Salt and Gila Rivers and the Gila and Agua
Fria Rivers. Effluent from the 91st Avenue treatment plant is the
primary source of water supply, but some effluent from the 23rd
Avenue plant also reaches this segment (Table 3-9). Effluent from
the Avondale plant and the Tolleson plant (when not used for
sod-growing) is discharged to this segment, but the volume of
effluent is very small from these sources (Table 3-9).
From 91st Avenue to 115th Avenue (just upstream of the Salt-
Gila confluence), virtually the only steady source of water is
effluent. From 115th Avenue to the Buckeye Heading, other sources
enter the river. These include irrigation tailwaters and deliv-
eries of SRP water for the Buckeye Irrigation District. SRP
3-38
-------
TABLE 3-9
ESTIMATED WATER SUPPLY AND DISPOSITION IN SALT-GILA SYSTEM
FROM 23RD AVENUE TO GILLESPIE DAM, 1976
(Thousands of Acre-feet)
River Segment
Inflow
Outflow
Segment 1: 23rd Avenue to
91st Avenue
v£>
Segment 2: 91st Avenue to
Buckeye Heading
Segment 3: Buckeye Heading
to South Extension Canal
Discharge
23rd Avenue effluent 41,800
Irrigation tailwater 8,800
Rainfall 200
Underflow 100
Ground water seepage 300
Subtotal 51,200
Segment 1 flow 17,000
91st Avenue effluent 82,000
Other effluent 800
Irrigation tailwater 0
Upper Gila River 100
Rainfall 1,400
Underflow 400
Ground water seepage 1,700
SRP deliveries13 14,500
Subtotal 117,900
Segment 2 flow 102,700
Agua Fria River 0
Rainfall 4,100
Underflow 1,100
Ground water seepage 5,100
Subtotal 113,000
Diversion3 200
Evapotranspiration 3,900
Ground water recharge 30,100
Subtotal 34,200
Diversion 0
Evapotranspiration 11,900
Ground water recharge 3,300
Subtotal 15,200
Diversion 89,000
Evapotranspiration 7,400
Subtotal 96,400
-------
TABLE 3-9 (Cont.)
River Segment
Inflow
Outflow
u>
i
o
Segment 4: South Extension
Canal Discharge to
Glllesple Dam
Segment 3 flow 16,600
Hassayampa River 6,500
Irrigation tallwater 23,200
Centennial Wash 5,200
Drainage wells 20,600
Rainfall 11,900
Underflow 3,200
Ground water seepage 14,600
Subtotal 101,800
Diversion 8,200
Pumping 7,500
Evapotranspiration 47 ,800
Subtotal 63,600
The amount of effluent diverted by McDonald Farms has not been measured. In all probabil-
ity, the large amount of outflow assumed by Halpenny and Clark (1977) for ground water
recharge is, in part, diversions by McDonald Farms.
3SRP delivers 1.1 percent of all water diverted by SRP at Granite Reef Dam to the Buckeye
Irrigation Company through a "feeder ditch" that enters the Gila River just above the
confluence with the Agua Fria River.
Source: Halpenny and Clark, 1977; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1979
-------
deliveries are made through a "feeder ditch" that discharges to
the Gila River just upstream of the confluence with the Agua Fria
River. The Buckeye Irrigation District diverts nearly all the
flow in the river at the Buckeye Heading for irrigating crops.
These diversions are discussed in the section on Segment 3.
In the 1930's, phreatophytic vegetation, mainly the non-
native salt cedar, spread upstream from Gillespie Dam as far as
the Tempe Narrows (Halpenny and Greene, 1975). Phreatophytes are
long-rooted trees and shrubs that are usually dependent upon
ground water. Heavy pumping of ground water in the Salt River
Valley caused a decline in the water table, which led to the loss
of most of this ground-water-dependent vegetation in the river
bottom by the 1960's, with the exception of a ribbon of vegetation
from the 91st Avenue treatment plant to the Buckeye Heading. This
vegetation was supported by effluent from the treatment plant.
The 91st Avenue plant had begun operating in 1958; by 1962,
discharges were great enough for flows to reach the Buckeye
Heading (Halpenny and Greene, 1975).
Although flash flooding in 1965 washed out the phreatophytes
downstream from the 91st Avenue plant, the vegetation became
reestablished. By 1976, over half of the river bottom in the
segment between 91st Avenue and the Buckeye Heading was vegetated
(3,190 acres of a total of 5,470 acres) (Management Research,
Inc., 1978). Heavy flooding in 1978 eradicated some portion of
this vegetation, but that which remains has not been quantified.
Prior to the flooding, a rich riparian habitat had been
established in the reach of the river from 91st Avenue to 115th
Avenue. The vegetation included deciduous trees such as willows
and cottonwoods, as well as salt cedar, which was not as dominant
as in other segments. In addition, areas of cattail marsh pro-
vided valuable wildlife habitat. Birds such as the least bittern,
ruddy duck, Virginia rail, and long-billed marsh wren, which are
known to breed in only a few other areas of the State, were
identified in the 91st-Avenue-to-115th-Avenue reach of the river
(U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1979). The Yuma clapper
rail, which is a Federally identified endangered species, was
sighted twice in this reach: in 1970 near 107th Avenue along the
Salt River (approximately 1-1/2 miles from the 91st Avenue treat-
ment plant) and in 1976 near El Mirage Road on the Gila River
(Todd, 1976). The preferred habitat of the clapper rail is
marsh with dense emergent wetland vegetation, such as cattail
and bulrush marsh. No sightings have been made since 1976,
and flooding may have washed away the clapper rail habitat in
1978.
3-41
-------
Included in the segment of the river between 91st Avenue and
the Buckeye Heading are a proposed natural area, a wildlife
management area, and two small segments of the Fred J. Weiler
Green Belt. The Ariona State Parks Board has proposed the river-
bed from 91st Avenue to 115th Avenue as a natural area. The
Arizona Game and Fish Department currently maintains a wildlife
management area in the riverbed near 115th Avenue. This wildlife
area is supported by committed flows of 7,300 af/yr of effluent
from the 91st Avenue treatment plant. Most of the Fred J, Weiler
Green Belt borders the Gila River in the fourth segment of the
Salt-Gila system, and it is described below.
Segment 3: Buckeye Heading to South Extension Discharge Canal
This segment covers a distance of 10 miles. Although there
is little flow in the segment during the summer because of the
major diversion of flows at the Buckeye Heading, a shallow water
table downstream from Jackrabbit Trail sustains a considerable
amount of vegetation. In 1976, approximately 65 percent of the
segment was vegetated (3,800 of 5,900 acres) (Management Research,
Inc., 1978). Approximately half of the segment, from Jackrabbit
Trail to the South Extension Canal Discharge, is outside the study
area. Jackrabbit Trail marks the western boundary of the 208
metropolitan Phoenix study area.
Diversions at the Buckeye Heading averaged 82,000 af/yr over
the five-year period from 1972 to 1977 (Management Research,
Inc.). Most of the diverted water is effluent (Table 3-9), but
SRP deliveries to the Buckeye Irrigation District under a 1943
stipulated agreement are also part of the diversions. In 1976, a
total of 152,600 af/yr of irrigation water was used in the Buckeye
Irrigation District, of which effluent constituted 70,800 acre-
feet, pumped water 63,600 acre-feet, SRP deliveries 14,500 acre-
feet, and other surface water 3,700 acre-feet (Halpenny and Clark,
1977). Approximately 18,000 acres are farmed in the District.
Rights of the District to divert water at the Heading were
established in 1917 under the Benson-Allison Decree. This decree
set forth priorities for diversions for irrigation of 19,865.5
acres of land serviced by the Buckeye Irrigation Company. The
decree authorized diversions of more than 400 cubic feet per
second at the Heading. Under the decree, Maricopa County Superior
Court retained jurisdiction over the waters subject to appropria-
tion; and the uses of any waters in the Salt and Gila Rivers below
Joint Head Dam (a structure that was located in the Salt River
at approximately 48th Street) are still subject to judicial
supervision.
3-42
-------
When effluent from the 91st Avenue treatment plant began to
be available in quantity in the late 1950's, the District entered
negotiations with the City of Phoenix to secure an assured supply
of effluent for irrigation. Although the Benson-Allison Decree
gives priority to the District to divert water at the Buckeye
Heading, the District acted to obtain an agreement with the City
that would guarantee that a fixed quantity of effluent would be
discharged to the river each month. The agreement, signed in June
1971, provided for the Buckeye Irrigation Company to withdraw
claims relating to floodwaters stored behind Horseshoe Dam and to
pay for and receive 2,500 acre-feet of effluent each month for a
term of 40 years, with the effluent measured at the 91st Avenue
treatment plant at the point of discharge into the Salt River
(Halpenny and Greene, 1975). When the pipeline to the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station is completed, this commitment of
effluent will be carried to the District through the pipeline.
Although the agreement specifies a monthly quantity of effluent,
the commitment is usually converted to 30,000 af/yr.
Segment 4; South Extension Discharge Canal to Gillespie Dam
This 18-mile segment is bordered almost entirely by riparian
vegetation consisting largely of salt cedar and other phreato-
phytes, which are supported by surface water flows from a variety
of sources (Table 3-9) and by a very shallow ground water table.
The vegetation is part of the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt, which is
a 63,000-acre resource conservation area set aside in 1970 by the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management for purposes of preserving wildlife
and other important natural values. The Green Belt extends in
scattered parcels of public land along the Gila River from the
town of Liberty to the town of Date Palm.
The Green Belt is considered by biologists to be one of the
finest white-winged dove habitats in the nation. Concentrations
of one hundred nests per acre are not uncommon in some flood plain
thickets along the Green Belt. Waterfowl and shorebirds migrate
through the Green Belt. Many winter there, while others stop for
food and rest in spring and fall. Mallards, pintail, teal,
redheads, and canvasback are some of the popular duck species.
Canada geese are also frequent visitors. Herons, egrets, yellow-
legs, and Wilson's snipe are among the many shorebirds that use
the Green Belt marshes. Gambel's quail also thrive in the area.
Besides migratory and upland game birds, the Green Belt is
also inhabited by mule deer, bobcat, fox, coyote, racoon, and
javelina. Songbird species are plentiful, with most of the
common desert birds nesting in the thickets. Songbirds such as
3-43
-------
cardinals, finches, hummingbirds, orioles, tanagers, woodpeckers,
flickers, and roadrunners, plus a wide variety of hawks and owls,
and a diverse assemblage of toads, lizards, frogs, and snakes,
attract naturalists from all over the country to the Green Belt.
3.2.4 POPULATION AND LAND USE
The rapid population growth in the Phoenix area dominates
regional planning. In particular, planning for wastewater treat-
ment is keyed to expected patterns of growth. The recent history
of the Phoenix area shows heavy inmigration with accompanying
expansion of low-density urbanization. This pattern is expected
to continue over the next 20 years and into the twenty-first
century.
Population
Maricopa County is one of the fastest growing counties in the
United States. Its population has roughly doubled every decade
between 1940 and 1960, and between 1960 and 1977, as indicated in
Table 3-10. Heavy inmigration to the Phoenix metropolitan area
has been the principal cause of the County's growth and has
resulted in a population composed of more young households than
the national average.
In 1975, the estimated total population within the metro-
politan area was 1,233,530 persons, representing 93 percent of the
population of the County. The majority of the area's population
is concentrated in the larger cities of Phoenix, Scottsdale,
Tempe, Mesa, and Glendale. Most of the outlying, smaller communi-
ties in the County are within sparsely populated planning areas.
The racial composition of Maricopa County is shown in Table
3-11. The largest minority in the County is the Mexican-American
group, indicated in Table 3-11 as "Spanish heritage." This group
accounts for approximately 15 percent of the total population of
the area, while blacks and Indians comprise 3 percent and 1
percent of the population, respectively.
Population projections for the County indicate that the popu-
lation will reach 2,297,000 by the year 2000, with 2,260,000
persons living in the metropolitan area (see Table 2-1). These
projections were made by the Arizona Department of Economic
Security, the designated State planning agency.
3-44
-------
TABLE 3-10
MARICOPA COUNTY POPULATION3
1940-1977
Y Total Absolute Percentage
Population Increase Increase
1940 186,193
1950 331,770 145,577 78.0
1960 663,510 331,740 99.9
1970 971,228 307,718 46.4
1977 1,292,000 320,772 33.0
Source: Valley National Bank, 1977
3-45
-------
TABLE 3-11
POPULATION OF MARICOPA COUNTY BY RACIAL AND ETHNIC GROUP, 1975
White 1,183,000 95.00
Black 40,000 3.22
Indian 14,000 1.14
Other 8,000 .64
Total 1,245,000 100.00
Spanish heritage1* 181,770 14.60
a
Percentages are applied to total population and rounded.
Generally included in counts for "White" population.
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 1978; Arizona
Department of Economic Security, 1976
3-46
-------
Land Use
The Phoenix metropolitan area encompasses approximately 2,300
square miles, or 1,472,000 acres. Land use changes in the area
over the past 30 to 40 years have consisted primarily of the
urbanization of irrigated fields and orchards and natural desert
grazing land. The 1975 mix of urban use categories and various
open-space categories is presented in Table 3-12.
About 18 percent of the land area is devoted to urban uses
and parks, while the remaining 82 percent is classified agricul-
tural and natural acreage. Much of this land has been mapped and
classified as prime farmland by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service. No unique farmland was identified.
Agricultural land use is about equally divided between west and
southeast portions of the study area. Natural acreage is lo-
cated largely in the northern portion of the study area in more
mountainous terrain.
Urban development is centered in downtown Phoenix. Commer-
cial enterprises and government offices are concentrated in the
downtown area and along Central Avenue. Outlying residential
areas and local service and trade industries begin to occupy land
adjacent to agricultural operations outside a 4- to 5-mile radius
of downtown Phoenix. Residential areas, shopping centers, and
"strip" commercial developments along major arteries characterize
the urbanization in Phoenix.
Continual outward expansion of the metropolitan area during
the last 20 years has formed an extensive contiguous urban area.
This growth resulted in the rapid development of Scottsdale and
Paradise Valley to the east, Tempe and Mesa to the southeast, the
Maryvale-Glendale area to the west, and the Sun City retirement
community to the northwest of downtown Phoenix.
Nearly three-fourths of County land is owned by Federal,
State, and Indian governments. The metropolitan area contains a
considerable amount of Arizona State Trust Lands to the north and
west of Phoenix that may be fully developed for urban use in the
future, according to the Arizona Land Department.
In contrast, three Indian communities on the eastern and
southern perimeters of the study area act, to some extent, as
buffers to urban development (see Figure 3-1). The Fort McDowell
Indian Community encompasses 24,680 acres and is located northeast
of Phoenix. The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community to the
east includes 49,300 acres, and the Gila River Indian Community
3-47
-------
TABLE 3-12
LAND USE IN THE URBAN STUDY AREA3
Use
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation
Open space (dedicated)**
Agriculture
Natural
Acres
138,163
32,597
20,867
10,490
62,664
366,574
840,045
Percent of
Study Area
9.4
2.2
1.4
.7
4.3
24.9
57.1
Total 1,471,400 100.0
aData from Arthur Beard Engineers (1978b) for the more urbanized
portion of the study area were aggregated with estimates of land
use proportions for the outlying territory, using maps prepared
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Maricopa Associa-
tion of Governments.
Includes regional parks and recreation areas.
3-48
-------
includes 372,000 acres in Maricopa and Final Counties. While
these lands belong to the Indians, the lands are held in trust for
them by the Federal government.
Development on Indian lands is controlled by the Tribal
Council of each community. In general, the Tribal Councils have
attempted to retain control of the land, keeping it mainly in
agricultural use. However, there are pressures, both from within
and without the tribal communities (particularly the Salt River
Indian Community because of its proximity to east Scottsdale) to
develop these lands for urban purposes. The extent to which the
Tribal Councils succumb to these pressures will affect both the
Indian Communities and the development patterns of the surrounding
area.
3-49
-------
Chapter 4
Environmental Consequences
-------
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This chapter presents descriptions and analyses of the most
important beneficial and adverse impacts of the proposed action.
An introduction to the impact analysis appears in Section 4.1.
Impacts that stem from the proposed action—the point source metro
wastewater management plan—are presented in Section 4.2, along
with measures to mitigate. General impacts of regional growth,
which is supported by the plan, are presented in Section 4.3.
Remaining sections in the chapter are as follows: Section 4.4,
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts; Section 4.5, Irreversible, Irretriev-
able Commitments of Resources; and Section 4.6, Short-Term Uses of
the Environment vs. Long-Term Enhancement.
4-1
-------
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The objective of this EIS is to explain clearly the basis of
EPA's proposal and to provide full public disclosure of impacts.
It is also intended that this analysis provide a foundation for
more detailed impact assessments of the individual wastewater
treatment plants and interceptors that comprise the facilities
plan. This process of impact assessment is called "tiering."
In the case of some entities which will be applying for 201
construction grants for specific facilities, the EIS may provide
sufficient coverage to allow for declarations of no significant
impact.
The impact assessment for the EIS was guided by two major
considerations.
First, the proposed action is a plan to improve and protect
water quality in the Phoenix area; hence, most of the impacts of
the plan are beneficial. Provision of physical and institutional
means for upgrading and operating the areawide wastewater treat-
ment system will improve and protect the environment. Wastewater
discharges will be of higher quality than they are today, surface
water quality standards will be met, effluent will be reused to a
greater degree, and planned-for growth will be accommodated by the
provision of wastewater treatment. This growth, however, will
result in adverse impacts to the environment, principally because
of low-density urban expansion. Accordingly, the impact assess-
ment in this chapter shows both the net beneficial impacts of the
plan itself and the net adverse impacts of growth in the Phoenix
area over the next 20 years.
Non-growth-related impacts of the selected plan (both direct
and indirect impacts) are presented first (Section 4.2). These
impacts are primarily beneficial, although some adverse impacts
are also identified. Statements in Section 4.2 should be read
with the recognition that they do not reflect impacts of urbaniza-
tion associated with the plan. The impacts of the plan's support
of growth are presented separately in Section 4.3.
Impact analysis in Section 4.3 is based on the premise that
provision of wastewater treatment in the Phoenix area will not
Induce significant additional population growth. Trends for the
area show that immigration has been caused and will continue to
be caused by strong forces—such as economic opportunities,
retirement amenities, and the favorable climate—that are un-
related or marginally related to wastewater treatment. However,
provision of sewage treatment for the area does mean that the
projected increases in population can be readily accommodated.
4-2
-------
In Section 4.3, the future of the Phoenix area with the
selected wastewater treatment plan is compared to conditions
that would develop without any additional municipal wastewater
treatment facilities ("without-project" conditions). This presen-
tation shows that, for the most part, the selected wastewater
treatment plan mitigates many adverse impacts which would other-
wise have a high likelihood of occurring in the without-project
future.
The second major aspect of the impact assessment concerns the
scope of the proposed action. This action is a broad plan that
requires coverage of impacts of the plan as a whole on the metro-
politan Phoenix area. In addition, sufficient coverage of impacts
of the individual facilities is required to provide a foundation
for more detailed site-specific environmental evaluations later on
in the planning process. In general, the EIS emphasizes areawide
impacts of the plan as a whole, or local impacts with areawide
significance.
Local impacts of the facilities are displayed on an impact
matrix (Figure 4-1, map pocket), and local impacts of areawide
significance are discussed in the text of this chapter. More
detailed facility planning and environmental work will be required
to quantify and evaluate fully many of these facility-specific
impacts.
Impacts were determined on the basis of facility plans and
environmental studies from the latter phases of the MAG 208 Pro-
gram. Although facility plans were developed somewhat generically
in these phases, the level of detail of the work was sufficient to
identify potential environmental problems of the facilities and to
permit an analysis of the impacts of the areawide alternatives.
4-3
-------
4.2 IMPACTS OF THE SELECTED PLAN
4.2.1 WATER RESOURCES IMPACTS
Implementation of the selected 208 point source plan for the
Phoenix area will result in improving the quality of discharges
from wastewater treatment plants, leading to better surface water
quality in stream segments affected by the discharges. In addi-
tion, the plan's effluent reuse schemes will increase the amount
of effluent reused and help improve effluent distribution for
agricultural irrigation, energy production, and biological en-
hancement. Effluent reuse could, without mitigation, adversely
affect ground water quality in two locations, but, in general,
elements of the plan will have little or no effect on regional
ground water.
These surface and ground water impacts are described in the
following subsections.
Improvement of Discharges and Surface Water Quality
One of the requirements of the Final Point Source Management
Plan (MAG 208 Program, 1979c) is that all discharges from exist-
ing, expanded, upgraded, and new facilities will be in compliance
with discharge requirements established by EPA and surface water
quality standards established by the State of Arizona. Under the
selected plan, MAG is responsible for assuring that discharges
from facilities meet standards in the planning area. The SROG
Boards are responsible for notifying MAG of any violations of
NPDES permits or State standards. Lead agencies in the SROG's
have day-to-day responsibility for operating the treatment plans,
for notifying the SROG Boards of violations (see pp. 2-41 - 2-42),
and for protecting the treatment works.
Currently, discharges from the 23rd Avenue and 91st Avenue
treatment plants, which treat 80 to 90 percent of the area's
sewage, do not meet NPDES permit requirements. Recent Arizona
Department of Health Services inspection reports on these plants
identified deficiencies of operation and specific effluent re-
quirements that were not being met (see pp. 2-18 - 2-19). In
particular, lack of disinfection of effluent prior to discharge
has resulted in fecal coliform concentrations in discharged
wastewater that are a thousand times or more above NPDES require-
ments and State surface water quality standards.
The addition of adequate disinfection facilities at the
plants and improved plant operation and maintenance procedures as
4-4
-------
called for in the wastewater management plan will lead to these
plants meeting discharge requirements. Thus, 80 to 90 percent of
the area's sewage that is inadequately treated will be brought up
to standard with implementation of the selected plan. The remain-
ing 10 to 20 percent of the area's sewage will be treated at nine
other treatment plants. These plants will also treat effluent to
levels specified by NPDES permits if discharges occur. Assurance
that treatment plants will meet requirements is specified in the
selected plan as the responsibility of MAG, the SROG's, and the
lead agencies.
The stream segment primarily affected by discharges is the
portion of the Salt River immediately downstream from the 91st
Avenue Plant. Flow in this segment is largely effluent from the
91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue treatment plants and currently does
not meet existing or proposed surface water quality standards.
(See pp. 3-24 - 3-25 for a characterization of this effluent-
dominated flow and Appendix A for summaries of the water quality
standards.) Proposed standards for this segment of the Salt
River would allow use of the water for partial body contact
(recreation), agricultural irrigation, and riparian habitat
(Appendix A). The fecal coliform criterion for these protected
uses is 1,000 units per 100 ml, which is also the requirement for
fecal coliform in the recently revised NPDES permits1 for the
91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue treatment plants. Properly operating
secondary treatment and disinfection processes at the treatment
plants are expected to result in the effluent-dominated flow
meeting the standards for fecal coliform and other surface water
quality standards for this segment of the river.
Other treatment plants that are in violation of NPDES permit
requirements are located at Avondale/Goodyear and Luke AFB. Under
the selected plan, these plants would be phased out. Sewage
treatment needs of Avondale/Goodyear would be met by the proposed
Reems Road plant, with effluent used for near-site agricultural
irrigation. Treatment needs of Luke AFB would be handled by the
91st Avenue plant.
Discharge at the Buckeye treatment plant currently meets
NPDES permit requirements, and compliance with requirements is
expected to continue over the planning period.
*The requirement for fecal coliform was changed from 200
units per 100 ml to 1,000 per 100 ml, according to the Consent De-
cree between the City of Phoenix and EPA adjudicated May 10, 1979.
4-5
-------
At Chandler, Tolleson, and Williams Air Force Base, the
selected plan proposes increased reuse of treated effluent for
agricultural irrigation, turf farming, and golf course irrigation.
It is expected that only the Tolleson plant will be discharging
effluent to a water body, since Chandler and Williams Air Force
Base will employ total reuse priorities. Discharges from the
Tolleson plant will occur when flows exceed the demand for irri-
gating the near-site turf farm. Discharges at Tolleson are cur-
rently well within NPDES permit requirements, and it is expected
that discharges in the future will meet requirements.
Effluent Supply and Distribution
Population growth in the Phoenix area will result in in-
creased wastewater flows. Wastewater supplies will increase over
the present by approximately 50 percent (149,000 to 223,000 af/yr)
by the year 2000. Effluent will be beneficially used in irrigat-
ing crops, producing electrical energy, and maintaining and
creating wildlife habitat. A portion of the treated wastewater
produced in the area was being used or planned for these uses
prior to development of the MAG 208 Plan. In particular, the
commitment of up to 140,000 af/yr of effluent to the Arizona
Nuclear Power Project (ANPP)* was made prior to 208 planning.
Implementation of the plan will bring about increased reuse
of treated wastewater over a wider area than before, as shown in
Table 4-1. Currently, approximately 25 percent of the treated
wastewater is committed to reuse. By the year 2000, approximately
95 percent of the effluent will be committed to reuse. Of this 95
percent, about 83 percent of the effluent was arranged for reuse
prior to 208 planning.
Treated wastewater will also be reused over a greater area,
as shown in Table 4-1. Prior to 208 planning, a small amount of
treated wastewater (1,100 af/yr) was being reused in the southeast
portion of the study area. This amount will increase by more than
thirteen-fold during plan implementation. Large increases in
reuse will also occur in the west central and southwest portions
*ANPP refers to the consortium of utilities that will own
and operate the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Arizona
Public Service Company is the project manager for the station.
The contract for effluent was negotiated between the cities in the
Multi-City Sewer Agreement and Arizona Public Service and the Salt
River Project in 1973.
4-6
-------
TABLE 4-1
EFFLUENT REUSE COMMITMENTS
(Acre-Feet per Year)
Waste-
water
Supply3
Treatment
Facility
Amount
of Corn-
Reuse ... ,
mitted
Effluentb
Location
in Study
Area
Gilbert
Tolleson
23rd Ave.
91st Ave,
149,000
Gilbert
Chandler
Tolleson
23rd Ave.
91st Ave.
Reems Rd,
Year 1979
Irrigation
Turf farm irrigation0
McDonald Farms
Buckeye Irr. District
AZ Game & Fish Dept.
Year 2000
Irrigation
Irrigation
Turf farm irrigation0
Roosevelt Irr. District
McDonald Farms
Buckeye Irr. District
AZ Game & Fish Dept.
AZ Nuclear Power Proj.
Irrigation
223,000
1,100
400
_d
30,000e
7,300
38,800+
4,000
9,200
2,000
20,000f
_d
30,000e
7,300
140,0008
6,000
218,500+
Southeast
W central
Central
Southwest
Southwest
Southeast
Southeast
W central
W central
Central
Southwest
Southwest
W of area
Southwest
aRounded to nearest 1,000.
Rounded to nearest 100.
Occasional bypass from turf farm to Salt River occurs.
Undetermined amount of 23rd Avenue effluent used by McDonald
Farms.
eContract amount. Actual amount of effluent currently di-
verted by Buckeye Irrigation District is approximately 82,000
af/yr (Management Research, Inc., 1978).
fEffluent must be treated for unrestricted agricultural use
and transported to the Roosevelt Irrigation District. This com-
mitment is secondary to Arizona Nuclear Power Project commitment.
gContract amount. Amount of effluent projected for use by 5
units at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is 107,000
af/yr (21,400 af/yr for each unit). See Appendix C.
4-7
-------
of the study area (Table 4-1). The largest reuse will occur
outside the study area and outside the Salt River Valley at the
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station near Buckeye. Although not
all of the 140,000 af/yr of optioned effluent is expected to be
used on an annual basis by the station, the commitment to ANPP
still represents the single largest commitment of effluent over
the planning period. Five units at the station are projected to
use 107,000 af/yr of effluent, with peak monthly demand varying
from 2,200 to 2,600 af/mo (see Appendix C).
Ground Water Impacts
Ground Water Quality
Sources of potential ground water pollution in the selected
plan include: (1) leaking sewers, (2) seepage from treatment
lagoons and storage ponds, (3) leachate from residual sludge reuse
or disposal sites, (4) recharge of effluent used for agricultural
irrigation, and (5) recharge of effluent discharged to stream
beds. These sources are not considered to be great enough cumu-
latively to represent a significant adverse impact to regional
ground water quality. Some potential adverse local effects of
significance can be identified. However, these effects can be
mitigated. It should also be recognized that MAG has begun a
major program to protect ground water quality.
Data collected in the 208 program indicate that adverse
impacts have occurred locally in the past as a result of seepage
from lagoons, discharge to stream beds, and irrigation with
effluent (Schmidt, 1978; MAG 208 Program, 1979d). Pollution
from leaking sewers has not been documented locally, but it has
recently been recognized as a significant source of pollution in
other parts of the country. Sewage sludge and effluent used for
irrigation are the most significant sources of potential ground
water pollution associated with the proposed action.
Sewage sludge can pollute ground water when it is placed in
sludge drying beds from which percolation can occur. Also con-
stituents in sludge located in stockpiles, landfills, and on
farmland can leach into subsurface materials and ultimately ground
water. Numerous trace elements in raw sewage become concentrated
in sludge after treatment. Nitrogen, lead, chromium, arsenic, and
total salt concentrations would be of concern as potential ground
water pollutants.
Sludge management is receiving further study in the resid-
uals/effluent facility plan for the 91st and 23rd Avenue plants
4-8
-------
and in ongoing regional planning. Agricultural spreading, sale of
sludge, and landfilling are some of the options for disposal that
will be studied. In the case of landfills, sites should be
carefully chosen, measures taken to prevent leaching of constit-
uents, and monitoring of ground water beneath sites undertaken.
These steps would be mandated by new requirements of the Arizona
Department of Health Services for landfills. In addition, MAG and
EPA are developing requirements. Impacts of sludge and land-
filling are discussed in detail in Nonpoint Sources of Pollution,
Final Report (MAG 208 Program, 1979d).
Effluent used in agricultural irrigation is a potential
source of pollution that could affect ground water underlying
irrigation sites. The primary constituents of concern in effluent
used for irrigation are total nitrogen and organic compounds. If
chlorination is used to disinfect effluent, chlorinated hydro-
carbons are also potential pollutants of concern. Maximum con-
taminant levels for nitrates and some organic compounds (primarily
constituents of pesticides) have been established by EPA under the
Safe Drinking Water Act. Nitrates at high levels in drinking
water cause illness, and refractory organic compounds have a range
of deleterious effects. Chlorinated hydrocarbons are potential
carcinogens.
The selected plan increases reuse of effluent over the pres-
ent, with agricultural irrigation one of the major reuses. Small
lagoon systems in the plan were designed for near-site reuse of
effluent for irrigation. For purposes of calculating acreages
needed for reuse sites, nutrient uptake rates were identified for
crops used in the proposed cropping patterns and loading criteria
for nutrients were determined. The accepted range for nitrogen
and the adopted design value used in the MAG 208 Program are shown
in Table 4-2.
As may be seen in Table 4-2, the upper limit in the range
of suggested uptake rates for nitrogen was used in most cases,
resulting in the use of high loadings of nitrogen in designing
reuse schemes and calculating the required acreages for crops. If
these design loadings are used and the uptake of nitrogen by crops
falls short of maximum, it is likely that nitrate levels in ground
water beneath reuse sites will increase. This is of particular
concern at two sites: Tolleson and north Gilbert.
The Tolleson plant and near-site turf farm operation are
upgradient of Tolleson and Cashion, and public water supply could
be impacted by high nitrates or refractory organic compounds. The
nitrogen loadings in effluent applied to the turf farm need to be
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-2
NITROGEN UPTAKE RATES
(Lbs/acre/year)
Crop
Cotton
Alfalfa
Wheat
Sorghum
Bermuda
Rye
aThe range for uptake rates
with Land systems and Land
fluents: Design Factors II
Rangea
66-100
155-480
50-81
250
350-600
180-250
was taken
Treatment
Design
Value
100
400
75
250
600
250
from: Wastewater Treatment
by Municipal Wastewater Ef-
(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
1975, 1976).
Source: MAG 208 Program, 1979b
4-10
-------
evaluated carefully, and a more conservative approach to loadings
is recommended in light of the potential for ground water degrada-
tion. In addition, a monitoring program of soil and ground water
in the vicinity of the reuse site is warranted, including in-
stallation of suction cups and monitor wells on the site. The
monitoring program should be reviewed annually and the operation
altered if ground water quality degradation occurs.
Irrigation with effluent, as well as seepage from lagoons,
could also adversely affect ground water beneath the proposed
north Gilbert reuse site. Ground water beneath the site is
suitable for municipal supply, and the facility is in close
proximity to a municipal well field. These factors contribute to
the potential for adverse ground water impacts to occur. Nitrogen
loadings in the irrigation waters should be carefully evaluated at
the reuse site, and soil and ground water beneath the site moni-
tored regularly as part of the reuse operation.
Although the potential for recharge or percolation of ef-
fluent to ground water exists at other reuse sites, the existing
ground water beneath these sites is already poor and adverse
effects are therefore not expected to be significant.
In summary, nitrogen loadings used in planning for irrigation
with effluent may lead to increased concentrations of nitrates in
ground water beneath effluent reuse sites, particularly in the
case of the Tolleson and north Gilbert facilities. The loadings
should be evaluated in further planning. A conservative approach
to the loadings is recommended. Monitoring of soil and ground
water is also recommended at any site underlain by moderate to
good quality ground water, and especially at any site close to
municipal supply wells.
Ground Water Quantity
Ground water quantity will be primarily affected by the
export of substantial volumes of effluent to the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station in the Lower Hassayampa area west of
Buckeye. This commitment of effluent was made prior to 208
planning. By the year 2000, 107,000 af/yr of effluent is esti-
mated to be required by 5 units operating at the station, with up
to 140,000 af/yr of effluent optioned (see Appendix C).
The export of this amount of effluent from the Salt River
Valley will have an adverse impact on regional ground water
supplies, which are currently being overdrafted. The 107,000
af/yr of effluent projected for use at Palo Verde in the year 2000
4-11
-------
represents approximately one-tenth of the 1975 overdraft amount of
1 million af/yr estimated by the Arizona Water Commission (1978)
for the Salt River Valley. Locally, but outside the 208 study
area, ground water overdraft in the Lower Hassayampa area will be
prevented by use of imported effluent, assuming that local ground
water supplies would be an alternate source of water for Palo
Verde.
Incidental export of salt occurs with the export of effluent
to Palo Verde. This is considered beneficial for salt balance in
the Salt River Valley, but it could adversely affect ground water
in the Lower Hassayampa area, depending on the disposition of
salts. If 107,000 af/yr of effluent at an average salinity of 800
og/1 are imported to the site, the annual amount of imported salt
would be about 117,000 tons.
4.2.2 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Minor local, short-term air quality changes will occur during
construction phases of the wastewater management plan. These
changes will consist principally of increases in fugitive dust.
Increases in dust will occur most often during excavation and
laying of interceptor lines in the more highly developed north-
west, northeast, and eastern portions of the metropolitan area.
Dust associated with construction is subject to State fugitive-
dust control regulations, which will be complied with during
facility construction.
Compatibility with the Nonattainment Area Plan
On a regional scale, carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants
(ozone), and total suspended particulates (TSP) are problem
pollutants in the Maricopa County Urban Planning Area, and the
area has been identified as a nonattainment area for these pol-
lutants. The primary cause of TSP in the metropolitan Phoenix
area is the reentrainment of windblown soil particles and dust
from undeveloped, sparsely vegetated desert lands and from crop-
lands peripheral to the area. Automobile emissions are the
primary cause of carbon monoxide problems and contribute sig-
nificantly to ozone problems.
The number of automobiles, their time in use, and hence the
amount of emissions produced are largely dependent on the pop-
ulation distribution in the area. Population projections for
Maricopa County used in the MAG 208 Program were those developed
by the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) (1977).
Population distribution within the County was allocated by MAG
4-12
-------
(1978). (See Table 2-1, p. 2-5.) These same projections were
used by the Arizona Department of Health Services (1978a) in
preparation of the Nonattainment Area Plan for Carbon Monoxide and
Photochemical Oxidants. (See pp. 3-19 to 3-29 of the Nonattain-
ment Area Plan for a complete listing of assumptions used in
modeling vehicle emissions.)
The Nonattainment Area Plan was unofficially submitted to EPA
in December 1978 and the official submittal was partially com-
pleted with the transmittal of the revised inspection/maintenance
program in March 1979. The State is currently in the process of
adopting rules for constructing or modifying major new sources.
These additional rules should be submitted in August 1979. EPA
expects to approve most of the Nonattainment Area Plan by Sep-
tember 1979 and the entire plan by February 1980. The plan is
consistent with the MAG 208 Plan on the basis of shared population
assumptions and the jurisdictional review of MAG (see p. 11-1 of
the Nonattainment Area Plan). In addition, both plans were
developed under a memorandum of agreement between MAG and the
Department of Health Services. This memorandum provides for
integration of work plans and consistency of data and control
strategies relative to the two plans. The text of the memorandum
is included in Appendix E.
Compliance with the Clean Air Act Amendments
Section 316 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 provides
that the Administrator of the EPA may under certain circumstances
withhold, condition, or restrict grants to applicants for con-
struction of sewage treatment plants. These circumstances include
cases in which:
1. Such treatment plant will not comply with Section 111 of
the Clean Air Act Amendments regarding the emission
standards of performance for new stationary sources, or
with Section 112 regarding national emission standards
for hazardous air pollutants.
2. The state involved does not have in effect, or is not
carrying out , a State Implementation Plan approved
by the Administrator which expressly quantifies and
provides for the increase in emissions of each air
pollutant, which increase may reasonably be anticipated
to result directly or indirectly from the new sewage
treatment capacity which would be created by such
construction.
4-13
-------
3. The construction of such treatment plant would create
new sewage treatment capacity which:
a. may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute
to, directly or indirectly, an increase in emissions
of any air pollutant in excess of the increase pro-
vided for the area concerned in the state implemen-
tation plan, or
b. would otherwise not be in conformity with the appli-
cable state implementation plan
4. Such increase in emissions would interfere with, or be
inconsistent with, the applicable state implementation
plan of any other state.
The point source metro wastewater management plan complies
or does not comply with these requirements as follows:
1. Treatment plants included in the plan do not use incin-
eration or other processes that will result in direct
emission of air pollutants. Therefore, no emissions
standards will be violated by the plants, per sections
111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act Amendments.
2. The State of Arizona has in effect a state implementa-
tion plan prepared under the Clean Air Act of 1970.
Nonattainment area plans, which are revisions to the
State Implementation Plan, are in various stages of
completion and are intended to meet the requirements of
the Clean Air Act of 1977. The Nonattainment Area Plan
for Carbon Monoxide and Photochemical Oxidants, Maricopa
County Urban Planning Area, was informally submitted
to EPA in December 1978, and the implementing regula-
tions for the control strategies of vehicle inspection/
maintenance and vapor recovery were submitted in 1979.
The Nonattainment Area Plan will undergo further revision
as a result of the recent relaxation of Federal standards
for ozone. The State Implementation Plan has not yet
quantified and provided for the emissions associated with
the 208 plan.
3. The wastewater treatment system proposed for the Phoenix
area will provide for treatment of flows of 206.5 mgd in
the year 2000 for a population of 2,268,000 in the metro
area. The year 2000 population for the miaiicipal plan-
aing area used in the Nonattainment Area Plan (an area
4-14
-------
smaller than the metro area as defined in the MAG 208
Program) is projected by DES to be 2,055,800. Vehicles
miles traveled (VMT) in the year 2000 are projected to be
39.09 (x 10^) for this population. No treatment capacity
will be provided by the proposed system as a whole, or by
individual treatment plants, that will cause an increase
in emissions over the emissions projected in the Non-
attainment Area Plan.
4. The Phoenix metropolitan area is not contiguous with any
other state, and there is no evidence to demonstrate that
air quality strategies in Maricopa County significantly
affect air quality in neighboring states.
Impact of Salt River Outfall Excess Capacity
Although no treatment plants are included in the selected
wastewater management plan that support additional or unplanned-
for growth in the Phoenix area, one inconsistency in population
distribution has been identified in the interceptor system. This
inconsistency involves approximately 8 miles of the Salt River
Outfall (SRO), an existing interceptor which carries flows from
Phoenix, Scottsdale, Mesa, and Tempe to the 91st Avenue treatment
plant.
The City of Phoenix sized the SRO to handle flows from
Phoenix to and beyond the year 2000. However, before the year
2000, capacity owned in the SRO by Scottsdale, Mesa, and Tempe
will not be sufficient to carry portions of their flows to the
91st Avenue plant. In the year 2000, Phoenix will own excess
capacity of approximately 7 to 8 mgd in the SRO. This excess
hydraulic capacity could service an additional 80,000 people if
treatment capacity in the 91st Avenue plant were expanded to
handle flows. Phoenix has objected to making optimal use of the
SRO by sharing capacity it owns. Therefore, MAG has proposed that
additional flows from Scottsdale, Mesa, and Tempe would be handled
by the proposed Southern Avenue Interceptor, rather than the SRO,
allowing the excess capacity to remain in the SRO for use by Phoe-
nix beyond the year 2000. EPA cannot now approve this proposal to
build excess capacity in the Southern Avenue Interceptor. (See
p. 2-51 for additional explanation.)
4-15
-------
4.2.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
Net Effects of the Plan
Construction of treatment facilities in the selected plan
will result in removal of portions of cropland, saltbush, and
creosotebush-bursage communities. The saltbush and creosotebush-
bursage communities that will be removed were found to have
generally lower biotic habitat values, primarily as a result of
intensive human encroachment in the study area. These communi-
ties, along with the paloverde-saguaro and riparian communities,
will also undergo change due to plant operations and associated
habitat management schemes. Terrestrial habitat losses of 700
acres can be offset by creation of 390 acres of similar or im-
proved habitat (Table 4-3), depending on the biological habitat
development scheme selected for each wastewater treatment plant
(Dames & Moore, 1978).
Despite some habitat losses, net biological changes through-
out the area are expected to be beneficial as a result of imple-
mentation of the plan (Table 4-3). This is expected because
increased water supply will enhance riparian habitat and asso-
ciated aquatic conditions that in turn will contribute to wildlife
diversity, particularly aquatic, semiaquatic, riparian-dwelling,
and certain upland wildlife. A major loss of riparian habitat is
expected to occur with reduced discharges of effluent to the Salt
River (see below).
More than a fifteen-fold aquatic habitat increase can be
realized with the selected plan (Table 4-3). This increase could
result from operation of aeration ponds and impoundments for
storing treated wastewater for irrigation (Dames & Moore, 1978).
Depending on the development scheme that is chosen, aquatic
habitat can be managed to support waterfowl, songbirds, game
birds, and fish. This habitat can also increase the biological
diversity of the study area and improve the area's overall
biological resources.
No habitat that would be affected by the construction or
expansion of wastewater treatment facilities is known to presently
support species of wildlife on the Federal list of threatened and
endangered wildlife and plants (U.S. Department of Interior, Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1979). Changes in effluent discharges from
the 91st Avenue treatment plant may affect riparian habitat in the
Salt and Gila Rivers that is maintained by effluent flows. The
Yuma clapper rail, which is an endangered species on the Federal
list, was sighted in 1970 and 1976 in marshy areas downstream from
4-16
-------
Table 4-3
SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS4
Terrestrial Habitat Aquatic
~ Habitat
Habitat
Unitc»d Area1
Losses 700 26,000 20
Gains 390 15,000 to 330
36,000e
almpacts are based on land areas, locations, and operational
activities identified in the MAG 208 Plan. Changes in location,
area, or operation of systems will require reanalysis of biolog-
ical impacts.
''Rounded off to nearest 10 acres,
°Rounded off to nearest 1,000 units.
^Habitat units are measures of habitat quality, based on the
condition of the habitat, the relative value of major habitat
types, and the extent of the habitat affected.
ePotential differences are due to various habitats that
could be developed for each treatment plant.
4-17
-------
the 91st Avenue plant (Todd, 1976). However, no sightings have
been made since 1976, and it is likely that the floods of 1978
drastically altered potential habitat for the rail. The Yuma
clapper rail and wastewater treatment will be studied in more
detail during facility-specific planning.
Threatened and endangered flora on the Federal list have not
been found in the affected areas. Some State-protected flora,
particularly species of the cactus family, will be encountered
during facility and interceptor line construction. These plants
will be handled in accordance with the Arizona Native Plant Law
(Arizona Revised Statues, 1976).
Biological Enhancement Opportunities
Water resources and water-based habitat are naturally scarce
in the desert areas of Arizona. The construction and operation of
treatment lagoons and storage ponds for effluent reuse offer the
opportunity to develop biological resources and to expand the
multiple uses of water. In addition, the development of these
resources can provide opportunities for recreational land uses
such as hunting and bird watching.
Several components and operational schemes associated with
wastewater treatment facilities provide opportunities for biolog-
ical enhancement. These include: (1) impoundment of water in the
treatment process, (2) transportation of water from the treatment
plant in open ditches, (3) discharge of water into an existing
drainage, (4) land treatment of wastewater, (5) provision of buf-
fer zones around lagoons, ponds, and impoundments, and (6) irriga-
tion of crops with effluent.
Habitats that may be developed in conjunction with these
elements include: (1) riparian woodlands (i.e., areas of cotton-
wood, mesquite, and willow), (2) nonwoodland riparian vegetation
(i.e., native brush, grass, and forbs), (3) early field succession
(i.e., annual herbaceous growth), (4) wetlands (i.e., cattail
areas adjacent to impoundments), (5) open water (i.e., impounded
or flowing water).
Impoundments offer watering sites for quail, dove, rabbit,
songbirds, and perhaps shorebirds, and they attract waterfowl
into the area. Ideally, native shrubs and grasses could be
planted at the perimeter of the impoundments, the plant species
being keyed to the food and cover requirements of the wildlife
and the ability of the species to grow and reproduce under the
operating conditions of the facility. Canal banks could be lined
4-18
-------
with trees such as mesquite and cottonwood as a means of promoting
dove and songbird habitat. Shrub cover would also provide habitat
for dove and, perhaps, for quail and rabbit. Buffer zones could
be planted with cottonwood, mesquite, lycium, and saltbush to
promote dove and quail. Most vegetative cover near impoundments
would provide habitat for amphibians, such as frogs and some
species of toad.
Fisheries could potentially be developed in conjunction with
wastewater impoundments, but enhancement of fish populations
depends on the continuous availability of suitable-quality water.
Because of the fluctuations in quality of effluent, a fishery
project that is totally compatible with public health and safety
parameters is unlikely.
Further discussion of opportunities for developing biological
habitat in conjunction with wastewater treatment facilities may be
found in the Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Report (Dames & Moore,
1978).
Effect of Discharges to the Salt River
Since the mid-1960s, the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue treat-
ment plants have discharged increasing volumes of effluent to
the Salt River. According to Halpenny and Greene (1975), dis-
charge of effluent to the river has contributed to the upstream
spread of salt cedar from the Gillespie Dam area. Salt cedar is
a phreatophyte, a form of vegetation with long roots that is
sustained by ground water. Phreatophytes usually cannot exist
in areas where the depth to ground water is greater than about
15 feet. According to Halpenny and Greene (1975), salt cedar has
replaced the former cottonwood-mesquite environment in the Gil-
lespie Dam area, and its abundance is increasing in other reaches
of the Salt and Gila Rivers below the treatment plants. Halpenny
and Greene (1975) conclude that effluent from the 91st Avenue and
23rd Avenue treatment plants supports the salt cedar where depth
to ground water is too great to be reached by the roots of the
plants.
Effluent from the treatment plants also supports other
vegetation, such as cattails, willows, cottonwoods, and various
species of annual and perennial grasses and forbs. In particular,
a continuous flow of effluent in the amount of 7,300 af/yr is
committed to support a wildife management area in the Salt river-
bed near 115th Avenue. The wildlife area is maintained by the
Arizona Game and Fish Department. The area was formed by the
construction of a low dike that holds back flow, creating a
4-19
-------
wetland habitat. Recent floods in 1978 have significantly altered
this habitat.
The effects of future discharges on vegetation in the river
are primarily contingent on the water requirements of the Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station, As described earlier in this
report (pp. 2-45 - 2-46), a contract was negotiated in 1973 by the
cities in the Multi-City Sewer Agreement for the sale of up to
140,000 af/yr of effluent to Arizona Public Service Company and
the Salt River Project. The effluent will be used as cooling
water at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station west of the
town of Buckeye and will be transported to the station through a
pipeline from the 91st Avenue treatment plant. In addition,
30,000 af/yr of effluent contracted to the Buckeye Irrigation
District will be furnished through the pipeline.
The transport of effluent via the pipeline will result in
reduced discharges to the Salt River. The amount of these dis-
charges will vary depending on the number of units operating
at the station and their needs for water. Units 1, 2, and 3 are
scheduled to go on line in 1982, 1984, and 1986, respectively.
Construction permits have not been obtained for Units 4 and 5, but
if approval is obtained, they would go on line in 1988 and 1990,
respectively. The annual water requirements of each unit are
estimated by Arizona Public Service (1978) to be 21,400 af/yr.
Peak monthly needs will vary from 2,200 af/mo to 2,600 af/mo
(Arizona Public Service, 1978).
Table 4-4 shows the varying amounts of effluent that are
expected to be discharged to the Salt River in 1980, 1985, 1990,
1995, and the year 2000 under three different water requirements
for the Palo Verde Station: annual, low monthly, and high monthly
estimates of needs. The monthly estimates have been converted
to annual rates for purposes of this comparison, and the peak
requirements for the Buckeye Irrigation District have not been
included in the analysis. These three sets of conditions indicate
that the amount of effluent discharged to the river will probably
vary widely, depending on the number of units in operation, the
season, and the actual peak requirements for water.
A minimum discharge of 7,300 af/yr of effluent is assumed, as
this amount is committed to the Arizona Game and Fish Department.
According to Table 4-4, this minimum discharge would occur by 1990
under the low peak monthly estimate and in the 1990-95 period, or
earlier, under the high peak monthly estimate (see Appendix C).
Other factors not shown in these calculations could also influence
the amount of effluent diverted and, therefore, the amount of
4-20
-------
Table 4-4
DISPOSITION OF EFFLUENT FROM 91ST AVENUE AND
23RD AVENUE TREATMENT PLANTS, 1980-2000
(Acre-Feet per Year)
Buckeye Trans- Dis-
Year Flows3 Irriga- PVNGSb ported charge
tlon by to Salt
District Pipeline Riverc
Disposition with Annual Water Requirement for PVNGS
1980 135,500 30,000d - - 135,500
1985e 156,000 30,000 42,800 72,800 83,200
1990f 168,100 30,000 107,000 137,000 31,100
1995 180,300 30,000 107,000 137,000 43,300
2000 195,100 30,000 107,000 137,000 58,100
Disposition with Low Peak Monthly Need Estimate for PVNGS
1980 135,500 30,000<1 - - 135,500
19856 156,000 30,000 52,800 82,800 73,200
1990f 168,100 30,000 130,8008 160,800 7,300h
1995 180,300 30,000 132,000 162,000 18,300
2000 195,100 30,000 132,000 162,000 33,100
4-21
-------
Year
Table 4-4
Buckeye
— ... 4 it i 1 j£ o.
Flows3
tion
District
(Cont.)
PVNGS b
Trans-
ported
by
Pipeline
Dis-
charge
to Salt
Riverc
Disposition withHigh Peak Monthly Need Estimate for PVNGS
1980 135,500 30,000d - - 135,500
1985e 156,000 30,000 62,400 92,400 63,600
1990* 168,100 30,000 130,8008 160,800 7,300h
1995 180,300 30,000 143,0008 173,000 7,300h
2000 195,100 30,000 156,000 186,000 9,100
aFlows were projected on the basis of Arizona Department of
Economic Security population projections, MAG population alloca-
tions within Maricopa County, and wastewater flow reduction of
approximately 10 percent.
DAnnual requirements and low and high peak monthly need
estimates for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station were
supplied by Arizona Public Service (1978). The annual estimate of
water requirements is 21,400 af/yr per unit, or 107,000 af/yr for
5 units. The low peak monthly need estimate is 2,200 af/mo, or a
rate of 26,400 af/yr, per unit. The high monthly need estimate
is 2,600 af/rao, or a rate of 31,200 af/yr, per unit. Monthly
estimates have been converted to annual estimates for purposes of
this analysis.
cDischarge to Salt River includes commitment of 7,300 af/yr
to the Arizona Game and Fish Department. This is the minimum
amount of effluent that would be discharged to the river.
^Deliveries of effluent to the Buckeye Irrigation District
will continue to be made via the Salt River until the PVNGS
pipeline is operational.
eln 1985, 2 units are scheduled to be operational at PVNGS.
fln 1990 and thereafter, 5 units are expected to be opera-
tional at PVNGS (3 scheduled, 2 proposed).
KFlows are not adequate to meet peak needs of PVNGS.
hMinimal discharge to Salt River.
Source: Appendix C
4-22
-------
effluent discharged. Some of these factors include peak needs
of the Buckeye Irrigation District, losses of effluent due to
evaporation, and the inability of Palo Verde to utilize all the
effluent available at a given time if effluent quality does not
meet on-site treatment requirements at the power plant. (See
Appendix C for an analysis of available flows and commitments for
effluent.)
Not shown in Table 4-4 are the conditions that would develop
if the entire 140,000 af/yr of effluent optioned in the contract
were used. If this occurred, no effluent would be discharged to
the river from 1982 to 1993, with the exception of the commitment
to the Arizona Game and Fish Department (see Appendix C). The
contract provides for the use of up to 140,000 af/yr of effluent
for the generation of electrical power at any site chosen by
Arizona Public Service/Salt River Project, but the utilities have
indicated that only the amount of effluent required at the Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station will be used.
The segment of river that is expected to be most affected by
the reduction in amount of effluent and the interruption of a con-
tinuous supply of water is the portion of the Salt River from 91st
Avenue to the confluence of the Salt and Gila Rivers near 115th
Avenue. The Arizona Game and Fish Department's wildlife manage-
ment area is located near 115th Avenue. The riverbed from 91st
Avenue to 115th Avenue has been proposed as a natural area by the
Arizona State Parks Board. There is little other flow besides ef-
fluent in this segment of the river, except during periods of pre-
cipitation or when water is released from upstream impoundments.
Consequences of water diversion were assessed in the environ-
mental statements on Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3 (U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 1975) and Units 4 and 5 (U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, 1979). Both environmental statements
projected adequate flows to sustain vegetative growth in the
environmentally sensitive Fred J. Weiler Green Belt along the Gila
River downstream from the study area. Although effluent flows
used in these environmental statements are greater than those
projected by the MAG 208 Program, EPA concurs that the vegetative
growth downstream from 115th Avenue will probably be relatively
unaffected by wastewater diversions because of the additional
sources of water and the higher water table in these segments.
(See pp. 3-37 - 3-42 for a description of the segments.)
Riparian communities between 115th Avenue and the Buckeye
Canal Heading, and downstream into the Fred J. Weiler Green Belt,
receive irrigation tailwater from both sides of the Salt and Gila
4-23
-------
Rivers, as well as surface water from the Salt River Project just
upstream of the confluence of the Agua Fria and Gila Rivers. In
addition, the water table is higher in these downstream segments
than it is closer to the 91st Avenue treatment plant (Halpenny and
Greene, 1975). Thus, riparian communities downstream of 115th
Avenue are not totally dependent on wastewater flows, and it is
unlikely that any significant removal of vegetative thickets
downstream of 115th Avenue would occur due to reduced or altered
discharges. Changes that could occur at these locations would
consist of shifts in plant species distribution, which may or may
not be immediately evident.
It is expected that reduced effluent flows in the river will
lead to degradation of riparian habitat along the river segment
from 91st Avenue to 115th Avenue. This conclusion was also
reached by the NRC staff in the Palo Verde Units 4 and 5 Environ-
ment Statement (Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1979). Continuous
flows of at least 7,300 af/yr to the wildlife management area at
115th Avenue will help maintain vegetation. However, it is
probable that by reducing annual flows of effluent in the river
from the 1980 level to approximately 60 percent by 1985 and 10
percent by 1990 (Table 4-4), some vegetation in this stretch of
the Salt River will be eliminated. Further reduction of flows in
summer months (when peak diversions to Palo Verde would occur)
would also contribute to the removal of some vegetation. EPA has
asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to minimize diversions to
Palo Verde because of impacts to riparian habitat and ground water
overdraft.
To predict specific riparian community changes between 91st
Avenue and 115th Avenue will require more information on opera-
tional procedures for supply of effluent to the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station and the Buckeye Irrigation District. Impact
assessment will also require field investigations to determine the
current condition of the riparian community, to track and quantify
the movement of effluent, and to establish transpiration factors
for vegetation in the wildlife management area and along the river
from 91st Avenue to 115th Avenue.
The status of the Yuma clapper rail, a Federally designated
endangered species, will also need to be determined in detailed
studies. The clapper rail was sighted in 1970 near 107th Avenue
along the Salt River (approximately 1-1/2 miles from the 91st
Avenue treatment plant) and in 1976 near El Mirage Road on the
Gila River (Todd, 1976). Effluent flows supported areas of
potential clapper rail habitat prior to the floods of 1978, which
may have destroyed all or portions of the habitat.
4-24
-------
Concern about the contribution of vegetation thickets in the
Salt and Gila Rivers to flooding may lead to the clearing of most
of this vegetation over the planning period. Halpenny and Greene
(1975) and Robinson (1965) related phreatophyte growth to increas-
ing the areal extent of flooding. According to Halpenny and
Greene (1975), dense stands of salt cedar caused flooding over
a greater area downstream from the Salt-Gila confluence in 1973
than occurred in 1966 when flows were three times greater but the
salt cedar less abundant. Channel clearing is one of the alterna-
tives being studied by the Central Arizona Water Control Study, a
joint U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
study that began in 1979. Recently (May 1979), work was autho-
rized by Maricopa County and the State of Arizona to clear the
Salt-Gila River channel from 91st Avenue to Gillespie Dam. An
environmental assessment will be required before clearing can be
initiated.
4.2.4 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
The principal non-growth-related socioeconomic consequences
of the selected point source metro wastewater management plan are
discussed under the following headings:
- Impacts of Proposed Facilities
- Impacts of Proposed Effluent Reuses
- Impacts of Plan Implementation
Although there are facility-specific or local consequences
associated with each of the proposed project actions, the emphasis
here is placed upon impacts which are regional in scope or are
local with regional significance. Impacts of facilities are
summarized on Figure 4-1 (map pocket at back of report). Addi-
tional information on the expected local effects of the facilities
may be found in Section 4.2 of the DEIS. Site-specific environ-
mental assessments are required as part of detailed facility
plans.
Impacts of Proposed Facilities
Conversion of Agricultural Lands
Construction of wastewater treatment facilities will pri-
marily affect agricultural areas. A total of 263 acres of land
will be required for the construction of four new wastewater
treatment plants by 1995 (Table 4-5). Two hundred and fifty-four
acres, or 97 percent of this total, are currently in agricultural
production. Most of this land is designated as prime irrigated
4-25
-------
Table 4-5
CHARACTERISTICS OF LAND TO BE UTILIZED
FOR TREATMENT PLANT FACILITIES
IN SELECTED PLAN
Facility
Prime Farm
Acreage3
Phase I Phase II
Other
Acreage
Ownership Status
Chandler
9.0 Gila River Indian
Reservation land
Gilbert
(north)
54.8
82.2
Private: to be
purchased by SROG
(south)
26.0
Private: to be
purchased by SROG
Tolleson
Existing site
owned by Tolleson
91st Avenue
Owned by Phoenix
23rd Avenue
No expansion of
existing facility
Reems Road
146.0
146.0
Private: to be
purchased by SROG
TOTAL
200.8
254.0
9.0
Corresponds to phases in plant construction.
^Sludge processing facilities could require extensive addi-
tional acres of land outside existing plant site.
4-26
-------
farmland by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The loss of 254
acres of farmland represents less than l/10th of 1 percent of the
366,574 acres in the metropolitan Phoenix area classified as
agricultural in 1975 (see p. 3-48). Roughly 43 percent of this
agricultural area, or 108 acres, is expected to be urbanized or
under strong urban pressure by the year 2000, even if not used for
treatment facilities. Thus, the actual amount of agricultural
land removed from production that can be attributed solely to the
project is approximately 146 acres.
Local Land Use Conflicts and Issues,
Related Population Impacts
Two aspects of the proposed treatment plants may result in
conflicts over land uses. First, the presence of a sewage treat-
ment plant may discourage the development of adjacent properties
in residential and commercial uses. This effect is related to
actual or perceived aesthetic problems of odor, unsightliness,
insects, and similar conditions associated with wastewater treat-
ment facilities. Second, reuse of effluent for agricultural
irrigation implies, and may require, a commitment to maintain the
area to be irrigated in production of nonedible crops for an
extended period of time. On the other hand, the presence of
treatment facilities may create unique opportunities for develop-
ment of industrial, agricultural, or recreational facilities which
would benefit from use of the effluent.
The principal land use conflicts expected from the proposed
treatment facilities are discussed by facility in the following
paragraphs. Impacts related to effluent reuse are discussed on
pp. 4-31 - 4-38.
Gilbert: Local land use conflicts are expected to be pro-
nounced at the north Gilbert site. The area surrounding and
including the proposed plant site and reuse area is actively
urbanizing, and property owners and developers have planned
improvements, including some residential development which will
not be compatible with the treatment plant. Construction of the
plant will result in the localized dislocation of some privately
planned developments. The Gilbert community land use plan will
need modification to accommodate the proposed north Gilbert
facility, and some compensation of property owners adjacent to the
site may be required. The south Gilbert site is located in an
area designated as "reserve." Some industrial, commercial, and
residential uses are planned within 1 mile of the proposed site.
Development is sufficiently far in the future, however, to allow
for orderly and relatively noncontroversial modification of
4-27
-------
existing land use plans and zoning, if deemed necessary, to assure
compatible peripheral land uses. The proposed south Gilbert site
is within the City of Chandler's planning area.
Chandler: Expansion of the existing Chandler plant would
support agricultural activities on Gila River Indian Community
lands as well as support tribal plans for industrial development
along Interstate-10 near the reservation's northern border. This
may constitute an important factor in successfully negotiating
planned plant expansion within the Gila River Indian Community.
Tolleson: Utilization of existing unused capacity at the
Tolleson plant to service needs, on a temporary basis, from the
communities of Peoria, Glendale, and Sun City will preclude the
need for moratoria on new construction in these areas in the
immediate future. This, in turn, will ensure continued develop-
ment in these communities, in accordance with the adopted regional
growth plan.
Reems Road: Installation of an interceptor line along
Buckeye Road leading to the Reems Road plant may become a factor
contributing to some minor earlier-than-anticipated urbanization
along Buckeye Road. The diversion of major traffic flows from
Buckeye Road north to Interstate-10 on its completion will,
however, minimize the impetus for this type of development through
the study period.
23rd Avenue: The existing 23rd Avenue plant is located in a
heavily urbanized area, characterized primarily by industrial,
office, and commercial development. An estimated 2,600 persons
live within 1 mile of the plant. The number of persons employed
in the area may be significantly larger. Proposed modifications
to the treatment facility are intended to significantly reduce the
frequency and intensity of odor episodes and insect breeding which
are presently recurring sources of complaints.
The 23rd Avenue plant has been designated to treat increased
amounts of residual solids (sludge). The method and amount of
waste to be treated have not yet been specified. If sludge is
disposed of on site, it could produce significant adverse effects
on the surrounding land uses.
The 23rd Avenue site is considered highly sensitive due to
the degree of development surrounding the facility. If odors are
not reduced, existing property could be developed less intensely
than would otherwise be expected, and some existing activity could
be displaced. The current sizable resident and working population
would continue to be adversely affected.
4-28
-------
91st Avenue: The existing 91st Avenue plant is considered a
serious nuisance by surrounding residents and operators of public
facilities, primarily due to odor and insect problems. Although
no additional potentially conflicting development is planned north
of the Salt River in the vicinity of the plant, District 7 of the
Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) to the south is continuing to
grow. The GRIC estimates the current population of this community
at 680 persons. Current facilities located in this area include a
foster children's home, a convalescent hospital, a community
services building and park, and several churches. Expansions of
the 91st Avenue plant can be expected to intensify opposition from
the Indian community unless existing adverse impacts are elimi-
nated or reduced, and probable impacts from the expansions are
mitigated. EPA requires that conditions causing adverse impacts
be analyzed and mitigated in detailed facility planning.
Residual solids (sludge) are expected to be dewatered at the
treatment plant site. Options for reuse/disposal include sanitary
landfilling, sale to a private contractor, and land spreading.
Impacts of the selected sludge handling operation could be signif-
icant and will be assessed in the residuals/effluent facility
plan for the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue treatment plants.
Cumulative Effects: From a regional perspective, the cumu-
lative effects of local land use conflicts associated with the
treatment plants are not expected to be significant, assuming that
mitigation measures to control odor and insect problems are
included in facility design. The public will be given the oppor-
tunity to comment on all the facility plans developed.
Temporary Construction Impacts: Temporary land-use impacts
due to construction of plant facilities and interceptors consist
mostly of impaired use of land because of interruption of access
and increased noise, dust, and other minor effects of construction
activity. Construction and expansion of the plants themselves
should cause few problems to neighboring uses, while impacts
associated with interceptor construction will be more widespread.
Table 4-6 summarizes the effects of interceptor construction of
the major lines.
Site Availability
Several of the satellite treatment plants included in the
selected plan are to be sited in areas expected to urbanize or be
under significant development pressure by the year 2000. This is
particularly true of the north Gilbert site. Some of these plants
will not be required for from 5 to 12 years. In order to ensure
4-29
-------
Table 4-6
TEMPORARY SOCIOECONOMIC EFFECTS OF INTERCEPTOR CONSTRUCTION6
Interceptor Locations
Summary of Temporary Effects
El Mirage Road, south of
Bell to Northern
99th Avenue, Northern to
Tolleson site
Youngtown to 99th Avenue
via Olive Avenue, 99th
Avenue to 91st Avenue via
Buckeye Road
Lower Buckeye Road, from
23rd Avenue to 59th Avenue,
south on 59th Avenue to the
Southern Avenue Interceptor
at Broadway
Southern Avenue, across
Phoenix and Tempe; along
Baseline into Mesa to
Gilbert
East Mesa: Along Baseline,
Apache Boulevard, and Bush
Highway
Pecos Road, Ray Road to
Chandler Plant
Gilbert Road and Elliot
Road, to Gilbert North
Plant
Interceptors at Gilbert
South Plant
El Mirage Road south from
Thomas to Yuma, along
Buckeye Road to Reems Road
plant
Minimal—area undeveloped
Minimal—area undeveloped
Minimal—area undeveloped
Disruption of access to residen-
tial, commercial, industrial, and
public facilities along Lower
Buckeye Road between 23rd Avenue
and 35th Avenue. Minimal impacts
west of 35th Avenue
Disruption of access to residen-
tial, commercial, and civic facil-
ities; and dust, noise, and other
adverse effects, mostly in area
from 27th Avenue across Tempe and
Mesa
Disruption of access and effects of
dust, noise, etc., mostly along
Bush Highway and Apache Boulevard
Dust, noise, disruption of access,
and other effects will impact a
small population in the area
Dust, noise, and disruption of
access will affect residents and
businesses along Elliot Road in
the community of Gilbert
Effects of this future construction
will depend on area land uses at
that time
Some disruption in access, and dirt
and noise effects likely near
Avondale on El Mirage, and along
Buckeye Road
Applicable to major interceptors only.
4-30
-------
their availability when required, these sites will have to be
acquired or optioned well before they can be utilized. Since
the plant and reuse configurations being considered for the sites
are land intensive, site acquisition costs will be substantial.
Site acquisition will have to be a priority for the Subregional
Operating Groups (SROGs) established in these areas.
A second potential problem relates to Indian land held in
trust status by the Federal government. The Chandler plant is
located on the Gila River Indian Community (GRIG). The GRIG has
recently expressed disapproval of the planned expansion of the
plant. If current plans are still pursued, extensive negotiations
may be required before the necessary approval is secured.
There is an alternate site for the Chandler plant located
just off the GRIG lands should negotiations reach an impasse and
sewage treatment needs of Chandler become critical. Sufficient
study of this alternative has been completed to allow for its
substitution with a minimum of delay.
Impacts of Proposed Effluent Reuses
Support of Agriculture
Although construction of facilities will remove a total
of 254 acres of farmland from production, use of effluent for
irrigation will support agriculture. This support includes
(1) provision of additional agricultural water supplies, (2) re-
quirements that include the long-term commitment of land irrigated
with effluent to agricultural purposes under reuse agreements (see
p. 4-37), and (3) improvement of ground water supplies through
additional recharge.
The acreage that could be supported by irrigation with
effluent will vary depending upon the cropping pattern used and
the final reuse selected at individual facilities. At this
planning level, it is estimated that from 1,500 to 3,500 acres
could be irrigated with effluent from the treatment plants,
depending upon the cropping pattern used (Table 4-7). These
acreages exclude the 18,000 acres of farmland currently irrigated
by the Buckeye Irrigation District using a mixture of effluent
from the 91st Avenue plant and pumped water. It also excludes the
roughly 34,000 acres of land in the Roosevelt Irrigation District
that may be irrigated with a mixture of effluent from the 23rd
Avenue plant and pumped water if the effluent meets requirements
of the District and is not required for use at the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station.
4-31
-------
POTENTIAL 1AND AREA FARMED WITH EFFLUENT
OJ
Si
SITE ACREAGES UTILIZED UNDER CROPPING PATTERN: p
Chandler
Gilbert (nortli)
(smith)
Tulleson
91st Avenue
23rd Avenue
Reems Rd.h
TOTALS
I. 2 years cotton 11. 2 years cotton III. Bcrnml • (April-Sept.
3 years alfalfa 3 years alfalfa Rye (Oct. -March)
1 year small grains 3 years s
Initial Phase
Crop Storage'
Ac . Ac .
1294
__
—
--
c
d
693
1987
117
—
--
63
180
Ultimate Phase
Crop Storage
Ac. Ac.
1894
__
20B
--
..
1360
34M
171
__
19
--
113
Initial Phase
Crop Storage
Ac. Ac.
1198
__
—
--
642
303
1840
126
__
—
--
68
194
nail grains (No Stj
Ultimate Phase
Crop Storage
Ac . Ac .
1755
__
193
--
1156
3104
185
__
20
—
122
V27
Initial
Phase
495
159"
—
h
._
265
919
?rage Required
Ultimate
Phase
12'}
23Ba
79
b
rf_
476
1S18
OWNERSHIP
APPLICATION STATUS
)
}
(lev
Irrigated
Land
Created
I
Possible In
future
I 0
0
i
i n
i
1
0
Effluent
Replaces
Existing
Crounduater
use or CAP
water
YCM
Y,a*
Ye*g
Yes
YPH
Reservation land
Private land-to \>v
purchased by op.
group
Private land -
contractual agree-
ment needed
Private land
Private land -
contracts needed
Private land -
contracts needed
Private laiKl
reusr <-3Krpt'iTH>nt
needed
'Current plans are to Irrigate forage crops for later possible conversion to recreational turf.
Plant now irrigating about 33 acres of commercial turf acreage. 'I'nrf ai reiige could be wxpamU-d to 10O acres with Increased effluent flow by the year 2000.
.Effluent now services the Buckeye Irrigation District and irrigates an undetermined amount of tot.il acreage. Future allocations are not determined.
Effluent contracted for by Roosevelt Irrigation District, pending attainment of specified treatment levels and availability of effluent for irrigation.
fAreaa assume an additional 5X allowance in land area for roads, fences, etc.. related to farming operations.
Surface acres assuming a 15" deep lagoon.
These areas are served by surface water irrigation systems at present.
Actual construction of this facility is not phased, although flows will gradually Increase to allow irrigation of ultimate acreage shown.
-------
Support of Energy Production
The commitment of proposed volumes of effluent for cooling
water at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station will make it
the single largest use of effluent over the planning period.
The contract negotiated by the City of Phoenix (acting for the
Multi-City Partners) and Arizona Public Service/Salt River Project
(acting for the Arizona Nuclear Power Project, or ANPP)1 calls for
the sale of up to 140,000 af/yr of effluent from the 91st Avenue
and 23rd Avenue treatment plants. The actual amount of effluent
required for all five units at the Palo Verde station is estimated
by Arizona Public Service (1978) to be 107,000 af/yr. This amount
represents approximately 50 percent of the wastewater effluent
available from all the treatment plants in the metro area by the
year 2000.
The use of effluent for cooling water at Palo Verde will have
significant economic benefits, primarily in revenues from prop-
erty, sales, and income taxes and in wages and salaries. Manage-
ment Research, Inc. (1978), in a study prepared for Arizona Public
Service, concludes that the use of effluent for power production
would result in economic benefits per acre foot of $3,314 for
property taxes, $28 for sales taxes, $147 for State income taxes,
and $265 for wages and salaries. Assuming a use of 107,000 af/yr
of effluent for five units at Palo Verde, total dollar benefits
per year would amount to approximately $400 million. In addition,
sale of the effluent at $20 to $30 per acre-foot will result in
income of from $2 to $3 million per year for the Multi-City SROG,
assuming that 107,000 af/yr of effluent is used.
Competition for Effluent
Wastewater effluent provides a desirable source of water for
both agricultural irrigation and power production in the Phoenix
area. Both agricultural interests and ANPP have expressed inter-
est in obtaining additional amounts of effluent from the 91st
Avenue and 23rd Avenue treatment plants. According to Management
Research Inc. (1978), ANPP has requested an additional allocation
of 50,000 af/yr of effluent, while Northwest Mutual Life Insurance
Company (Gila River Ranches) and J. L. King Enterprises (Arrowhead
is used in this report to indicate the owners and
operators of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Arizona
Public Service Company is the project manager for the station.
The contract for effluent was negotiated with Arizona Public
Service and the Salt River Project in 1973.
4-33
-------
Ranch) have requested future allocations of up to 100,000 af/yr
and 3,000 af/yr of effluent, respectively.
Current agricultural users of effluent may wish to increase
the amount of effluent used or seek an option on effluent pres-
ently appropriated on an informal basis. McDonald Farms, which
presently withdraws an unmeasured amount of effluent from the
23rd Avenue treatment plant discharge canal, may make formal
application for a quantity of effluent on the basis of prior
appropriation. The amount of effluent used and the probability
of the Farms' obtaining future options on the effluent are not
known. The Buckeye Irrigation District currently diverts approx-
imately 82,000 af/yr of effluent at the Buckeye Canal Heading
(Management Research, Inc., 1978). The contract amount is 30,000
af/yr of effluent. The future disposition of effluent to the
District has not been fully determined at this time. When ef-
fluent deliveries by the ANPP pipeline begin in 1982, the District
will receive the contract allotment of 30,000 af/yr by the pipe-
line. The District will also continue to have the right to divert
flows at the Buckeye Heading, and may augment the 30,000 af/yr
contract amount with available flows in the river. It is esti-
mated that the District's probable future use of effluent would be
approximately 75,000 af/yr, or 45,000 af/yr more than the contract
amount (Management Research, Inc., 1978).
The Roosevelt Irrigation District has an option on 20,000
af/yr of effluent from the 23rd Avenue treatment plant if the
effluent is not required for ANPP and if it is treated to levels
necessary to irrigate "unrestricted" crops. Management Research,
Inc. (1978), estimates that in the future there is a "medium to
high" probability that the Roosevelt Irrigation District would use
an additional 20,000 af/yr of effluent if it were treated to the
necessary level and were available at current prices.
Flows from the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue treatment plants
are projected to be adequate to meet most existing commitments for
effluent. However, flows are not adequate to meet all existing
commitments, requests for future allocations, and other probable
needs. Table 4-8 shows the amount of uncommitted effluent avail-
able in the future, assuming that the ANPP commitment of 140,000
af/yr of effluent is met by fulfilling annual water needs of
21,400 af/yr per unit for five units at the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station. At no time during the planning period are
there adequate amounts of uncommitted effluent to meet the Gila
River Ranches and J. L. King Enterprises requests for a total of
103,000 af/yr of effluent. Enough effluent is available, using
these projections, to supply the Roosevelt Irrigation District
4-34
-------
Table 4-8
UNCOMMITTED EFFLUENT AVAILABLE FROM 91ST AVENUE
AND 23RD AVENUE TREATMENT PLANTS 1980-2000
(Acre-Feet per Year)
Year
Effluent
Flows3
Buckeye
Irri-
gation
District
Arizona
Game &
Fish
Depart-
ment
Arizona
Nuclear
Power
Projectb
Total
Committed
Effluent
Uncom-
mitted
Ef-
fluent
1980 135,500 30,000 7,300
37,300 98,000
1985 156,000 30,000 7,300 42,800C 80,100 75,900
1990 168,100 30,000 7,300 107,000 144,300 23,800
1995 180,300 30,000 7,300 107,000 144,300 36,000
2000 195,100 30,000 7,300 107,000 144,300 50,800
aFlows were projected in the MAG 208 Program on the basis
of Arizona Department of Economic Security population projections,
MAG population allocations within Maricopa County, and a waste-
water flow reduction of 10 percent.
bThe contractual commitment to ANPP is for up to 140,000
af/yr of effluent. These projections use annual water require-
ments of 21,400 af/yr for each unit at the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station (Arizona Public Service, 1978).
cTwo units are scheduled to be in operation at the PVNGS
in 1985.
^Three units are scheduled to be in operation at the
PVNGS in 1986; two additional units pending approval would go on
line in 1988 and 1990.
Source: Appendix C.
4-35
-------
with 20,000 af/yr of effluent through the planning period. ANPP's
request for an additional 50,000 af/yr of effluent could not be
met in the 1990s, and could be met only marginally in the year
2000. The Buckeye Irrigation District's use of 45,000 af/yr over
the contract allotment of 30,000 af/yr could be met through 1985,
but flows would not be adequate to meet this need in the 1990-1995
period.
The projections in Table 4-8 do not include conditions that
would result under peak water need requirements of the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station. If effluent is held in reserve to
meet peak needs at the power plant, then the ability of the
treatment plants to deliver an assured supply of effluent to any
other additional user is impaired. Peak water needs are estimated
by Arizona Public Service (1978) to be 2,200 to 2,600 af/mo per
unit, or a required flow rate of of 132,000 to 156,000 af/yr for
all five units. If this range of flows must be held in reserve
for the power plant's peak needs, then there is no uncommitted
effluent in 1990, under 11,000 af/yr in 1995, and under 25,000
af/yr in the year 2000. See Appendix C for an analysis of avail-
able flows of wastewater vs. commitments for effluent.
If effluent is not available in sufficient quantities to meet
agricultural demands, farmers presently using or planning to use
effluent would be required to respond in one or more of the
following ways:
1. Seek other sources of water
2. Pay increased costs of pumping water from existing wells,
which in many cases contain water with excessive salts
for growing certain crops
3. Adjust cropping patterns
4. Reduce the size of the acreage to be irrigated.
If effluent flows from the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue plants
are insufficient to meet peak water demands of the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station (see Appendix C), ANPP may seek to
augment supplies from the Tolleson and Reems Road plants, or from
a different source of water.
Sale of Effluent
Almost all of the effluent from the planned treatment plants
will be sold for some beneficial purpose, primarily for agricul-
tural irrigation or production of power. Sale of the effluent for
4-36
-------
either purpose will tend to lower wastewater treatment costs to
consumers, although some agricultural revenues will be offset by
the costs of providing delivery systems for the effluent.
No effluent charges have been determined as yet. Effluent
used by ANPP will be sold at between $20 and $30 per acre-foot.
Except for existing contracts, charges for agricultural users
will be negotiated separately for each facility. The Buckeye
Irrigation District currently pays less than $4 per acre-foot
for effluent, while much of the surface irrigation water de-
livered through the canal system is sold at less than $6 per
acre-foot. Pumped ground water may be several times as expensive
as surface sources, depending on well depth. The importance of
these revenues from sale of effluent can be assessed by assuming a
probable price for it. If the average price received for effluent
from all sources is $15 per acre-foot, then revenues of $46 per
million gallons of treatment effluent would be available to offset
costs of treatment (plus some undetermined costs of effluent
delivery).
The planned wastewater treatment system will produce effluent
at an average cost of about $300 annually per million gallons,
covering the construction and operation of new facilities. Thus,
at an average price of $46 per million gallons, the effluent sold
(about 96 percent of all effluent produced) could recover up to 15
percent of new treatment costs.
Effluent Pricing Issues
Pricing of effluent for agricultural reuses will have to be
established on a case-by-case basis for each SROG as part of its
detailed implementation planning. Pricing is expected to be based
upon both the prevailing price for the next most available source
of water, and the ability of the reuser to pay. Establishment of
a long-term, fixed-price contract based upon today's prices could
result in a windfall profit over the long run for the recipient.
Failure to provide adequate long-term guarantees on the price of
effluent could, however, discourage potential users.
The pricing mechanism finally selected is expected to provide
for variable prices tied to, but slightly below, those charged by
alternative water suppliers, such as the Central Arizona Project.
Contractual Requirements for Agricultural Reuse
The Maricopa County Department of Health Services indicates
it will not accept agricultural irrigation as a bona fide reuse
4-37
-------
unless there is a binding contract with the property owners to
take the effluent for an extended period of time. This contract
period could range from 20 years to the life of the proposed
plant. An earlier proposal for agricultural reuse of effluent
from a plant in Sun City was denied because the continued avail-
ability of the land for that purpose was not guaranteed.
A contract to accept effluent would preclude a property owner
from developing his land into urban uses during the life of the
agreement, unless an approved alternative reuse were identified,
and would probably not be acceptable to property owners who
anticipate urbanizing their land in the next 20 years. It would
also restrict use of the land to cultivation of crops not used
directly for human consumption.
The Gila River Indian Community plans to maintain large-
scale agricultural operations indefinitely, and no conflict is
anticipated. The 208 Plan assumes that there will be farmers on
non-Indian lands willing to contract for effluent in areas not
expected to urbanize by the year 2000. If contracts cannot be
obtained, however, the affected SROGs will have to either (1)
purchase the land necessary for the reuse (as anticipated around
the north Gilbert plant) or (2) find an alternative reuse.
Impacts of Plan Implementation
Employment and Capital Expenditures
Table 4-9 shows the number of new jobs created at each of the
major plant locations. The highest figures correspond to ultimate
plant capacities. From both a local and regional perspective, the
additional employment created by the planned facilities would be
negligible.
Estimated capital expenditures for construction of the
planned treatment facilities total approximately $160 million.
Most of these costs will be incurred in the construction of the
plants and sewer lines and, therefore, represent payments to the
local construction industry. The impact of the proposed expen-
ditures can be assessed by comparing this level of expenditure to
the total volume of construction activity in the metro area.
Dollar value of building permits in Maricopa County has
averaged $734 million annually from 1973 through 1977, ranging
from a low of about $484 million in 1975 to a high of over $1,100
million in 1977 (Valley National Bank, 1977). Estimated costs
for the wastewater treatment system outlined in the MAG 208 Plan
4-38
-------
Table 4-9
DIRECT EMPLOYMENT AT PROPOSED FACILITIES
Site
Number of
New Jobs
Created
Chandler
5-7
Gilbert, North
3-4
Gilbert, South
Tolleson
10
91st Avenue
15-30
23rd Avenue
Reems Road
Total
39-57
4-39
-------
total $160 million. Spread over a 13-year period (assuming
construction is in place by 1992), these costs, at an annual
average of $12.3 million per year, would represent about 1.7
percent of Maricopa County's total construction dollars, if total
construction annual averages remain the same as during the 1973-
1977 period. (Since the rate of population growth over the next
10-15 years is expected to slow somewhat, the 1973-1977 averages
seem reasonable.)
Compared to the added costs associated with providing on-site
sewage treatment for each development project or individual
building, the level of expenditure for the treatment plant system
would not, by itself, significantly impact the local economy.
However, the timing of this construction could influence the
impact on the regional economy. If major facility construction is
initiated during a period of heavy construction activity, it will
tend to encourage inflation of materials and labor costs. By
contrast, facility construction could have a counter-cyclical
effect if initiated during a depressed construction period.
Costs of Treatment to the Public
The future costs per household of wastewater treatment, under
the point source metro plan, will vary from community to community
but will be higher, overall, than current costs. Costs of treat-
ment facilities in the point source metro plan are shown in
Chapter 2 (Tables 2-7 and 2-8, pp. 2-32 - 2-38). Table 4-10
presents cost comparisons among communities by showing unit costs
based on sewage flows in excess of each community's existing
treatment capacity at its respective facility under the selected
plan. On the whole, unit costs show less variation when calcu-
lated in this manner, but considerable variation among communities
is evident.
Part of this variation is due to the fact that some communi-
ties incur costs for an entirely new treatment system while others
are paying for only an expansion of existing facilities. Other
major cost variations are explained by the necessity of some
communities to provide interceptor lines to new or expanded
treatment facilities. This condition is common for communities at
some distance from the treatment plant, such as El Mirage and
Surprise.
Figures in Table 4-10 are somewhat misleading for cities
whose primary expense under the new plan is construction of
interceptors. Scottsdale, for example, incurs considerable costs
of interceptor line construction while expanding its present
4-40
-------
Table 4-10
PROJECT COSTS
Facility &
Community
91st Avenue
El Mirage
Gilbert
Glendale
Guadalupe
Luke AFB
Mesa
Paradise Valley
Phoenix
Scottsdale
Sun City
Surprise
Tempe
Young town
Subtotal
Chandler
Chandler
Gilbert
North Plant
South Plant
Tolleson
Peoria
Tolleson
Reems Road
Avondale
Goodyear
Litchfield Park
Subtotal
Totals
FOR NEW FACILITIES BY COMMUNITYa
Flow in
Excess of .
_. Equivalent
Present . , _ u
, Annual Cost0
Capacity/ /•>. w. , , . \
_ , . ($ Million)
Ownership
(MGD)
0.60
0.40
4.50
0.70
1.40
10.70
0.90
9.13
0.50
3.17
0.62
9.60
_c
42.22d
2.6
2.7
0.9
4.7
_e
2.8
1.3
1.3
5.4
58.52
0.250
0.124
1.342
0.185
0.372
3.537
0.221
2.782
0.503
0.839
0.275
3.087
0.025
13.542
1.097
0.503
0.161
0.821
0.07
0.660
0.266
0.365
1.291
17.485
Unit Costb
($/MG)
1 ,141
849
817
724
728
906
673
835
2,756
725
1 ,215
881
489
879
1,156
510
490
479
107
646
561
769
655
819
Annual
House-
hold
Cost
($/Yr)
91
68
65
58
58
72
54
67
220
58
97
70
39
70
92
41
39
38
9
52
45
62
52
65
aFacilities included in this analysis are those in selected
Alternative 2.
^Included capital and O&M costs.
cNo new treatment costs, interceptor only, unit cost based on
.14 mgd flows.
"Slight discrepancies exist between this total and ownership
of existing capacity, due to unused ownership of Youngtown.
eNo new treatment costs, costs for additional O&M expenses
only.
4-41
-------
treatment capacity at the 91st Avenue plant by only 5 percent.
Scottsdale's unit costs of new components appear high when based
on additional treatment capacity but are relatively low when based
on existing plus new capacity.
Costs of existing treatment facilities have been calculated
by the City of Phoenix Water and Sewer Department for the 91st
Avenue and 23rd Avenue plants. Costs covering all aspects of the
treatment system average about $325 per million gallons treated in
the current fiscal year. This figure is considerably less than
the unit cost of new components of the 91st Avenue plant. Part of
these higher costs are due to increased construction costs for the
new facilities and, in some cases, the higher levels of treatment
available under the new system.
Annual household costs, in Table 4-10, are based on an
average household sewage flow rate of 80,OCX) gallons per year; and
the figures are, therefore, proportional to those in the "unit
cost" column. High unit and household costs are associated with
two communities, El Mirage and Surprise. About one third of the
population in these communities have incomes below the poverty
level, according to the 1970 census. To the extent that these
costs were actually to be borne by households, the higher costs
in these two communities would constitute a hardship on those
families of low economic status.
However, the cost figures in Table 4-10 cannot be construed
to represent actual charges per household. The actual amount that
each household will pay for new waste treatment will depend upon
several factors, including: (1) the amount, if any, of the Federal
contribution toward capital costs for the system (expected to be
as much as 75 percent or more); (2) the methods of financing
non-Federal costs; and (3) the extent of total costs to be borne
by households, as compared with industrial and commercial users.
(City of Phoenix Water and Sewer Department figures indicate
households contribute about 55 percent of flows to the 91st Avenue
and 23rd Avenue plants. User charges for the different categories
of users may not be proportional to their contribution toward
sewage flows.)
The Redistribution of Income Through User Charges
Operation costs of the new treatment system components will
be financed through user charges. While user charges are an
efficient financing mechanism because those who use the system
pay for it, the charges impose a heavier burden on low—income
households. A poor household will pay the same for wastewater
4-42
-------
treatment as an affluent one living in the same area and dis-
charging an equal amount of wastewater. This charge will con-
stitute a larger proportion of the poor household's income than
the more affluent one; and the poor household can exercise little
discretion in the amount of sewage treatment it "buys." This
situation tends to shift income away from poorer households
relative to those with more income. This can exacerbate the
financial situation of low-income families in communities with
high treatment costs.
Access to the System by Smaller Communities
Under the Final Point Source Management Plan (MAG 208 Pro-
gram, 1979c), individual communities expecting to discharge
flows to the 91st Avenue treatment plant must "buy in" to the
system. The cost to each will be determined by its proportion of
all flows going into the plant, multiplied by the total amount of
the local (non-Federal) share of the initial capital costs. This
initial "buy-in" amount will probably be financed by bonds in most
communities.
A small community such as Guadalupe may not have an adequate
assessed value to support bonds to pay for its share of the cost
of the expanded treatment plants. The user costs per household may
also be excessive, even if the city has adequate bonding capacity
to pay for the system. The result may be either a community which
cannot afford to participate in the regional system or a community
with households paying a disproportionately high percentage of
their income for wastewater collection and treatment.
Besides Guadalupe on the eastside, kindred problems exist in
the following two westside areas:
1. El Mirage/Surprise
El Mirage and Surprise do not have the necessary popula-
tion to support their own system and may not have an
adequate tax base to meet the costs of tying into the
91st Avenue facility.
2. Goodyear/Avondale
These communities have limited resources and could have
difficulty tying into the proposed Reems Road plant.
4-43
-------
Additional study will be required to determine whether these areas
can finance their share of the system costs without placing an
unusually heavy burden on their residents.
Institutional Changes
A key element in the 208 planning process is the identifica-
tion of a management structure with sufficient authority to
implement the plan and operate the treatment system. Out of
all the existing public bodies in the MAG region involved in
wastewater management, none had the capability required to adopt
and carry out the 208 Plan on a coordinated regional basis.
Following a review of available management options, MAG 208
Program participants selected a system which establishes MAG
as the overall planning agency, with a number of Subregional
Operating Groups (SROG's) responsible for operation of the indi-
vidual facilities. The SROG's are made up of a lead agency and
individual communities. (For a more complete description of the
management system, see pp. 2-39 - 2-42.) This system has been
established through a series of intergovernmental contracts in
which local governments in the region delegate certain powers and
responsibilities to both MAG and the SROG's. Each SROG, in turn,
designates a lead agency, subject to MAG Regional Council's
approval, to carry out staff activities on behalf of the sub-
regional group members.
Since MAG retains overall responsibility not only for plan-
ning but for assuring implementation and coordination of the
adopted plans, the Regional Council will assume an expanded role
in Maricopa County which is likely to be reflected in other
regional concerns as well. The SROG's, serving as smaller ver-
sions of MAG, take the place of another formal level of government
and utilize existing local government structures to the fullest
extent possible.
The system chosen was considered to be the least disruptive
to the present political structure and, therefore, the most
acceptable to individual communities. Successful functioning of
the system, however, requires a commitment on the part of each
organizational level to cooperate in carrying out the overall
wastewater management plan. Cooperation is needed among indi-
vidual communities within each SROG, and SROG's must be willing
to operate under the adopted regional plan and the overview of
MAG. At the same time, communities must be willing to accept an
expansion of MAG's authority. Most likely, the SROG's will help
insulate MAG from direct confrontation with member communities
4-44
-------
over possible disputed 208 issues. The increased awareness
of common regional concerns and interests fostered by the 208
process to date and the new institutional arrangements needed to
implement the plan can be expected to carry over into other
regional programs and prove a benefit to the region.
Implication of 208 Plan for the Rio Salado Project
Several wastewater treatment plant locations were proposed
and analyzed earlier in the 208 planning process and subsequently
eliminated. Among these was a plant in Phoenix at 48th Street
near the Salt River. A plant in this location could have effi-
ciently provided effluent to the proposed Rio Salado project to
irrigate turf and supply surface water for the river park. In
fact, the provision of effluent to the Rio Salado was the primary
reason for consideration of this plant site. The decision to
delete the plant was based on, among other things, uncertainty
regarding the Rio Salado project and the lack of economic justifi-
cation for the higher cost associated with inclusion of the plant.
This decision does not preclude consideration of the plant in
the future, either when the treatment system needs to be expanded
or when other priorities within the planning process dictate such
reconsideration. Some of the same constraints to selection of the
48th Street site may still be present, however. In the absence of
the plant, the feasibility of using effluent to support the Rio
Salado project is lessened.
While the use of effluent to supply the project is expected
to be less expensive than potable supplies or CAP water, there are
health and aesthetic problems associated with its usage. Other
supplies, e.g., ground water, may prove to be available in suffi-
cient quantities to support Rio Salado.
4.2.5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS
The selected plan has the potential for disturbing archaeo-
logical sites, mainly by direct removal or destruction of arti-
facts during construction of interceptor lines. Table 4-11 shows
the miles of interceptor lines in the selected plan that traverse
areas thought to contain significant archaeological resources.
These areas are based on an archaeological resource inventory
compiled for the study area (Burton, 1977). Based on the assump-
tion that similar environments will have had similar prehistoric
usage, the various environmental zones within the study area were
evaluated in terms of predicted site density and average potential
4-45
-------
Table 4-11
MILES OF INTERCEPTOR LINE IN
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY ZONES
Facility Miles of Interceptor Line by Sensitivity Zone
Very High High Moderate Low
Chandler - - 5.4 9.0
Gilbert - 19.3
Tolleson - - 1.0 8.0
Reems Road - 8.5 - 1.0
91st Avenue 0.2 7.5 4.0 15.2
23rd Avenue
Source: Burton, 1977
4-46
Totals 0.2 16.0 10.4 52.5
-------
site significance and were ranked in accord with their overall
archaeological sensitivity.
Very high sensitivity was attributed to properties on or
presently under consideration for nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places, while high sensitivity was attributed
to other areas expected to contain a high density of very sig-
nificant archaeological resources. Moderate-sensitivity zones
were presumed to have fewer sites and/or less significant archaeo-
logical remains, while low-sensitivity zones were expected to have
very few sites and/or sites of little significance.
The archaeological information shown in Table 4-11 is based,
in large part, on predicted, rather than recorded, archaeological
data and is, therefore, highly generalized. Not all areas of high
sensitivity are known, nor are areas designated as low-sensitivity
zones known to be totally free of significant archaeological
resources. In all cases an intensive, on-foot survey of areas
that will be directly affected by construction will be necessary
before archaeological clearance can be given. EPA will not award
201 facility construction grants without a demonstration of
archaeological clearance.
An inventory of historic sites ia the Phoenix area (Hall,
1977) identified more than 550 existing historic sites. Proposed
projects in the wastewater management plan were reviewed by the
Acting State Historic Preservation Officer, and no historic
resources on the National Register of Historic Places were identi-
fied as being affected by the plan (Garrison, 1979). An archaeo-
logical site on the State inventory is located near the perimeter
of the proposed Reems Road facility, and siting studies will be
required to assure that artifacts would be protected during plant
construction.
4.2.6 MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Some adverse impacts of the wastewater management plan can be
remedied by implementing mitigative measures during detailed
planning. These measures have been identified throughout Section
4.2. Suggested measures to be employed by delegated agencies are
summarized in Table 4-12.
4-47
-------
Table 4-12
MITIGATIVE MEASURES
Source Activity
Potential Impact
Operation of 91st Avenue
treatment plant.
00
Operation of 23rd Avenue
treatment plant.
Participation of Guada-
lupe, El Mirage, Surprise,
Goodyear, and Avondale in
regional treatment system.
Construction of inter-
ceptor lines.
Continued odor, insect, and
public health problems for
nearby residents, particularly
in the Gila River Indian
Community.
Continued odor, insect, and
public health problems for
nearby urbanized area.
Inability to finance partici-
pation through community
revenues or disproportionately
high share of individual house-
hold income to finance system
operations.
Disturbance or destruction of
archaeological artifacts.
Increases in fugitive dust.
Mitigation
Improved maintenance, upgrad-
ing and replacing existing
facilities, disinfecting ef-
fluent, and providing adequate
buffers, fencing, and warning
signs.
Same as mitigations for 91st
Avenue plant.
Analysis of problem by SROG's
and development of cost-
sharing alternatives, if
warranted.
Site inspection by qualified
archaeologist prior to con-
struction and resource recov-
ery, if warranted.
Adherence to Arizona fugitive
dust regulations.
-------
Table 4-12 (Cont.)
Source Activity
Potential Impact
Mitigation
Reuse of effluent from
Tolleson and north Gil-
bert plants.
Potential increases in nitrate
concentrations in ground water,
Reanalysis of nitrogen load-
ings for agricultural reuse,
regular monitoring of ground
water in vicinity of site, and
adjustment in treatment or re-
use activities if warranted.
Construction associated
with 91st Avenue, Chand-
ler, Reems Road, and
Gilbert facilities.
Loss of about 700 acres of
terrestrial habitat and about
20 acres of aquatic habitat.
Include biological enhancement
considerations in design of
new and expanded treatment
facilities.
Reduction in effluent
discharges to Salt River.
Degradation of riparian habi-
tat from 91st Avenue to 115th
Avenue.
Study of habitat, including
identification of any special-
status plants and wildlife,
and development of plans to
minimize diversions and assure
adequate water supply for val-
uable habitat.
-------
4.3 IMPACTS OF GROWTH
4.3.1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANNING AND REGIONAL GROWTH
As described in Section 3.2.4, the population of the Phoenix
metropolitan area is growing rapidly. This growth is attributed
primarily to the climate, retirement amenities, business oppor-
tunities, and the general life-style of this "sunbelt" region.
Undoubtedly, the recent extreme winter weather in the East and
Midwest, coupled with heating fuel supplies, has helped increase
inmigration to the Southwest.
Increased population densities require increases in public
services, including sewage-treatment services. The MAG 208 Plan
was predicated on the need to service planned-for growth in the
Phoenix area. Although sewage-treatment service is not expected
to induce significant growth, the provision of this service
responds to growth and helps support it. A general assessment
of regional growth is included in this EIS to demonstrate the
secondary and tertiary effects of the wastewater management plan's
support of growth in the Phoenix area.
The Regional Plan adopted by MAG (1978) was used as a foun-
dation for 208 planning. Thus, the 208 wastewater management plan
is closely related to the Regional Plan and dependent upon many of
its projections. The Regional Plan is described in Section 4.3.2.
To help assess the impacts of growth as provided for in the Re-
gional Plan, conditions in the area without any added or expanded
municipal wastewater-treatment facilities ("without project") are
also described (Section 4.3.3). These conditions are summarized
from the DEIS Section 3.2 description of the "no action" alter-
native and the Arthur Beard Engineers (1978c) description of
"future-without" conditions.
4.3.2 MAG REGIONAL PLAN
The MAG Guide for Regional Development, Transportation and
Housing (1978) is a policy plan drafted to provide a framework for
coordinating the physical planning activities of the region. The
report includes goals and objectives, and policies for achieving
these, in the areas of overall development, population growth,
transportation, and housing within the planning area.
The Guide's Regional Development Plan is intended to be a
composite of the plans of local jurisdictions. The local plans
are subject to continual updating and revising, but all share a
number of underlying land-use goals and objectives agreed upon by
4-50
-------
MAG member jurisdictions. Briefly summarized, these common goals
and objectives call for:
1. A commitment to plan for growth on a coordinated regional
basis
2. Encouragement of land use patterns which are efficient in
terms of transportation needs, provision of services, and
other factors
3. Preservation of agricultural and other open space in
those areas where development is not needed, or until it
is needed
4. Provision of adequate recreational open-space opportuni-
ties for the area's growing population
5. Provision of new development with a "full range of urban
facilities and services commensurate with the character
of the subregion" (Guide, p. II-l)
6. Application of local development policies which balance
public costs of development with demand for new housing,
commercial space, and other uses.
Within the framework of these common goals and objectives,
the Plan also embodies a number of concepts and assumptions
affecting development patterns. These include:
1. The assumption that the trend of rapid growth sustained
over the last several decades will slow somewhat, but
remain strong enough for the metro study area population
to reach up to 2.3 million by the year 2000
2. The designation of "open space" for those areas con-
sidered unsuited for development due to: (1) flood,
subsidence, noise, and safety hazards; (2) presence of
environmentally sensitive features such as prime recrea-
tional opportunities, archaeological sites, and so forth
3. The assumption that irrigated agricultural activity will
probably not expand into presently natural areas, due to
the designation of Maricopa County as a "critical ground-
water area"
4. The designation, by local jurisdictions, of "Regional
Activity Centers" for more intensive development of all
4-51
-------
urban uses and coordination into regional plans for
transportation, etc.
As a basic component of the Guide, population increases
expected to occur over the next 20 years were allocated throughout
the urbanized area of Maricopa County. The allocations provide a
common means of determining the effect of future growth on both
small areas and the region as a whole. The basic unit of popula-
tion allocation is the Community Aggregate Planning Model (CAPM)
zone. Population changes up to the year 2000 were allocated to
these zones in a manner consistent with local plans and MAG
regional planning objectives. MAG adopted these population
figures for planning the 208 regional wastewater treatment system
(see Table 2-1).
The Guide recognizes that a viable transportation system is a
vital element in the continued growth and development of the
region and in the maintenance of the high-quality life style
enjoyed by many area residents. Goals for transportation con-
tained in the Guide center around promoting a system which is
efficient, safe, and energy conserving and which also accommodates
the diverse travel needs of different segments of society. Future
major transportation corridors identified in the Guide are con-
sistent with State and Federal transportation plans.
The presence of a sizable substandard housing stock in the
region is addressed in the Guide. Goals within the document's
Housing Element call for promoting the availability of decent
housing at minimal cost and for taking action which will help
disperse a broad range of housing opportunities throughout the
region and avoid problems of inadequate housing opportunities that
have plagued many rapidly growing West Coast cities.
4.3.3 "WITHOUT-PROJECT" CONDITIONS
Impacts of providing a regional wastewater treatment system
can be measured by comparing the planned patterns of regional
development, population distribution, and other elements with
patterns that would develop in the absence of any new or expanded
municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
Present wastewater treatment plants in the Phoenix area are
essentially operating at capacity. It has been assumed, for
purposes of this analysis, that no new construction of municipal
wastewater treatment facilities would occur after 1980, nor would
existing facilities be upgraded and expanded to handle increased
flows. All flows not presently sewered would be treated by septic
4-52
-------
tank systems or small, privately owned package plants. Tabula-
tions in Table 4-13 show the population figures and quantities of
sewered and unsewered wastewater if these conditions were to
prevail. By the year 2000, approximately 45 percent of the
population in the Phoenix area would rely on septic tanks or
private package plants for wastewater treatment.
These "without-project" conditions were developed to isolate
the effects of the selected wastewater management plan. The
likelihood of the conditions occurring is somewhat remote. In
fact, a failure to provide new treatment facilities would imply
that many other governmental and institutional arrangements would
have regressed from their current status. However, these condi-
tions do provide an important, if theoretical, measure of the
effect of the selected wastewater plan in the context of regional
growth.
Overall population for the Phoenix area is assumed to be the
same for both with- and without-project futures. Since planning
for the regional wastewater treatment system used MAG's population
projections, the wastewater treatment facilities that would be
available in the study area would not influence changes in the
amount of growth. These facilities would, however, affect where
this growth occurs, the type of growth, and, ultimately, the
quality of life in the study area. In the absence of new, munici-
pally owned or operated wastewater treatment facilities, it has
been projected that lower density new development would occur, and
this development would spread over a larger area than projected by
MAG. The number of persons per square mile in the newly developed
areas would be reduced below the level shown in the MAG Guide,
especially in those areas that do not have excess treatment
capacity and/or have soil conditions that would limit the use of
septic tanks.
To more precisely measure these effects, the following
assumptions and procedures were used to reallocate projected
population growth within the study area in the absence of new
municipal wastewater treatment facilities (Arthur Beard Engineers,
1978c):
1. Current density was assumed to remain unchanged within
a district which had more population than could be
supported on individual septic-tank units. No excess
capacity was assumed except in Tolleson.
2. No specific projections of the location of high-density
clusters using package plants and private systems were
4-53
-------
Table 4-13
FUTURE QUANTITIES OF SEWERED
AND UNSEWERED WASTEWATERa
(Without-Project Conditions)
MAG Percent Acre-Feet/ Acre-Feet/ . „ ,
Year Urban Area Un- Year Un- Year cr^ J^,
. . „ . Year Total
Population sewered sewered Sewered
1975 1,229,000 7.2 9,889 127,454 137,343
1980 1,386,000 10.8 16,719 138,085 154,804
1985 1,588,000 22.1 38,110 134,332 172,442
1990 1,799,000 31.3 59,766 131,181 190,947
1995 2,015,000 38.6 81,196 129,156 210,352
2000 2,260,000 45.3 104,937 126,712 231,649
a"Sewered"—with existing wastewater treatment facilities;
"unsewered"—serviced by septic tanks or private package plants.
Source: Arthur Beard Engineers, Inc., 1978c.
4-54
-------
made. Although the continued use of small plants and
package plants in larger developments would be extended,
it was not possible to project the exact locations of
these developments except in a few instances.
3. Future population density in unsewered areas was deter-
mined on the basis of soil capability. Conservatively
high carrying capacity estimates were as follows: Areas
with severe soil limitations were assumed to support 0 to
1 unit per acre, or 800 persons per square mile. Areas
with moderate soil limitations were assumed to support 1
to 2 units per acre, or 1,600 persons per square mile.
Areas with slight limitation were assumed to support 2 to
3 units per acre, or 3,200 persons per square mile,
Where a combination of soil types exists, the saturation
point was based upon approximate propertion of each soil
type.
4. Reallocations of population from one area to another were
based on soil conditions rather than existing septic-tank
regulations within the jurisdiction. This is because
regulations governing septic tanks may change during tHe.
planning period.
4.3.A POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND DISTRIBUTION
Population projections upon which regional planning is based
were developed by the Arizona Department of Economic Security
(DBS), which is the designated State agency for projecting future
population levels. The county-wide DES figures were allocated by
MAG to smaller areas in a manner consistent with local plans and
MAG regional planning objectives. The basic unit of population
allocation is the Community Aggregate Planning Model (CAPM) zone.
These zones are aggregated (and split as necessary) to make up
municipal and county planning areas.
Total population in the metropolitan area is expected to
reach 2,268,000 by the year 2000, according to MAG's adopted
Guide. The adopted distribution of this population within the
study area is shown in Table 2-1 of this report (p. 2-5). This
distribution assumes that new municipal wastewater treatment
facilities will be built and that the future land use plan adopted
for the region will be realized by the year 2000,
State population projections are reviewed on a yearly basis,
and MAG periodically reallocates projected populations within the
study area as required to accommodate significant changes in
4-55
-------
overall projections. During the period In which impacts of the
HAG 208 Plan Here being assessed, some MAG member communities
expressed the opinion that allocated populations were too low. To
the extent that these observations are correct, the deficiencies
will be reflected in changes to the 208 Plan as it is updated.
Population distribution under without-project conditions is
shown in Table 4-14. In this table, MAG year-2000 projected
densities and year-2000 densities under without-project conditions
are compared for each CAPM rone. The far-right-hand column shows
the year-2000 difference in population for each zone assuming no
new wastewater treatment facilities are built. Zones that show
population losses are those that are projected, under the MAG
plan, to receive more additional population than could be sup-
ported by septic tank systems, based on soil characteristics. The
zones that gain population are receiving the spillover effects
from neighboring areas and reach the populations shown based
either on maximum septic tank system carrying capacity or the
population to be accommodated from neighboring zones.
Without the project, population would be reallocated gen-
erally In the following manner. The Northeast service area would
absorb any spillover population from adjacent Central and East
service areas that would not completely absorb surplus populations
within CAPM zones inside their own boundaries. Part of the east
and all of the Southeast service areas would lose excess pop-
ulation to adjacent CAPM zones outside these service areas'
boundaries. In general, Goodyear and the County districts gain
most of the shift toward more remote, rural areas. Other dis-
tricts that make significant shifts within their own CAPM zones
and service areas are Phoenix, Avondale, and Peoria. Westside
service areas have far fewer urban or saturated districts than
eastside service areas. A summary of population reallocated
between service areas under without-project conditions in the year
2000 is given in Table 4-15.
4.3.5 LAND USE
The general land use pattern expected under the MAG Regional
Plan is shown on Figure 4-2. The pattern illustrated is based on
the goals of the MAG Guide and on the assumption that the year-
2000 population for the Phoenix metropolitan area will reach up to
2.3 million, or about double the 1975 population. (The MAG
metropolitan area designation varies from the point source metro-
politan area in that the Buckeye area is not included in the MAG
area.) Land use In this area is affected primarily by the conver-
sion of agricultural land and open space to urban uses.
4-56
-------
TABLE 4-14
PROJECTED POPULATION DENSITIES
AND NET POPULATION GAIN OR LOSS BY CAPM ZONE, YEAR 2000
(Without Project Conditions)
Service Areas
(Eastslde Areas)
Northeast
Scottsdale
Paradise Valley
Phoenix
Central-91st Avenue
Area Outside CAPM
Central-23rd Avenue
Paradise Valley
Southeast
Phoenix
Te^e
Chandler
Gilbert
County
East Paradise Valley
Scottsdale
Phoenix
Teape
CAPM
Zone
6
14
15
28
26
27
13
26
12
3
4
5
10
11
12
13
17
18
24
34
35
40
43
51
52
53
54
55
61
42
12
17
18
24
25
26
27
35
36
37
41
42
43
51
26
27
61
54
55
61
56
61
62
66
56
57
58
62
63
64
67
27
28P
28P
38P
38P
42
43
44
55
Area
(sq. mi.)
43-0
8.5
23.0
6.5
2.0
9.2
11.4
2.3
3.0
13.0
20.0
24.0
8.0
10.1
2.0
4.0
10.9
4.0
5.9
9.9
6.5
29.4
8.4
8.2
29.7
20.5
8,9
1.2
0.5
1.0
28.0
5.9
4.0
5.3
3.0
12.5
7.4
6.4
3.5
5.0
8.0
5.9
8.0
1.4
9.4
1.8
2.0
1.0
1.9
4.1
3.6
5.1
12.9
14.6
18.0
1.1
8.1
9.0
0.4
20.0
9.3
7.6
1.0
1.6
2.1
7.9
4.0
2.5
1.0
24.9
7.9
1975
Density
(sq. ml.)
0
540
30
391
11
530
926
1,038
4,978
469
656
167
2,342
1,040
1,798
40
4,717
853
6,215
6,300
2,973
513
497
1,812
320
2,192
1
1,200
18
5,037
33
2,345
3,611
2,878
5,467
4,861
1,508
2,267
5,660
8,696
5,377
4,663
5,082
3.899
1,567
1,464
1,592
18
56
1,007
45
111
61
1,385
29
149
444
87
833
72
353
104
1,060
2,000
4,800
4,466
5,423
917
155
3,120
1,308
MAr,b
2000
Density
(sq. ml.)
58
905
622
1,354
21
723
3,070
1,982
5,000
2,431
2,390
1,600
4,000
3,406
3,300
2,150
5,009
1,163
6,271
6,737
2,608
1,323
83
1,562
1,212
2,917
2,955
5,167
2,272
5,850
182
2,932
3,950
3,519
5,533
4,992
2,379
2,391
4,857
11,440
5,488
4,831
5,606
1,000
755
2,310
2,344
2,264
2,895
5,146
2,333
3,100
2,324
2,929
230
3,019
2,585
357
2,995
206
377
987
1,550
4.188
5,476
4,316
5,225
2,000
. 0
4,560
5,190
Without
Project"
2000
Density
(sq. mi.)
2,000
2,500
1,200
1,200
1,200
2,600
1,600
1,200
5,000
800
800
1,600
2,342
1,040
800
1,600
4,717
1,200
6,215
6,300
2,608
1,200
1,200
1,562
2,000
2,192
1,600
1,600
1,600
5,037
1,000
2,345
3,611
2,878
5,467
4,861
1,508
2,267
5,660
8,696
5,377
4,663
5,082
1,000
755
1.464
1,592
1,600
1,600
1,600
2,000
800
2,000
1,385
1,400
800
800
800
833
1,200
AFB
2,000
1,060
2,000
4,800
4,316
5,225
2,000
3,380
2,500
Net Gain
or loss
(CAPM Zone)
83,500
25,300
13,300 '
- 1,000
2,300
17,500
-16,800
- 1,800
0
-21,200
-31,000
0
-13,000
-24,000
- 3,000
- 2,200
- 3,200
0
0
- 4,100
0
- 2,500
11,000
0
24,000
-15,000
-12,000
- 4,300
300
- 800
23,000
- 3,500
- 1,400
- 3,400
200
- 1,600
- 6,500
- 800
0
-13,700
900
- 1,000
- 4,200
0
0
- 1,500
- 1,500
600
- 2,300
-14,000
- 1,200
- 1,080
- 4,000
-22,500
24,700
- 2,400
-14,400
4,000
- 800
20,000
0
7,700
- 500
- 3,500
- 1,400
0
0
0
0
-29,400
-21,000
4-57
-------
TABLE 4-14 Cent.
Hess
Gilbert
County
Coedalvn*
Areas lot Served
ME
SI
(Wests Id* Areas)
ft vandal*
U HI ra(*
Glendale
Ooodjmar
Lake API
PeorU
PhoeoU
Surprise
Tollem
SOD City
TOUSS.T mm
Msrlcoe* County
I
II
til
r»
•lecludrs only those
•OssMlttee coatalBcd
coeeeltlec projected
45
46
47
48
56
57
58
59
56
57
58
48
59
55
16
60
65
68
63
67
12
33
44
50
7
8
21
2
3
9
10
22
21
20
21
11
12
49
21
2
9
19
22
21
21
22
32
33
50
8
33
40
20
21
11
4*
8
21
22
49
port lasts of study i
In HsC Cvfde for to
for study area asst
21.7
21.5
19.3
1.7
12.9
6.9
7.0
0.5
2.4
1.9
.3
28.3
14.5
1.5
20.0
21.0
42.0
18.0
16.0
10.4
6.5
11.0
0.5
11.0
1O.O
1,25
2.5
11.0
5.0
0.75
• .5
14.0
15.5
1.0
1.25
22.0
9.75
17.0
7.5
7.0
8.0
7.5
1.0
0.5
2.0
1.0
•.0
12.25
1.75
0.5
1.0
0.7i
1.0
9.0
1.J5
1.0
21.25
2.0
10.75
10.5
15.0
i.25
5.0
4.O
0.75
6.0
4.5
1.0
ires divided Into CAPM *t
•toael Development. Trai
•log no ne» or expended
3.410
842
573
245
628
130
512
1,982
152
174
267
245
1,052
285
75
5
38
45
27
67
955
16
0
165
27
1,121
0
105
32
2,102
1.089
46O
3,398
0
0
14
505
10
660
70
558
1,101
105
120
NA
12
HA
794
253
1,943
750
0
611
2.840
1,040
2.000
82
111
0
IS
10
11
198
98
6
4
4
0
mee.
Bsportation t
snnlclpal w
4,100
1,665
1.119
479
3,140
2.580
2.114
3.0OO
3,075
2,631
1,100
480
2.052
5.333
1.125
19
48
51
42
255
1.821
1.797
0
428
710
1,847
160
910
1.080
3.600
4.165
2.708
4.091
0
0
245
3.046
47
667
888
2.809
4.2O8
2,170
1.902
100
450
100
5.175
98
3.886
3.780
100
0
3.614
1.112
2.617
2.200
1.342
500
830
207
12
20
385
170
268
247
254
0
md Bousing (1978)
istevater treetawn
3,410
1,900
1,200
1,200
1,200
800
1.2OO
1,980
800
800
800
1,200
2,000
2,000
1,125
1.000
1,000
1,000
1,000
450
2.0OO
1,200
600
1,800
6OO
600
1,200
600
600
2,102
1.090
1,200
3.200
1,600
1,600
2,500
2,500
1,900
667
2.000
1.2OO
1,200
1,200
1,200
600
1.2OO
MX)
1,200
600
1,943
Excess
Capacity
3,200
3,200
3,200
3,200
2.000
1,200
2,500
600
470
470
490
490
490
3,000
1,900
600
1,200
.
t faclllti
- 3.40O
4,700
0
20,000
-25,000
-13,500
- 6,400
600
- 5,500
- 3,500
90
20,000
0
- 2,300
0
20,500
40,000
17.0OO
15,200
2,070
180
- 6.560
300
15.090
- 1,100
- 2,350
2,600
- 3,400
- 2,400
- 1,120
-26.150
-21,100
-10,730
1,600
2,000
49,600
- 5,500
31,500
0
13,110
- 9,040
-29,560
- 2,910
350
500
100
500
-31,800
7,350
- 3.400
Exists
2,400
- I.3OO
800
1.900
200
- 3,000
4,000
- 3,000
- 8.180
6,900
2,460
520
1,280
2,600
6,100
1,200
3,600
es.
SDBKE: Arthur lend Eaclne*r». Inc.. 1978c
4-58
-------
Table 4-15
SUMMARY
BETWEEN
OF POPULATION
SERVICE AREAS
REALLOCATED
, YEAR 2000
(Without-Project Conditions)
Service Area
(Eastside areas)
Southeast
Northeast
Central (19th)
Central (23rd)
East
CAPM zones out-
side service
area3
(Westside areas)
Avondale
El Mirage
Glendale
Goodyear
Peoria
Phoenix
Sun City
Surprise
Tolleson
Youngtown
County districts
TOTALS
Total Popu-
lation Loss
Within Ser-
vice Area
- 63,280
- 19,600
-136,600
- 40,200
-128,990
0
- 6,560
- 3,450
- 64,900
- 5,300
- 41,860
- 31,800
- 1,300
- 3,400
0
200
0
-547,440
Total Pop-
ulation
Gained
Within Ser-
vice Area
+ 56,400
+141,900
+ 58,000
0
+ 37,600
+ 94,770
+ 15,572
+ 2,600
0
+ 82,900
+ 13,110
+ 8,650
+ 5,100
0
0
0
+ 30,840
+547,440
Total Loss .
or Gain to
Adjacent
Service Area
- 6,880
+122,300
- 76,600
- 40,200
- 91,390
+ 94,770
+ 9,010
850
- 64,900
+ 77,600
- 28,750
- 23,150
+ 3,800
- 3,400
0
200
+ 30,840
0
aZones 60,65,68,63 partial and 67 partial at 62.5 percent
saturation 1000 pop/sq.mi.
Source: Arthur Beard Engineers, Inc., 1978c.
4-59
-------
The extent of the urbanized area expected under the MAG
Regional Plan in the year 2000, compared to the existing area, is
shown on Figure 4-3. This additional area represents a somewhat
•ore dense pattern of development than that of the existing
urbanized area. From an existing average density of 3,500 persons
per square mile, the future area would accommodate an average
of between 4,000 and 4,500 persons per square ttLle due to the
expected in-filling of vacant parcels within the existing area and
the provision of a greater amount of higher density housing
(Maricopa Association of Governments, 1978).
The amount of land expected to convert from agricultural and
natural use to urban uses up to the year 2000 with and without the
project is shown in Table 4-16. Under the MAG Regional Plan,
urban land area more than doubles, while agricultural land is
reduced by approximately half. (Virtually all irrigated farmland
In the metropolitan area, including that expected to convert
to urban use, is designated "prime" farmland by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.) Natural area,
the predominant land use in the metro area, is reduced by only
11 percent.
Under witbout-project conditions, 67 percent more urbanized
area would be created than would exist with the project. Losses
of agricultural and natural lands beyond the 1975 base would be
28 percent and 145 percent greater, respectively, without the
project. Differences in land use between the with-project and
without-project conditions are Illustrated on Figure 4-4.
4.3.6 TRANSPORTATION
The Transportation System Plan for the region consists of
three main elements:
1. Long-Range Transportation System Plan
2. Transportation System Management Element
3. Regional Airport Systems Plan
The Long-Range Transportation System Plan consists of a
planned system of streets, highways, expressways and freeways,
and the planned transit system. It is the basis for specific
route-location studies and the source from which projects can be
selected for the 5-year improvement program.
The backbone of the Transportation Plan is the system of
major streets on a 1-mile grid pattern throughout the metropolitan
area. Several freeway extensions are also planned for future
4-60
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Existing Urban Area
Future Urban Development
(2.5 million population)
Source: Maricopa Association of Governments, 1978.
EXISTING AND FUTURE
AREAS OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Figure 4-3
-------
Table 4-16
PROJECTED CHANGES IN LAND USE WITH AND WITHOUT
NEW MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
1975-2000
Urban Agricultural Natural
Year
Acres c M. Acres „ M. Acres «. M.
(1,000) **• ltt- (1,000) ^^ "^ (1,000) ^^ ™"
Without New Municipal Wastewater Treatment
1975 231.7« 334 366.6 572.8 840.6 1,313
1980 318.9 498 312.6 488 789.1 1,247
1985 376.6 588 283.3 443 760.9 1,189
1990 477.7 746 231.3 361 711.8 1,112
1995 578.8 904 180.8 282 661.2 1,033
2000 678.7 1,060 129.8 203 612.3 957
Net
Change
1975-
2000 465.0 (236.8) (228.3)
With New Municipal Wastewater Treatment
1975 213.7a 334 366.6 572.8 840.6 1,313
1980 276.4 432 324.8 507 819.7 1,281
1985 310.1 485 302.3 472 808.5 1,263
1990 370.7 579 261.9 409 788.3 1,232
1995 431.4 674 221.6 346 767.9 1,200
2000 492.2 769 181.2 283 747.5 1,168
Net
Change
1975-
2000 278.5 (185.4) (93.1)
^Figures are adjusted to reflect exclusion of regional parks
froa "urban" designation.
4-64
-------
1975
2000 — With new
treatment facilities
9% Agricultural
2000 — No new
treatment facilities
LAND USE BY TYPE
METROPOLITAN PHOENIX
Figure 4-4
4-65
-------
years. While plans include the expansion of the present bus
system, public transit is expected to remain a relatively insig-
nificant mode of travel through the end of the century.
Travel in the Phoenix area will increase with growth expected
under the Regional Development Plan. Although travel volumes and
patterns will vary according to the final configurations of road
and transit systems, land use, etc., vehicle miles of travel (VMT)
in the year 2000 are expected to be approximately double the 1975
VMT of 18.2 million per day (Maricopa Association of Governments,
1977). Expanded public transit systems could reduce the VMT
in the Phoenix area, but the low-density, dispersed land use
configuration set forth in the Regional Development Plan is not
compatible with efficient transit systems. MAG researchers
estimate that an expanded version of the present bus system could
account for only 1.7 percent of person trips in the metropolitan
area in the year 2000 (Maricopa Association of Governments, 1977).
This compares to 0.6 percent of person trips attributed to public
transit in 1976.
Under without-project conditions, the much larger area of
urbanization would significantly increase normal driving distances
within the metropolitan area above those projected by MAG. This
more dispersed urban area would also preclude much of the savings
in future VMT expected in the Transportation Plan because it
would make Improved public transit and carpooling systems less
efficient.
4.3.7 HOUSING
The total number of new housing units required in the metro-
politan area by the year 2000 is expected to be the same under
both project and without-project conditions. This is because
both futures assume the same total population and demographic
composition of residents. Projected future housing demand for
Maricopa County is indicated in Table 4-17.
The difference between project and without-project conditions
would occur in the type of new housing built in the area. The
number and proportion of new multiple-family units, townhouses,
and mobile homes increased dramatically in Maricopa County between
1970 and 1975. During these years, 1.2 multiple-family units were
built to every single-family unit built. If new municipal waste-
water facilities are provided, this trend toward a much higher
percentage of multiple-family units and townhouses in new housing
starts would continue.
4-66
-------
Table 4-17
PROJECTED FUTURE HOUSING DEMAND,
MARICOPA COUNTY
Year _ ^^ Households Avera§e Vacant Total
Populations uuseiiuj-u*, gize Unitsa
1975 1,245,000 429,334 2.86 32,315 461,649
1980 1,483,500 540,653 2.74 34,509 575,163
1985 1,612,000 608,301 2.65 32,017 640,318
1990 1,836,118 700,021 2.64 36,843 736,865
1995 2,060,236 791,741 2.62 41,671 833,412
2000 2,297,000 883,461 2.60 46,499 929,960
aVacancy rates equal 7% to 1975, 6% to 1980, and 5% there-
after .
SOURChS: Maricopa Association of Governments, 1978; Arthur Beard
Engineers, Inc., 1978c.
4-67
-------
Without new municipal wastewater treatment facilities, this
trend would be expected to reverse due to lower overall densities
and greater dispersion of new development. Single-family units
would again dominate the new construction market. By 1985, it is
projected that only one multiple—family unit would be built during
the 10-year period for every 3.2 single-family units built. This
ratio would remain constant through the year 2000. Because fewer
new townhouse and multiple-family units would be built, con-
struction costs per unit and costs of housing generally would be
greater. Other expenditures, including community facilities,
services, and developer costs would also be higher for low-density
(single-family) versus high-density (multiple-family) units.
4.3.8 ECONOMY
Changes in the area's economy as a result of growth will stem
primarily from the reduction of agricultural output. As cropland
is replaced by urban uses, Maricopa County's critical ground water
status will probably prevent expansion of agriculture into more
remote locations. Agriculture-related industries that will
probably also experience a decline include agrochemicals, food
processing, retail trade (in farm equipment, for example), and
wholesale trade in raw and processed foods and products.
The loss of agricultural land which would occur without the
project has been calculated to be 236,800 acres over the period
up to the year 2000 (see p. 4-64), or 51,400 acres more than
would occur if the growth pattern followed the MAG Regional
Development Plan. The loss of 51,400 additional acres in agri-
cultural production by the year 2000 would represent a loss
of about $30 million (1977 dollars) in annual gross output.
Considering that urbanization under the planned growth concept of
the MAG Regional Development Plan would result in a loss of
185,400 acres, or about $109 million in production, the impacts of
additional losses incurred without new treatment would not be of
major significance, especially since the losses are incurred
incrementally over more than a 20-year time span.
The accelerated decline of agriculture expected if no munic-
ipal treatment facilities are built or expanded would bring about
a greater reduction in agriculture-related industries than would
occur with project conditions. However, the gradual nature of the
reduction should allow the individual businesses involved to make
the necessary adjustments with minimal hardship.
4-68
-------
4.3.9 AIR QUALITY
The major cause of air pollution in the Phoenix area is
the automobile. 'Population growth in the area will result in
increased vehicle miles in travel (VMT) and increased automobile
emissions. However, the air quality Nonattainment Area Plan
(Arizona Department of Health Services, 1978a) projects that, with
the use of combined control strategies (see pp. 3-30 - 3-37),
future air quality in the Phoenix area will be superior to the
existing air quality. Table 4-18 shows projected carbon monoxide
and nonmethane hydrocarbon levels expected with the use of the
combined control strategies.
The data in Table 4-18 show that residents in the Phoenix
area will experience improved air quality conditions as compared
to current conditions. Carbon monoxide and nonmethane hydrocarbon
concentrations will decline to levels well within the acceptable
range. This decline, according to the Nonattainment Area Plan,
will begin after 1980 and will bring carbon monoxide levels into
compliance with Federal standards by 1982. Photochemical oxidant
standards are projected to be achieved by 1985. The recent
relaxation of the Federal standard for photochemical oxidants will
mean that the standard for this pollutant can now be reached by
1982; the Nonattainment Area Plan is being revised to reflect this
change.
Under without-project conditions, VMT would be expected to
increase more than under with-project conditions, primarily
because of the more dispersed population distribution in the study
area. Increased VMT would be expected to lead to increased
emissions of pollutants from automobiles. This is a less desir-
able condition than that which would occur with the project under
the MAG Regional Development Plan.
Major changes in land use and population distribution occur-
ring under without-project conditions would delay attainment of
air quality goals unless further controls are implemented. This
is a significant undesirable air quality situation, in light of
existing carbon monoxide and photochemical oxidant problems in the
Phoenix area.
The net result of these changes under without-project condi-
tions is that air quality would not improve as much as under
project conditions. However, the air quality model now in use
by the Arizona Bureau of Air Quality Control would probably be
unable to detect discernible air quality changes in outlying
areas under without-project conditions (Arizona Department of
4-69
-------
Table 4-18
PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
AND NONMETHANE HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS,
PROJECT CONDITIONS, 1980-2000^
Year
Peak 8-Hour
CO Reading
Nonmethane
Hydrocarbons
(tons/day)0
1980
9.5
160
1985
7.5
115
1990
7.0
105
1995
6.5
105
2000
7.0
110
aProject conditions include use of combined control strate-
gies for attainment of air quality goals.
^National Ambient Air Quality Standard for CO - 9 ppm.
cMaximum allowable nonmethane hydrocarbon emissions to attain
National Ambient Air Quality Standard for photochemical oxidants
(ozone) -119 tons/day.
SOURCE: Arizona Department of Health Services, 1978a
4-70
-------
Transportation, 1979). Although VMT would tend to increase
because of a more dispersed population distribution in the area,
even with projected increases in mass transit, meteorological
mixing conditions would tend to disperse increased concentrations
of automobile emissions in outlying areas. The downtown corridor
would probably remain an area of relatively high atmospheric
pollutants compared to the outlying areas due to the continued
existence of traffic concentration centers in downtown Phoenix
(Arizona Department of Transportation, 1979).
4.3.10 WATER RESOURCES
Water Use
Over much of the study area water use patterns are changing,
principally because of urban development. Since 1940, over 50
percent of the farmland within the Salt River Project service area
has been urbanized, and this trend is expected to continue. Total
surface and ground water withdrawals for agriculture in 1975
within the Salt River Valley (which is approximately one-third
larger than the metropolitan area) amounted to approximately
2,223,000 acre-feet, or roughly three times the urban water use
(Arizona Water Commission, 1978). By the year 2005, agriculture
is projected to be depleting about twice as much as urban uses,
and by 2020 depletions for the two uses are projected to be almost
equal (Arizona Water Commission, 1978). Overall, total water
depletion in the Valley by the year 2005 should be somewhat less
than it is today, although the population of the area will almost
double. This is because agricultural uses require more water than
do urban uses, and the decline in agriculture in the area will
therefore result in significant reductions in water use (Arizona
Water Commission, 1978).
It is expected that water use under without-project condi-
tions would be further reduced than under project conditions
(Arthur Beard Engineers, 1978c). Without-project conditions
assume a greater conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses
(see p. 4-64), and the decline in irrigated acreage combined with
a wide dispersal of urban population would lead to lower rates of
water use. Without-project projections show urban uses increasing
over agricultural uses slightly by the year 2000 in the Phoenix
area (Arthur Beard Engineers, 1978c).
Surface Water Availability
With or without the project, surface water supplies from the
Salt and Verde Rivers are expected to decline as a result of
4-71
-------
increased use in upstream areas (Arizona Water Commission, 1978).
By the year 2005, the average annual diversion from the Salt and
Verde Rivers is projected to decrease from the current 860,000
af/yr to 824,000 af/yr (Arizona Water Commission, 1978). Little
change is expected in the amount of water available for diversion
from the Agua Fria River.
The Central Arizona Project (CAP) will provide the major
source of new water in the area. Final allocations of CAP water
have not been made, but it is assumed for purposes of projection
that 510,000 acre-feet of water will be available in 1990 and
494,000 acre-feet in 2005 (Arizona Water Commission, 1978).
With the project, increased population growth in the study
area is expected to increase wastewater flows at treatment plants
by approximately 50 percent over the present (from 149,000 to
223,000 af/yr). Approximately 50 percent of the year-2000
flows will benefit water supply in the study area by being reused
in the Salt River Valley Basin. The remaining flows (approxi-
mately 107,000 af/yr) are expected to be exported to the Lower
Hassayampa River area for use as cooling water at the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station.
Without the project, approximately 45 percent of year-2000
flows would not be sewered. This amount (100,000 af/yr) would
not be available as treated wastewater for reuse, and existing
commitments to agricultural interests and ANPP could not be met in
full.
Surface Water Quality
No major growth-induced changes in surface water quality
are expected in the study area. Surface water in the area con-
sists primarily of water contained in man-made impoundments and
canals whose quality is expected to remain largely unaffected
by growth patterns. Other sources of surface water include
effluent discharged from treatment plants into receiving streams
or impoundments. State surface-water-quality standards and
Federal discharge requirements will have to be complied with
regardless of growth patterns in the study area.
Ground Water Changes
Ground water overdrafting is predicted to continue in the
study area in the near future but is expected to be reduced by
approximately 60 percent when CAP water is brought into the study
area (Arizona Water Commission, 1978). Overdraft is expected to
rise again when CAP allocations are reduced in the twenty-first
4-72
-------
century. To the year 2020, ground water in storage above 700 feet
will be reduced by about 20 percent, with approximately 80 million
acre-feet of water remaining in this portion of the aquifer
(Arizona Water Commission, 1978). Little change in ground water
quality is expected in the area. Local alteration of ground water
quality may occur due to changes in flow patterns caused by
pumping and the application of treated wastewater for limited
agricultural uses.
More wastewater would be retained in the area for ground
water recharge without the project than with it. The result would
be a probable reduction in ground water overdraft without the
project. Approximately 45 percent (100,000 af/yr) of wastewater
would be unsewered in the year 2000 without the project. This
amount of wastewater would be discharged from septic tanks or
package plants within the metropolitan area, thereby contributing
to ground water recharge. However, leachate from this extensive
nonpoint source would increase the likelihood of degrading the
quality of water pumped from municipal wells. Nitrate and dis-
solved organic carbon would be of special concern if on-site
disposal by septic tanks were practiced at too great a density or
without sufficient control or adequate design and construction.
4.3.11 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
By the year 2000, growth in the metropolitan area is expected
to result in the loss of approximately 93,000 acres of natural
area (see Table 4-16, p. 4-64). Most of this natural area con-
sists of creosotebush-bursage and saltbush habitat, both of which
are considered to be of lower quality than paloverde-saguaro or
riparian habitat. Much of the valuable riparian habitat along the
Salt and Gila Rivers would not be subject to wholesale removal due
to urban expansion into the flood plain. This is because current
municipal and County zoning generally excludes urban development
in the riparian flood plain. Furthermore, most of the riparian
habitat lies outside the metro Phoenix "urban fringe."
Without the project, year-2000 losses of natural land area
are projected to amount to approximately 228,300 acres, or 135,000
more acres than with the project (see Table 4-16, p. 4-64). Most
of this natural area is creosotebush-bursage and saltbush habitat,
which is abundant in Maricopa County. Approximately 2 miles of
riparian habitat downstream from the 91st Avenue treatment plant
between 91st and 115th Avenues would receive less discharged
wastewater under without-project conditions. This could alter the
floristic composition of the plant community and significantly
change its habitat quality.
4-73
-------
4.3.12 ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Levels and types of energy used in the Phoenix area are
strongly related to the need for extensive summer cooling, the
predominance of private automobile travel within the dispersed
metropolitan area, and the presence of light industrial activity.
Under these circumstances, refined petroleum and various elec-
trical generating resources will remain important to the Phoenix
area throughout the planning period. Alternate energy sources,
such as solar power, could be developed over the next 20 years,
but these developments cannot be predicted accurately at this
time.
Total energy consumption for the State of Arizona has been
estimated for 1975, with projections of future consumption pre-
pared up to 1985 (Frank, 1977). Table 4-19 shows the 1975 energy
use by consumptive category.
If energy use is proportionate to population within the
State, Maricopa County would have consumed approximately 336
trillion BTU's (TBTU's) of energy in 1975. Projected statewide
consumption in 1985 is expected to range from 959.0 to 1,152.8
TBTU's depending upon the level of conservation effort (Frank,
1977).1 Maricopa County's share of this total would be 527 to
635 TBTU's based on the projected 1985 County proportion of total
State population.
Fuels for Arizona's energy needs in 1975 were derived from
coal, natural gas, petroleum, and hydropower, as shown in
Table 4-20.
In future years, these proportions will change. Unless newly
discovered sources of natural gas can be quickly exploited,
limited natural gas supplies will likely necessitate greater
electrical production in the future to accommodate additional
residential and industrial activity. Increasing reliance on
electricity would increase fuel consumption, since production of
electricity involves overall energy losses in the form of waste
heat of production, losses during transmission, etc. Nuclear
power will be a major new source of energy for production of
electricity in the Phoenix area when the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station near Buckeye, Arizona, begins production
in the mid-1980s. The future emphasis to be placed on developing
'•Frank based consumption projections on a 1985 State total
population that is 15 percent higher than current DBS projections.
4-74
-------
Table 4-19
ARIZONA ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN 1975
Trillion
BTU's
Percent
of Total
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation
119.2
140.3
142.9
209.6
19.5
22.9
23.4
34.2
Total
614.4
SOURCE: Frank, 1977.
100.0
Table 4-20
FUEL SOURCES FOR ARIZONA ENERGY
CONSUMPTION, 1975
Fuel
Coal
Natural gas
Petroleum
Hydro-power
Solar
Trillion
BTU's
85.5
160.8
290.3
77.8
?
Percent
of Total
13.9
26.2
47.2
12.7
?
Total
SOURCE: Frank, 1977.
614.4
100.0
4-75
-------
proven solar power is unclear, but substantial emphasis could
significantly alter use of other energy sources.
Future energy trends for the nation include reduced petroleum
consumption due to increased automobile efficiency (more miles per
gallon) and conservation measures associated with higher oil
prices and dwindling supplies. Coal consumption is expected to
rise as coal replaces petroleum fuels for generating electricity.
Nuclear power may also Increase as use of petroleum products
declines. The future of nuclear energy will be contingent upon
public acceptability, the availability of other energy sources,
price, and whether or not relatively secure waste disposal can be
developed.
Transportation Fuel
According to MAG projections, vehicle miles of travel (VMT)
in the year 2000 in the Phoenix area are expected to be approx-
imately double the 1975 VMT of 18.2 million per day (Maricopa
Association of Governments, 1977). Gasoline consumption is
expected to increase by only about one-third, however, from 1.4 to
1.9 million gallons per day, due to Federal legislation requiring
auto makers to produce vehicles which achieve 27.5 miles per
gallon mileage ratings by 1985.
Dramatic changes in VMT and transportation energy use could
result from significant increases in carpooling. If average
vehicle occupancy increased from 1.33 persons per auto (estimated
for 1973) to just 1.5 persons per auto, VMT would drop over 10
percent, and gasoline consumption in the year 2000 would be down
to 1.7 aillion gallons per day from the projected 1.9 million
gallons daily (Maricopa Association of Governments, 1977). An
expanded public transit system is not expected to alter VMT
because the low-density, dispersed land use configuration of the
adopted Regional Development Plan does not encourage significantly
increased use of public transportation.
Natural Gas
Natural gas supplies for Arizona are finite, and the cost
of natural gas is now increasing rapidly. Currently, about
1.32 X 10" BTU's of gas are consumed in Maricopa County yearly
for household purposes and about 6.9 x 10? BTU's for industrial
purposes (derived from Frank, 1977). Although some residential
gas customers may be added to those already in existence, overall
annual gas consumption in the metropolitan area is not expected to
increase, regardless of growth, unless new natural gas discoveries
can be rapidly exploited.
4-76
-------
Electricity
The Arizona Public Service Company (1979) estimates that
10,000 kilowatt hours (KWH) of electricity are consumed yearly for
each residential meter in service. Assuming an average household
size of 2.86 persons in Maricopa County (Maricopa Association of
Governments, 1978), about 479,000 households existed in the
metropolitan area in 1975. These households consumed an estimated
total of 4.79 X 109 KWH annually.
The average number of households in the metropolitan area is
expected to increase, over time, faster than the total population,
due to the trend toward smaller households. (These smaller
households may, in turn, consume less per household unit than
those of the current size.) Arizona Public Service (1979) esti-
mates that year-2000 consumption of electricity will average
approximately 15,000 KWH per year per household. Assuming this
rate of consumption, the 952,000 households (at 2.6 persons per
household) projected for the Phoenix area in the year 2000 would
consume approximately 14.3 x 10* KWH annually, or about three
times as much electricity as in 1975.
4.3.13 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Many archaeological sites in the metro area have been de-
stroyed due to residential, commercial, and industrial construc-
tion, and agricultural development. Others have been excavated
and reported by archaeologists and provide a permanent record of
their existence. In addition, the remains of several major sites
(for example, Pueblo Grande) have been preserved and restored and
are accessible to the general public.
Several prehistoric sites, including the Pueblo Grande Ruin
(Phoenix), Hohokam-Mormon Canals (Mesa), and Hohokam-Pima Irriga-
tion Sites (Phoenix) have been entered on the National Register
of Historic Places. Numerous other archaeological sites have
either been nominated to or are considered to be potentially
eligible for inclusion in the State or National Registers of
Historic Places.
Public awareness and regulatory controls will probably con-
tinue to create a climate of vigilance over urban and agricultural
development in archaeologically sensitive areas. The interest and
resulting archaeological studies being conducted for the Valley's
freeway expansion and requirements for archaeological clearance
in sensitive zones prior to construction of Federally funded
projects, such as the MAG 208 Plan and flood control programs in
the area, are examples of prevailing conditions.
4-77
-------
It is assumed that growth in the area over the next 20 years
will result in destruction of a minor amount of archaeological
artifacts. However, recent archaeological studies in the 208
area and archaeological-related lesiglation and regulations will
keep this inadvertent destruction to a minimum. Conversely, the
lack of a 208 program and associated lack of additional sewage-
treatment facilities would increase the likelihood of archaeo-
logical site destruction due to greater urban sprawl. In this
situation, it is likely that adverse impacts to archaeological
resources without the project would be greater than with the
project.
4-78
-------
4.4 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
4.4.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE SELECTED PLAN
Implementation of the selected plan will result in the loss
of approximately 720 acres of terrestrial habitat and 20 acres of
aquatic habitat. Habitat losses will be offset by creation of
terrestrial and aquatic habitat associated with buffer zones
around facilities and effluent reuse schemes.
Construction of interceptor lines will result in increased
fugitive dust episodes along approximately 55 miles of interceptor
line. Some, but not all, dust can be controlled by dust-abatement
measures required by State regulations during construction.
Operation of treatment plants will result in occasional odor
episodes. However, the current frequency of odor episodes will be
reduced by upgrading of facilities and use of better operating
procedures. Several thousand persons in homes and commercial and
industrial establishments in the vicinity of the 91st Avenue,
23rd Avenue, and north Gilbert treatment plants will be subject
to these periodic odor episodes. Other treatment plants are
sufficiently distant from development that odor episodes would not
have an adverse effect.
Approximately 254 acres of farmland will be taken out of
agricultural production to provide treatment plant sites for all
the facilities envisioned. Most of this land is classified as
prime farmland by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, but nearly
half is expected to be urbanized or under strong urban pressure by
the year 2000, even if not used for treatment facilities.
The costs of wastewater treatment to most households, bus-
inesses, and institutions will increase within the region as
a result of the proposed plan. These higher costs will result
from the need to expand the treatment system to respond to growth.
The amount of increase will vary from community to community
depending upon the specific requirements of each. Communities
that will bear a greater burden of the increased costs include
Guadalupe, El Mirage, Surprise, Avondale, and Goodyear, with a
high percentage of low- and moderate-income persons.
Since low-income households tend to produce as much effluent
and be charged the same for sewer services as higher income
households, the higher costs anticipated for wastewater treat-
ment will result in lower income households spending a larger
percentage of their income for this service. This redistribution
4-79
-------
of income will be even more pronounced in smaller, less affluent
communities where the cost per household is expected to be higher
than in more affluent portions of the area.
The costs of tying into the regional system will constitute a
considerable financial burden for some communities, due to the
following special conditions:
- Guadalupe: The town of Guadalupe may not have an adequate
assessed value to support bonds to pay for its share of the
cost of the expanded treatment plants. The user costs per
household may also be excessive, even if the city has
adequate bonding capacity to pay for the system.
* El Mirage/Surprise: These communities do not have the
necessary population to support their own system and may
not have an adequate tax base to meet the costs of tying
into the 91st Avenue system.
- Avondale/Goodyear: These communities have limited re-
sources and could have difficulty supporting the construc-
tion and operation of the proposed Reems Road plant.
4.4.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF GROWTH
As the Phoenix metropolitan area continues to grow in both
population and urbanized area, approximately 185,000 acres of
prime farmland now being farmed will be taken out of production.
About 93,000 acres of natural landscape will be converted to urban
use.
Ground and surface water resources will continue to be
depleted, but by the year 2000 total water depletion in the Salt
River Valley is projected to be somewhat less than it is today.
This is because agricultural uses require more water than do urban
uses. Although population will grow in the area, the projected
decline in agricultural activity will result in a compensating
savings in water use.
Population growth will require increased use of energy
resources, particularly electricity. While growth will account
for half the increased consumption of electricity, other factors,
including a greater reliance on this energy source, account for
the other half of the increased consumption.
Some archaeological resources will be destroyed by the
spreading urbanised area.
4-BO
-------
4.5 IRREVERSIBLE, IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
Wastewater flows of approximately 223,000 af/yr by the year
2000 will be committed to treatment in the regional wastewater
treatment system. Approximately 95 percent of flows will be
committed to reuse for electric energy production, agricultural
irrigation, and support of wildlife habitat.
The 254 acres of prime farmland used for treatment plant
sites will be irretrievably lost.
An average of about $17.5 million annually over the economic
life of the wastewater treatment system will be expended for
materials, fuels, and labor for plant construction, and for labor,
energy, and materials for plant operation. Up to 15 percent of
these expenditures can be recovered through sale of wastewater
effluent.
Resources for managing wastewater treatment in the study area
will shift from local governments to Subregional Operating Groups
and to MAG under the adopted management system.
As urban growth continues in the Phoenix area, materials,
energy, and labor will be irretrievably committed to construction
of urban structures and systems and to the maintenance of the
area's lifestyle. Much of this commitment will be irretrievable.
4-81
-------
4.6 SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT VS. LONG-TERM ENHANCEMENT
The metro Phoenix wastewater management plan is a set of
actions and institutional changes that will lead to enhancement of
the environment over the planning period and beyond. The plan
seeks to protect and improve water quality in the metro Phoenix
area by improving wastewater treatment facilities and by providing
for a new areawide wastewater management system to assure that the
facilities will be operated properly and that discharges will meet
water quality standards. The management system will also result
in more effective areawide wastewater and water resources planning
over the next 20 years. No short-term uses of the environment at
the expense of long-term enhancement are expected under this
plan.
4-62
-------
Chapter 5
Comments and Responses
-------
5.0 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The DEIS on Point Source Metro Phoenix Alternatives for the
MAG 208 Water Quality Management Plan was circulated to over 350
agencies, organizations, firms, municipalities, Indian communi-
ties, libraries, and individuals (see DEIS pp. iv-xiii). Comments
were received from the following. Asterisks indicate that a
comment required a response.
Comment
Document Comment Received from
A *Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
B *Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
C U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service
D *U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the
Secretary
E *U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service
F U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
G *Arizona Department of Transportation
H *Arizona Game and Fish Department, Planning and Evalua-
tion Branch
I *Arizona State Land Department
J *Arizona Water Commission
K Arizona State Clearinghouse A-95 Review
Kl *Arizona Department of Economic Security
K2 Arizona Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
K3 Arizona State Parks Board
K.4 Arizona Agriculture and Horticulture Commission
K5 Arizona Game and Fish Department, Fisheries Division
K6 Arizona Department of Health Services, Bureau of Water
Quality Control
K.7 Central Arizona Association of Governments
K8 Maricopa Association of Governments
K9 District IV Council of Governments
K10 City of Tempe
L *Gila River Indian Community
M *Arizona Public Service Company
N *John S. Schaper (Buckeye Irrigation Company)
0 *David E. Creighton
P *0rme Lewis, Jr.
5-1
-------
Comment
Document Comment Received From
Q *Thomas S. Rothweiler
R *Adron W. Reichert (Holly Acres Flood Control
Association)
S *Gilbert T. Venable (Citizens Concerned About the
Project and the Maricopa Audubon Society)
Numerous comments on the DEIS corrected errors of fact,
omissions, or inconsistencies in the text. A fewer number of
comments concerned major issues having to do with the impact of
the proposal on the environment. Several comments questioned the
presentation of material. In revising the DEIS, it was EPA's
intent to respond to these comments to the fullest extent pos-
sible. This involved expanding the analysis of some impacts,
reorganizing the document, focusing on the selected alternative,
and eliminating some of the text from the DEIS. The resulting FEIS
is a more concise document organized to meet requirements of new
Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40CFR 1500-1508).
In the following section (Section 5.2), the comment documents
are presented. Portions of the comments requiring responses are
numbered. In Section 5.3, responses to the comments are pre-
sented, with each response keyed to the comment document and
number indicated in Section 5.2.
Responses were prepared by representatives of EPA, Region IX,
MAG, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the consulting firms of
Dames & Moore; the Natelson Company; Stevens, Thompson & Runyon,
Inc.; Ferguson, Morris, & Simpson, Inc.; Arthur Beard Engineers,
Inc.; Camp, Dresser, & McKee, Inc.; Boyle Engineering Corporation;
Kenneth Schmidt & Associates; John Carollo Engineers; and Morris,
Clester, & Abegglen. EPA acted in a review capacity for responses
not drafted directly by the agency.
Most responses to major comments included changes in the
analysis and/or presentation of the EIS. In particular, comments
from the Arizona Public Service Company (Comment Document M) and
the Buckeye Irrigation Company (Comment Document N) led to a
reexamination of the assumptions used in the DEIS discussion of
impacts of the sale and transportation of effluent to the Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Appendix C, which compares
effluent flows from the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue treatment
plants against existing and future commitments, was included in
the FEIS in response to these comments. Section 4.3, Impacts of
Growth, was prepared for the FEIS partially in response to a
comment from the Arizona Department of Transportation (Comment
Document G).
5-2
-------
Specific comments regarding errors or inconsistencies led to
a reappraisal of the information presented in the DEIS. Most of
the errors identified in the comments appeared in the environ-
mental setting chapter of the DEIS (Chapter 3). This chapter
was condensed significantly for the FEIS, in keeping with CEQ
regulations encouraging the use of a concise description of the
environment. In no case was any information eliminated that was
important to the analysis of impacts. Responses to comments
identifying errors or inconsistencies in the DEIS indicate where
changes have been made in the FEIS or acknowledge the error if the
passage in question has not been included in the FEIS.
5.2 COMMENT DOCUMENTS
In this section, the comment documents are provided. At each
comment or portion of a comment requiring a response, a number may
be found. This number corresponds to the written response, which
may be found in Section 5.3. The following list shows where
comments and responses are located by page number.
Comment
Document
Comment
From
Comment
Page No.
Response
Page No.
D
Advisory Council on His-
toric Preservation
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
U.S. Dept. of Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Dept. of Interior,
Office of the Secretary
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Dept. of Transporta-
tion, Federal Highway
Administration
Arizona Dept. of
Transportation
5-6
5-7
5-7
5-8
5-48
5-48
No response
5-48
5-9 - 5-10 5-49 - 5-50
5-10
5-11
No response
5-50 - 5-51
5-3
-------
Comment
Document
H
I
J
K.
Comment
From
Arizona Game and Fish Dept.,
Planning and Evaluation
Arizona State Land Dept.
Arizona Water Commission
Arizona State Clearinghouse
Comment
Page No .
5-12
5-12
5-13 - 5-14
Response
Page No.
5-51
5-51
5-52 - 5-54
A-95 Review
Kl Arizona Dept. of Economic
Security
K2 Arizona Oil and Gas Conser-
vation Commission
K.3 Arizona State Parks Board
K.4 Arizona Agriculture and
Horticulture Commission
K3 Arizona Game and Fish Dept.,
Fisheries Division
K6 Arizona Dept. of Health
Services, Bureau of Water
Quality Control
K.7 Central Arizona Association
of Governments
K.8 Maricopa Association of
Governments
K9 District IV Council of
Governments
K10 City of Tempe
L Gila River Indian Community
M Arizona Public Service Co.
5-14 - 5-19
5-15
5-15
5-16
5-16
5-17
5-17
5-18
5-18
5-19
5-19
5-20 - 5-27
5-27 - 5-33
5-54
No response
No response
No response
No response
No response
No response
No response
No response
No response
5-54 - 5-55
5-56 - 5-66
5-4
-------
Comment Comment
Document From
N
0
P
Q
R
John S. Schaper (Buckeye
Irrigation Company)
David E. Creighton
Orme Lewis, Jr.
Thomas S. Rottweiler
Adron W. Reichart (Holly
Comment Response
Page No. Page No.
5-33 - 5-38 5-66 - 5-74
5-39 - 5-42 5-74 - 5-78
5-42 5-79
5-43 5-79
Acres Flood Control
Association) 5-44 - 5-45 5-77
Gilbert T. Venable (Citi-
zens Concerned About the
Project/Maricopa Audubon
Society) 5-46 - 5-47 5-80
5-5
-------
AdviMry
Council On
Hlttork
Pratmration
IX
WkshtnckxilUl
December 28, 1978
Mr. Paul De Faloo, Jr.
Regional Administrator, Region IX
Environmental Protection Agency
21? Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 91'105
Dear Mr. De Palco:
This Is to acknowledge receipt of the draft environmental
statement for the Point Source Metropolitan Phoenix Element
of Areawide Water Quality Management Plan, Harlcopa County,
Arizona on November 2?, 1978. We regret that we will be
unable to revlev and cement on this document In a tlmcl."
manner puriuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Neverthelei*, the Environmental Protection Agency 1»
reminded that, if the proposed undertaking will affect
properties included In or eligible for incluilon in the
National Register of Hlitorlc Places, it 1> required by
Section 106 of the National Hlitorlc Preservation Act of
1966 (l6 U.S.C. U70f, a» awnded, 90 Stat. 1320) to afford
the Council an opportunity to cotawnt on the undertaking
prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal
funds or prior to the iMuance of any licenae. The "Procedurei
for the Protection of Hlitorlc and Cultural Propertiei" (36
CFB Part BOO.10 detail the «tep» an agency li to follow In
requesting Council consent.
Generally, the Council considers envlrotmental evaluation!
to be adequate when they contain evidence of compliance
with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,
as aaanded. The environmental documentation must demonstrate
that either of the following conditions exiets:
1. No properties Included in or that may be eligible
for Inclusion In the National Register of Historic
Places are located within the area of environmental
Impact, and the undertaking will not affect any such
COMMENT DOCUMENT A
Pa«e 2
Mr. Paul Dt ralco, Jr.
Point Source Bt.Al,
December 28, 1978
property. In making this determination, the Council
requirea:
—evidence that the agency has consulted the latest
edition of the National Register (Federal Register,
February 7, 1978, and its monthly supplements);
—evidence of an effort to ensure the Identification
of properties eligible for Inclusion in the National
Register, including evidence of contact with the State
Historic Preservation Officer, whose comments should
be Included in the final environmental statement.
3. Properties Included In or that may be eligible
for inclusion in the National Register are located
within the area of environmental impact, and the
undertaking will or will not affect any such property.
In cases where there will be an effect, the final
environmental statement should contain evidence of
compliance with Section 106 of the Rational Historic
Preservation Act through the Council's "Procedures for
the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties".
Should you have any questions, please call Michael C. Suinn at
(303) 2Jli-U9l»6, an FTS number.
Sincerely
Wall
Assistant Director
Office of Review and Compliance,
COMMENT DOCUMENT A
-------
61
FEDERAL ENERGY
mtaioNAL
S»9A-
•AN PHANCI
T BTMCT. ROOM 411 , i j
MCIVCO. CA 94111
no
ID
Ui
December 20, 1978
Mr. Paul De Faloo, Jr.
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 91+10$
Attention! Region DC Hearing Office
Dear Mr. De Falco:
We have reviewed your draft environmental impact statement on Point
Source Metro Phoenix Altemativee For MAG 208 Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan, dated November 1978.
As you are no doubt aware, on October 1, 1977, pursuant to provisions
of the Department of Energy Organization Act, the Federal Power Com-
mission ceased to exist and its functions and regulatory responsibili-
ties were transferred to the Secretary of Energy and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, an independent regulatory commission within the
Department of Hiergy. Reference to the Federal Power Commission on
•) pages v and vi in your report should therefore be changed to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission.
Ve have reviewed your draft statement to determine the effect on matters
affecting the Federal Biergy Regulatory Commission's responsibilities.
Such responsibilities relate to the licensing of non-Federal hydroelec-
tric projects and associated transmission lines; certification for con-
struction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities, defined to
include both interstate pipeline and terminal facilities,- and the per-
mission and approval required for the abandonment of natural gas pipe-
line facilities.
Our review indicates there would not be any significant impacts in
those areas of concern nor serious conflicts with this agency's respon-
sibilities if this plan were adopted.
Sincerely,
EugeneMiblett
Regionsa Engineer
Copy to»
Director, Barioopa Association of Governments
208 Water Quality Management Program
111 South Third Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85003 COMMENT DOCUMENT B
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
293^ W. Fai mount Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 850&7
January 15, 1979
Mr. Mark Frank, Program Coordinator
Marlcopa Association of Governments
Mater Quality Management Plan
111 South Third Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 05003
Dear Mr. Frank:
We have reviewed the draft final plan for the MAG 308 Water Quality
Management Program dated December 1978 and have the following comients.
The plan is well done and If carried out should Improve the water quality
in Maricopa County. The point source plan selected will have less
adverse impact on wildlife resources than other alternative plans con-
sidered.
The Department of the Interior provided comments to the Regional Admin-
istrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, on the draft
environmental statement for Point Source Metro Alternatives for MAG 208
Water Quality Management Plan. Since chapter VIII, Environmental Assess-
ment, in this draft is a summary of the DEIS we believe those Interior
comments also apply to chapter VIII of this plan.
The opportunity to review and comment on your draft water quality
program 1s appreciated.
Sincerely,
Gilbert D. Metk
Field Supervisor
Director, Arizona Game and Fish Dept., Phoenix
Regional Director, FWS, Albuquerque (ES)
Area Manager, FWS, Phoenix
COMMENT DOCUMENT C
-------
(He-isa)
<-"D BY
UNITED STATES REGION IX
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR""*
ER 71/1143
mane •OUTHWIST MMION
•OX MOM . 4IO OOUXN OATV A VCNUC
•AN nUNCMCO. CAUPOftMA S41O*.
Mill SM.SXOO
January 16. 1979
Mr. Paul De F»lco, Jr.
Regional Admlnl«tr«tor
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
215 Fremont Street
Sin Francisco, CA 941 OS
Dear Mr. De Falcoi
The Department or the Interior hai received and reviewed the draft
environmental statement for Point Source Metro Phoenix Alternative*
for MAC 208 Water Quality Management Plan, Maricopa County,
Arizona.
._ It la our view that the draft environmental statement generally doei an
I adequate job of describing reaourcea of the area. However, we believe
00 the Impact analyala could be Improved In certain areaa and offer the
following comment! •
It would be uaeful In the analyala of the no-action alternative to aaaeia
' ground-water impact! that may reault If Importation of water from the
Central Arizona Project doe* not materialize aa expected (p. 3-125).
Throughout the document it i> indicated that establishment of regional
2 treatment facilities will result In enhancement of wetland* due to Im-
poundment of aurface waters. It la true, that with careful planning and
design, the ponds would provide habitat for wildlife. However, loases
of valuable habitat on the Oils River caused by a decrease In wastewater
effluent released Into the river would likely reault In an overall loss of
wildlife habitat.
, Page 2-25. Lines 8-8 - Federal regulations concerning rare and en-
9 dangered species of fish and wildlife are referenced. The Endangered
Species Act of 1S73 uses the terms "threatened" and "endangered," not
"rare." The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires that project
planning consider Impacts on all flah and wildlife reaourcea.
This statement adequately addreaaes recreation and cultural reaourcea
for this level of planning! however, recreational open space opportunities
should be considered in more detail In the plan Implementation stage.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft environmental statement
for the Maricopa Association of Government 208 Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact me.
Sincerely.
Patricia Sanderson Port
Regional Environmental Officer
Director, OEPH (w/copy of Incoming)
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service
Director, Heritage Conaervatlon and Recreation Service
Aast. Sec., Bureau of Indian Affairs
Director, Geological Survey
Director, Bureau of Land Management
Director, Bureau of Mines
Commissioner. Bureau of Reclamation
Reg. Dlr.. FWS
Dlr.. HCRS
Dlr., BIA /
Dlr., CS
Dlr.. BM
Reg.
Reg.
Asst.
Reg.
State Liaison. BM
Reg. Dlr.. BR
Reg. Dlr.. BLM
COMMENT DOCUMENT D
COMMENT DOCUMENT D
-------
United State* Soil
) Department of Conservation
Agriculture Service
3008 Federal Building
Phoenix, Arizona
35025
January 19, 1979
Mr. Mark Frank
Program Coordinator
Maricopa Association of Governments
Water Quality Management Program
111 South Third Avenue, Room 300
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
LH
D«ar Mr. Frank:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Assessment/Impact Statement of
the Point Source Metro Phoenix Alternatives, dated Movember 1978. We
offer the following comments:
General
1. We are pleased with the efforts that the alternative plans make to
mitigate the loss of irrigated lands.
2. Cost data for the various alternatives should be provided. It is
1 impossible to fully assess the relative merits of each facility
•without this information. For instance, it may be beneficial to
take advantage of economies of scale by increasing the capacity
of the Chandler plant, extend the interceptor lines eastward, and
eliminate both Gilbert facilities.
2 3. nil of the alternative plans will contribute to the demise of irri-
gated agriculture. We realize that a 208 waste water treatment plan
is not a single tool to prevent urban sprawl; however, the statement
is remiss in not presenting alternatives that would help to prevent
the conversion of agricultural lands. For instance, there is no
discussion of alternatives that would encourage development on the
large amounts of vacant lands within the urban areas.
3 4. The statement should state the reasons why the northeast facility
will produce good quality effluent for unrestricted agricultural
use, while the other facilities produce fair quality effluent for
restricted agricultural use. It should also address the differences
in costs for the various treatments.
COMMENT DOCUMENT E
M. Frank 2
Specific Comments
Page 3-6, lines 20-26 and page 3-8, lines 1-2
4 The discussion of the soils is very brief. The USDA 1969 reference given
is out of date. As a minimum, the following references should be added
to the reference section and referred to in the section 3.1.2 "Geology
and Soils."
U. S, Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1973.
General Soil Map, Maricopa County, Arizona. Portland, Oregon
1973.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1974.
Soil Survey of Eastern Maricopa and Northern Pinal Counties Area,
Arizona. Washington, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1974.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1977.
Soil Survey of Maricopa County, Arizona, Central Part. Washington,
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1977.
Copies of these publications are enclosed for your use.
Page 4-23
5 The rationale for the overland flow portion for the Northeast Facility,
Option 2, is not clear. Is the site to be used for groundwater recharge
or agricultural operations on the reservation? If for agriculture, then
storage facilities instead of overland flow should be considered to reduce
losses.
Page 4-23, line 12
6 The statement, "The effluent would be of sufficient quality for unrestricted
agricultural use." does not agree with Figure 4-5, which says "restricted"
use.
Page 4-71, line 11
7 This statement says that the export of salts to the Palo Verde Station will
have a beneficial effect on groundwater quality. This is in conflict with
the statement on page 4-70, line 26, that the use of effluerrt in the
Buckeye Irrigation District has decreased the salinity of the groundwater.
COMMENT DOCUMENT E
-------
Y
H-
o
N. frank 3
«• appractat* being given tha opportunity to cavlaw thia draft statamant.
Slncaraly,
(JHE-IS1) §
l; V DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
fHHIUL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION , "•!
MOIOWMNI • " 4
Two Obarcadaro Can tar. Suit* 5 JO
•M francJaco, California >«J11(, /!•
> IfccartK. 71,
197«
Q, Pockanbauqh
St*t« conMrvatlonlit
Encloiurcii Thr*« R«f«r«nc« Dociawnti
cci (w/o uncli.)
Director, Office of F«d»«l ActivltlM, EPA, Washington, D.C. (5 copl»)
R. M. Dtvii, Administrator, 8CS, Washington, D.C,
IN MV1T Mm to
HMD-09
Mr. t*ul D* rtloe, Jr.
tmlrormtrtul Protection Agency
715 Fremont Street
8m rrtnciKO, CA 9410*
Met HI. D» Fmlcoi
He Ju«w revleued the Otelt tnvirormenttl Impact Statement on the
Paint Source Metro Phoenix Alternative* tar the MO 101 Heter Oamlltg
ninijMint flea in Merlcop* County, Arizona, mat hfve no mpecitic
nttf to offer.
K» tppteclmtf thit opportunity to review the mibject Drmft Stttentnt.
goat*,
j\ Regional AOminittrttor
COMMENT DOCUMENT E
COMMENT DOCUMENT F
-------
o
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
-2-
HIGHWAYS DIVISION
206 South S«vem««nth Avenue Ptiwim. Atiiotll 86007
December 28, 1978
OSCAR T. LVON, JR.. P.t.
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX Hearing Office
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 9^105
Gentlemen:
Marlcopa County, Arizona
208 Water Quality Management Program
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Ln
I
We have received a copy of the DEIS on the proposed 208 Water Quality Management
Program and offer the following comments:
1, Although we do not see any direct Impacts of the 208 Program on transpor-
*l tat Ion, the impacts of growth and land use changes from all alternatives
will have an Indirect impact on the area transportation system,
2. In reviewing the Draft EiS, we have not found a complete or detailed
2 discussion of the impact to regional air quality which would be an Impact
of the 208 Program.
We could not find any future air quality estimates in numerical form.
What will be the future air quality due to increases in population and
changes in land use? We would like to see the predicted air quality
values compared with the ambient air quality standards and not generalized
as was done on "pages 3-117 through 3-121. We find It interesting that a
plan which can affect regional population and land uses only takes four
pages to discuss air quality In an area where violations of the ambient
air quality standards are a common occurrence. What methods or models
for estimating future air quality were used? What is the accuracy of
these prediction methods over the regional area studied?
3. Your discussion on archaeology and historic resources appears very general.
3 How many of these resources will be effected? Are they eligible for the
National Register? What mitigation plans have been developed?
l|. On page ii of the summary the following sentence appears..."While localized
Impacts are described in the DEIS, the primary purpose of the assessment
is to provide information concerning area wide impacts and to solicit
comments on these impacts.
December 28, 1978
4 There is very little discussion of the Impact on the population pro-
jections, the housing demand, the change In water quality or volumes.
An example is on page 4-8, lines 6 through 8..."Impacts are mainly
seen as beneficial except for instances of potential contravention of
water standards and public health/aesthetics influences." This state-
ment is typical of the DEIS and Indicates to the reviewer that a brief
evaluation was made of the Impact and a generalized statement was used
to cover all possibilities.
As a whole, our review indicates that the DEIS contains a general description of
the regional area and a superficial look at Impacts. A discussion of the local
or regional social, economic and environmental impacts from the 208 Program was
not found.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
Very truly yours,
OSCAR T. LVON, JR., P.E.
,Sta
JED:jf
tate Engineer /A
^rvo £ A_<*W_
dAMES E. DORRE, Manager
Environmental Planning Services
Arizona Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 13588
PHOENIX, AZ. 85002
COMMENT DOCUMENT G
MOTOR VEHICLE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
COMMENT DOCUMENT G
-------
MUCI I. MJem
BUM* NMUtON. ».
MKION 0 IV«M, Neswll
c
WMIAMH Mm,hm«|
F HOtHTt, 00. «
•own *.
ARIZONA OAMC « PISH
<*bM*
ANTMBMT
noon i o»u»Ntw(uo
January 25, 1979
Marlcopg Association of Governments
Utter Quality Management Program
111 South Third Avenue, Room 300
Phoenix, Arttona 85003
Re: Point Source Metro Phoenix
Alterative! for MAC2Q8 Water
Quality Management Plan: Draft
Environmental Assetiment/Envlron-
nental Impact Statement
Gentlemen:
We have received and reviewed the above-referenced document and appreciate
the opportunity to provide consents.
The draft document appears to be well done and He concur with the selection
1 of objectives and programs. Our principal concerns center on the potential of
reduced flows In the Salt River channel below 91»t Avenue and resultant lots of
valuable riparian habitat along that waterway. Of particular concern 1s the
allocated 7,300 acre-feet of water which presently supports our wildlife manage-
ment area at 115th Avenue. He understand and trust that this allocation will
continue.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Jantzen, Director
By: Richard L. Stephenson? Wildlife Specialist
Planning and Evaluation Branch
RLS:dd
cc: Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, California
COMMENT DOCUMENT H
*l;iff iC.mft Drpiuhm'iit
John M. Little
Acting Commissioner
December It, 1978
Mr. Nark Frank, Program Coordinator
Martcopa Association of Governments
208 Water Quality Management Program
111 South Third Avaaua
Phoenix. Arlsona 85003
Dear Mr. Frank:
The staff of the Natural Reaource Conservation Division of the
State Land Department haa reviewed the draft document, M.A.G. and
E.F.A. Environmental Impact Statement on point source Metro-
Phoenix alternatives.
We find the document to be generally technically sound and
comprehensive. Particularly, we applaud the uae of numbered
lined pages which hss made the review process much easier. Mo
attempt on our part was made to adit the document, however, the
following specific comments are offered for your coneideretion:
P. 2-29 L3 - Suggeet that Painted Rock Lake la closer to
1 70 miles than 100 mllee from the confluence of the Sslt
and Gils.
P. 3-12 L18-21 - In FIA designated regulatory floodwaya
2 no structures may be constructed. The word flooding should
be changed to flood prone area.
3 P. 3-63 L8 - Should be big galleta not slleta.
4 P. 3-62 Figure 3-13 - Symbols are missing In many areas.
S P, 3-76 Figure 3-15 - Indicates existing hlghvaya that do
not exlat.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Robert Toxlft, Director
Msturel Resource Conservation
REY/lf
cc: State Clearinghouse
COMMENT DOCUMENT I
-------
KEL rOX. CM.
JOHN L. LKIItH. V. CM.
WIVLKY K. aTKINKR
KXICUTIVK DIRtCTOH
AND
•TATK WATIM KNVINMft
VICKIE MOONIY
•RUCC I. »A«»»Tt. OOVIRNO*
iirma -Baler (HmnmtsBtcn
Itt NOHTH ctNTNAL AVINUI. iultl too
|ll|amix, gAricatm BS004
TILtFMOM <*0lt IM.TMI
PKTIN r. BIANCO
MAHYBCTH CARLILK
QLKN O. CURTIS
W. N. JACK • HAWVIH
J. C. WtTlLM
torricio M«M*CR»
ANDREW L BOTWY
February 2, 1979
Maricopa Association of Governments
Water Quality Management Program
1.11 South Third Avenue, Room 300
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to the Draft Environmental Assessment on
Point Source Metro Phoenix Alternatives, dated November 1978.
Comments on the report by the Water Commission are contained
herein. Only the portions of the report dealing with water use,
supply and quality have been reviewed. Other aspects were not
evaluated.
For the most part the report adequately assesses the impacts
1 expected from 208 alternatives. Our greatest concern is in the
lack of consistency in dealing with water supplies. The report.
Current and Expected Water Supplies and Demands and Groundwater
Conditions in Maricopa County, prepared by the Water Commission for
the 208 study in June 1978 is recommended as the basic source of
information for water supply and use. It is suggested that all
reference to existing conditions be to this report.
The assessment went into a detailed presentation of projected
2 gronndwater conditions expected under the No Action Alternative,
with reliance on a report prepared by Arthur Beard Engineers.
Although the Water Commission has not undertaken detailed evalua-
tions of water supply and use conditions expected under the
assumption of no action, a cursory evaluation indicates that the
findings by Arthur Beard are overly optimistic relative to
groundwater conditions. It is suggested that this part of the
report be condensed to indicate only that overdraft would be
reduced under this alternative.
Specific comments on the report are detailed below. Reference
is to page and line.
3-19:22. It is suggested that the agreements recently reached
3 between the City and EPA be discussed.
COMMENT DOCUMENT J
Maricopa Assn. of Governments
-2-
February 2, 1979
3-23:5. Revise to read "... the Gila River at Gillespie Dam
4 8 miles . . .".
3-23:15. Suggest that it be noted that the secondary standards
Sare recommended limits only, and violations do not require treatment.
3-31:9. References to groundwater in storage refer to the Salt
6 River Valley Basin, which differs from the study area. The difference
is not great but should be noted. This discrepancy is present several
times in the report (e.g. 3-33:5, 3-125:6).
Figure 3-6. Legend should indicate less than 100 feet and
7 greater than 200 feet. Also credit source and give date.
3-25:21. Other reasons for constant trends in salinity are:
8 the monitoring program is, by nature of the wells sampled, unable to
detect the quality of the return flows or the seepage; and the
quality of the water as pumped is predominantly influenced by the
inplace quality of the water in the aquifer which is a function of
water levels and well depth. The analysis actually monitors only
quality of supplies.
3-40:21 and 3-42:10. It is doubtful that the indicated replace-
9ment can be demonstrated. More than likely the wells are now
withdrawing water from deeper in the aquifer which is of better
quality.
3-42:18. The owner of the land has the right to use the water
10 he does, not have ownership of the water.
3-42:4. Notices of intent to drill are required for all wells,
11 not just irrigation wells.
12
3-80:110. SRP relies mostly on non-hydro sources.
3-121:26. The 290 gpcd value is low. The Water Commission
13 estimated MSI withdrawal at about 340 gpcd in 1975. This value
however includes a substantial amount of loss associated with
delivery of surface water.
3-122:25. It should state that Salt-Verde flows are assumed to
14 continue at 859,000 acre-feet per year.
3-130:6. Existing data hasn't shown such contamination. The
15 deductive model may be too simplistic.
16 4-26:14, 16, 20. Should be "Town of Paradise Valley".
4-27:1. The report first says adverse impacts are unlikely, then
17 the rest of the page discusses the concern.
4-71:6. The effluent in the river is not the source of high
18groundwater levels in the district, rather it is the import and appli-
COMMENT DOCUMENT J
-------
Maricopa Assn. of Governments
-J-
rebruary 2, 1979
cation of surface water, and the low UM of groundweter by the two
irrigation districts. Thin it shown by the regional groundwater
levels.
19 4-B7il7. Suggest rsport elaborate on impact* to Miff.
90 4-89iB, Groundwater quality in th« Buckeye area is considerably
lowsr in quality (TDS) than effluent. Alto tht effluent in the river
is not now adding significantly to groundwater supplies.
21 4-166i5. This should be updated to current projections. Data
prepared for units 4 and 5 of ANPP indicates only minor shortages in
peak months during the late 1980's.
22 4-176i2. This paragraph is not supported in body of report.
23 4-177i2. The availability of effluent is based on projected
effluent flows and a contract for delivery.
The Hater Commission will be happy to answer any questions you
have related to our comments.
Sincerely,
Y1
H
*-
,,
iley E/) Steiner
Executigtf Director
cci Environmental Protection Agency
COMMENT DOCUMENT J
8IONOFF
Maricopa Association of Covts.
208 Water Quality Mgmt. Program
».»«»o •»
c«.
in Sooth Third Avenue
Phoenix ' Co""" Maricopa
Aritooa » *»<** 8S003
Mark Frank, Program Coordinator
» THUMMMWwMMiiiMw-fsnw MAC li EPA Draft
Environmental A»««s»ment/Environmental Impact
Statement on Point Source Metro Phoenix Alterna-
tives - This analyae* the impact* of four alternativi
plane for the management of point source water
pollution in the metropolitan Phoenix area. The
ilternativaa were developed through an extensive
• ",c involvement program, Inchiding revlr
pubTlc
,—,. .nvolvement proirtm, inc
evaluation by various 208 advisory groups
ng review h
Maricopa County, ArUona
uttn.t«l\ It. KM-
_*51
Low)
Oltw'
OtfimO^
Tb ftojtci
l.Z.3,4 1.2.3.4
I* rraWMlUtt
OfStni HUM* «!
r
1.
:S£tr
C-- Low Knttr fr>fm}f>rlaiftfllfrft/[^\
A-Ntw
B^n«ttw*t
A~N*w C-HnitJ
D -Com
_..
f Ittttr |^|
f ~Q\h»t Sptctfv
_ JJJJ
H '•nui'Klbv O*H8O'cutir A 96 ihii •ppliCeUlort WM submitted, !V<> Aripnttfr
' to instruction*. Ihcrflin, to a*jpfopfuw* »»«rrt COrtt*dsw«d II cgvncv r«pon*» n du* und«f proi
of i*»n t.OMBCifcub'A-95. nhMtMtnor nMtrn
rel Afltocy A-96 Off>c«l
c «H(V telephonr number/
•tindtrd Form 424 Pifli 1 (10-75)
fHKrtbrti bi GSA. Mtrai MtMtrmeni On-ufar 74.7
COMMENT DOCUMENT K
-------
DEC 111978
DEC 1f 1378
COMMENT SHEET FOR STATEWIDE
Z08 INTERIM OUTPUT REVIEW
SAI I 78-28-0002-02
Reply due date January 9, 1979
Return comments to:
State Clearinghouie
1700 W. Washington, Room 500
Phoenix, AZ 85007
COG; Maricopa Ait'n of Covt5.
Tafk #
Title Drait Environmental Anesa-
ment/Khvir6nmental Irr "
on Point Source Metro
ment/i.hvir6nmentai impact statement
' Phoenix
Alternatives
Mr. Jack Kronenftld
Office of Planning
Dept. of Economic Security
Reviewers: Site Code: QliJZ
MAO IM»rk Tftakl
PAG (Ja«k B»l«)
DOT. FV (T.rrr K'»'"r>
CAAC IL*il«r Snowl
SEACO l»o|tt Minniafl
Htiith D«pt. S«rvietl (Pttii MeCULlu. Couili Ailrol. Bmet Scott.
.'>ck Llnd.rnio, uul H«t1i» HI.It I
W.t.r Ou»lily Control Couae-.l fK*U).b«ai
Stmtt L*nd De a* .-=7W 3! 'p.obtr; Youatl
Ul
] ?•;<• 3ft*rd ^A'.ltn Croti)
Ariicu Dtp*rtm*nt at 7;»cipor»tian 'Ron McCr*»dr)
Wmr Cornminion tTom C'.»ritl
lorr.ic S«cu;:tv iJick K.'onialoidt
crvU* 'Mftck MilUd
Comments: Use additional sheets if necessary
<\s indicated in Chaoter III the population projections utilized for this 208 Report were
revised on July 7, 1978, by the Technical Advisory Committee established under Executive
Order 77-5, Even the revised projection for Maricopa Co, will prove too low since the
county has experienced phenomenal growth during 1978 which is expected to continue during
1979. The projections for Maricopa Co. adopted on July 7, 1978 were as follows:
1980 1,436,000 1995 2,077.200
1985 1,521,900 2000 2,352,300
1990 1,831,600
During the Spring of 1979, the Dept. of Economic Security will review all current population
estimates and projections for the State and its 14 counties. From the evidence already
available, it is certain that the population projection for Maricopa County will be raised
to at least 2.4 million for the year 2000, It is our hope that the Maricopa Ass'n of
Gov't will consider these reissues when updating their 208 plan for Maricopa County.
COMMENT SHEET FOR STATEWIDE
208 INTERIM OUTPUT REVIEW
SAI* 78-28-OC02-CQ
Reply due date January 9. 1979
Return comments to:
State Clearinghouse
1700 W. Washington, Room 500
Phoenix. AZ 85007 /
Reviewers:
MAC (Mftrfc Fftokl
PAC Dipt. Sarvlcvi (Ptvl MeCUIUa. Coaai
Wtt*t Quality CJHtr*! Ceuac'.l .
lon*l Cooacil iRieh»rd Riavin
c! ot Economic S»c-jr-.ty i *»cn
«r-.-fct1oti Strvic. 'M*ek MUl.ft
Commentst Use additional sheets if necessary
T C
u
signature
COMMENT DOCUMENT K1
:e 1-2-79
Demographic Planner
; r' s signature
-1? f
>rK' n i'
COMMENT DOCUMENT K2
-------
DEC H 078
DEC 1
COMMENT SHEET FOR STATEWIDE
208 INTERIM OUTPUT REVIEW
COMMENT SHEET FOR STATEWIDE
Z08 INTERIM OUTPUT REVIEW
SAI i 78-28-0002-02
Reply due date J«nttary 9, 1979
Return comment> toi
State Clearlnghouee
1700 W. WaihlBfton, Room 5
PhoenU, AZ 8S007
Revlewent
J
COCi MarlcOBa Aai'n of Covt».
Ta.k I
Title Draft Environmental Aiteie-
mpact ataf
Phoenix
Aiten
CTMBtAfcnvirorirfie'nlta.i impact statement
on Point Source Metro
rnative!
Mi. Annette Grove
Arizona St*tt Park* Board
1688 Ucit A4*M
Phoenix, AZ 85007
MAO (Mitt rtukl
. MO (talk MM
• DVT. IV rTfrrr XMra*rl
, CAAO ILMMr IMM
. ICAOO !*•«•' UteMl^f
HuM Dipt. MrrUo rpul M«CIMM«. Ciuli Aim*, (ran «••«.
«>nr On HIT C«w«l CMMII WMMOI UiO«k>M. Ck>iu> **>.
fnMir OMkto, AriM* Millo. Mxnrt IMMI. a«*»l lunk«rt<>
, A|rln»i»i k Hirm«!nr« t:*mti Orurl
Cwnt i
;,.,.
^
H
t*r
tr-irl
Iftltlurtf Kuwt
u S«c«rltv '.'B
1fli 'M«ck Ma
Comment i: Uie mdditiontl iheett if n«cm»ry
SAI * 78-28-0002 -ik»ri«r
Commenti! Un additional »he«ti if necenary
T r
COMMENT DOCUMENT K3
signitur*
Cf >u
COMMENT DOCUMENT K4
Date / •
T^-
Telephone
-------
I
H
~J
DEC 111978
COMMENT SHEET FOR STATEWIDE
Z08 n^TERIM OUTPUT REVIEW
SAI * 78-18-0002-02
Reply due date January 9, 1979
Return comments to;
COG: Maricopa Ass'n of Covt».
Sta»e Clearinghouse
1700 W. Washington, Room 500 / ^ Alban R
Phoenix, AZ 85007 J Game and F]sh Dep3rtment
2222 West Greenway Road
Phoenix, AZ 85023
Reviewers:
Ta«k
Title Draft Environmental Asiesi-
ment/H.nvironmental Impact Statement
on Point Source Metro Fhoenbc
MAC (Mark r?ank)
PAG (Jack Bali)
| DOT. fV (T«rry Kt»ra«r)
' CAAG /L*f(«f Saowt
S£ACOJR3s«r Minn lag)
Htil'Ji Dipt. S«rvic*i .
COMMENT DOCUMENT K6
Date January 12, 1979
Title Assistant Director, Arizona Oept. Health Serviee»-e;e-viCRe
-------
DEC 1 f 878
COMMENT SHEET FOR STA". EWIDE
Z08 INTERIM OUTPUT REVIEW
COMMENT SHEET FOR STATEWIDE
208 INTERIM OUTPUT REVIEW
SAI. 78.-28-OC02-C3
Reply due date January 9. »79
COG; Maricopa An'n o( Covta.
Taak
Return commantf tot
State Clearinghouse
1700 W. W.ihtngton, Room SOO
PhoenU. AZ 85007
Revlewerai
_____ MAO (Mark nub)
Title Draft Environmental Anett-
me&t /EHVTFo"Kmeniai irnpact statement
on Point Source Metro Phoenix
Alllr'ntllVtl
Mr. Letter Snow,208 Project Dlr
Central Ai. Attoc. of Cov'tt.
1810 Main, St., Drawer JJ
Floranee, AZ 852Ji
-
0»T. tv Itirrr XnrMr)
CAAO IL«ll«r IMW)
ltAOOI>«|M4«k MllUrl
_ Othir (i«««t(v)
Commenti: Uit »dd(tton»l »h**t« if n«c«»«»ry
Mo C
SAI I 7»-?»-0007-0?
Reply due date January ". 1979
Return commenti to;
State Cle«rlnghot»e
1700 W. Wa.hlngton, Room SOS
Phoenix. AZ 85007
Revleweri:
ftov'ts.
Taak «
Title Draft Environmental
m«nt/environment*I Impact Statement
on Point Source Metro Phoenla
~ ICi AI tern
John J. DeBoltke. Exec. Dir.
Marlcopa Aaa'n of Government!
1820 W. Waahlngton Street
phoenix, -AZ 85007
tern?tIves
MAO IM-ft rtutl
PAO IJ«r'
. CAAO IC..L. IMWI
_ ICAOO (IUc«r fctoMib^i
„ H**ttfc O»fi. l««•!»«•. Br««« kott.
lick tl-<«mr UkJ H«r«r HMMI
«•!•, Oi-Unr C*«»l CWM'-I IKraMtt Mtik«l. loktrl >iirni«r|ir
B A|r)CMll«r« It H«rtu-H«r« IUWM CaMarl
. Oil M4
ArtMM OMdMr RMr«_lM« C««nltMIU4 CMiunuitaa f
^ Pirtc BflftN (AIlM CrMII
"
y Atlc* Blvt^il
| w_l«
| IM«r-lrlh_l
(Tom Chirk)
! W ArIMM IA
v
[ l«ll C«Mtr«UIM S4rvlct (Mack Ulllcri
Otkcr (»H
-------
COMMENT SHEET FOR STATEWIDE
Z08 INTERIM OUTPUT REVIEW
SAI# 78;-*Q"
Reply due date January 9, 1979
Return comments to:
State Clearinghouse
1700 W. Washington, Room 500
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Reviewers:
COG: Maricopa An'n of Covt».
T»»k # ...
Title Draft Environmental, A»se»i-
ment/ii(nvir6nnient4TT.nM)4ict Statement
on Point Source Metro Phoenix
Alte rnative s
Mr. Terry Kearney,208 Project Dlt
District IV Council of Gov'ts.
377 South Matn St., Room 202
Yuroa, AZ 853&1*
MAC
\ PAC U*ck BtU)
: DOT. IV (T«rrr K»»rn«y)
j CAAC (L«il«r Soowl
_ SCACO (fcof«r Mnwln||
_ H«»lth D«pt. S*rvHc«i (Pftul McClilUu, Coiuil* A»tro«. 6rae« Scon,
J»ck Hod«m*n. uid Hftrlty HUttl
_ Wtt«r Oualltr Control Council IK»M»th M«Don»ld, Ch*rl«i Stott.
Scudd*r Coekln. ArchU M«lloa. How»rd B«th«l, Robert SUrnb«r|«
_ Agriculture fa HorUcultur* CUDBI C*««r|
Cuna »nd Ft»h (Nad Rkthtnta)
Stmt« L*nd D«p*rtm«nt (Robert Youatl
Mtniral Rnourcat D*partmtnt 'Cltn W»lk«r)
Oil »nd GAV Commtnion (John B*nni»ttrl
Arlionn Ouidoor tUcrutloa Coordin*ttn| Cornmuaion :M*ry Alic« Bt
~ ?»rki Bturd [Alltn Croiit
AfUou* D«p»rttn«nt of Triniportmtion 'Ron McCnidyl
"Af»t«r Comminion (Torn Clfcrk)
[nt*r-trlb«l Council of Aritoiu. ,'Albir» 7ipp«eoaa»el
~ EPA-R»flon*l Council IRiehfcrd R**vi.i
Oth«r (ipvclfy)
Comments: Use additional sheets if necessary
DEC 1H
COMMENT SHEET FOR STATEWIDE
208 INTERIM OUTPUT REVIEW
SAI # 78.- 28-0 002 -02
Reply due date January 9, 1979
Return comments to:
State Clearinghouse
1700 W. Washington, Room 500
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Reviewers;
^mnm MAC (Mark r?a»k)
PAC (Jack B»M
. DBT, IV (T«rrr X*«ra»r)
COG: Maricopa Ass'n of Govts.
Task #
Title -Draft Environmental Assess-
ment /cnvironmentaITlmpact' scatement
on Point Source Metro Phoenix
Alternatives
Mr. Kenneth A. McDonald, Cty.Mor.
Ci ty of Tempe
P.O. Box 5002
Tempe, AZ 85281
SEA CO (R»f *r Mautinf)
W»t«r Ouklity Control Council IK«tui*tb McDeatld. Oi*rl«i Stott.
Seudd.r CootciB. Archl* M*llon. Howard B«tb*l. Robert St*rab«r|«r
_ Cunt »sd F'»h (Ntd fttthbuai
Snti "-»nd D«5*rcn«at <^ob«rt Youatl
Cil tad C*« Cirnf=ii»ion /.John 3iaj»iji*r)
| ?«.-ki 3on-d iAll*a Crai*)
cvl 'Richard S
n Kron»Uid)
Comments: Use additional sheets if necessary
cv
COMMENT DOCUMENT K9
Reviewer's signature
Title
Date
Telephone
Jt/'sfi-f
\^\~iev.-er5 signature
"it;e ^
^ / ' ~(S
COMMENT DOCUMENT K10
Telechone
-------
QILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
AMIIMtlTMATIVI 0*MCU
f, 0,10X97 - (M2IMJ33II
SAGA-TON. AZ 85247
January 11, 1979
The Honorable Charles Salem, chairman
Maricopa tVe*oci*tion of Government*
Deter Quality Management Program
111 South Third Avenue, Room 300
Phoonix, Arisen* 8500)
Subjecti
PRATT ENVUdaOHTM. I»»CT gTMTOMI/MJC 208 HATER QUALITY MAHAGEMENT
PUN MID PRATT FINAL HAM/MC 208 KATCT QUALITY MAHAggMEHT PROGRAM
Dear Mayor S«l«mi
N« appreciate the opportunity or reviewing the above subject publicntioni, and
subnlt the following docuamti and conMnti •• representing the official poii-
tion of Gil* River Indian Coaninity. Our cooaent* are eeientially Halted to
factoTi concerning two ipeoifio lite*, the 91it Avenue and Chandler treatment
plant*, a* they concern or iapact thi* Cimmunity, toz thie reaeon, the review
concentrate! primarily on the Draft Environment*! Impact ItateBant docunent,
but ihould be coneidered ae our foraal itateewnt on the 208 Prograa plan ai
wall.
Ai of thii date the Oila River Tribal council has not taken fomal action on the
EIS, or on the Proaraa ai currently propoeed. It if anticipated that luch action
will be forthcoming tnortlyi a copy of that documentation will be forwarded to
you promptly for inclueion in the record4
Our review comment* are attached in two section* for your consideration( and
reflect the official Tribal position at this time, baaed upon available submit-
ed data.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate, review and
Program.
Very truly yours,
OILA RIVER INDIAN COMJhjNITT
it on the HAG 208
COMMENT DOCUMENT L
-i-
xci Environment*! Protection Agency
Region IX Hearing Office
21S rremont Street
San rrancieco, California 94105
Attachment*i
91st Avenue Kaatewater Treatatent Plant
tlS Review Comments
Letter from Governor Lewin July 13, 1978
Tribal Council Reeolution CH-133-78 (September 20,
District-7 Reeolution (June 29, 1978)
197B)
Chandler System
Notice of action by Tribal Resource Development Comlttee
COMMENT DOCUMENT L
-------
QILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
DEMNTNENT OF PHYSICAL RESOUMEI
SACA7ON.AZ. 85247
rg un
MtlNMin
AVENUE TREATMENT FLANT
Since this facility it scheduled for varying degrees of expansion in all four MAG
alternatives, comments will be confined to impacts within the range of proposed
capacities. Impact considerations are site-specific to existing and anticipated
factors of serious and/or adverse environmental concern to Gila River Indian Com-
munity. Technical and service delivery 4|ueetions do not benefit the Community and,
therefore, are not addressed here. Analysis is based upon the format utilized in
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement; thirteen environmental criteria {p. 4-4).
Further relevant comments and recommendations follow the analysis. All comments
are based solely on material contained in the Draft EIS and do not reflect data
contained in other reports or conferences with MAG staff and consultants.
1. AIR QUALITY: Severe Adverse Impact
Severe odor problems emanating from the existing plant have been documented over
a period of years. These have negatively affected a wide range of existing and
proposed programs: hospital care, recreation, schools, elderly nutrition, housing
standards, churches, a children's home and community service center. General de-
gradation of the air quality has resulted, ana plsnt expansion is therefore oppos-
ed by the local community affected. Anticipated fugitive dust and noise during
construction is expected to compound the current problems in varying intensity, de-
pending on direction of prevailing winds.
2. GEOLOGY/SOILS; No Adverse Impact
3. SURFACE WATER; No Adverse Impact
(No beneficial use to the Community. See comments under »8 - Public Health -
concerning flood hazards).
4. GROUND WATER: Major Adverse Impact
Estimated total dissolved solids, expected to result in the vicinity of the plant
site (1950 - 3250 mg/1), will result in potential long-term concentration of pol-
lutants to the domestic water supply. The well location at 83rd Avenue, immediate-
ly north of Baseline Road, is approximately one mile from the plant site and out-
fall. Odor contamination of water supply already exists. Replenishment of ground
water table is not a benefit in this area of existing high water table.
5. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.- Major Negative Impact
Loss of approximately 100 acres of wetland-marsh habitat will irreversibly destroy
an established area of traditional game bird hunting. Effect of possible ground
water contamination on existing crop production has not been determined.
6. CULTURAL RESOURCES; No Adverse Impact
COMMENT DOCUMENT L
7. AESTHETIC -• Severe Adverse Impact
Noxious odors from sludge drying beds, flies, mosquitoes, gnats and persistent
overall degradation of environmental quality has seriously impacted the resi-
dential community and its supporting public services and facilities. Initial
plant siting and construction apparently did not recognize the presence of a
substantial residential community concentrated within the immediate vicinity:
115 dwelling units were identified by 1978 field count to be within an area
severely impacted by vectors, odor and inferior water quality. Residents of
the district consistently, repeatedly, and unanimously oppose further threat
to the quality of the environment. The strength of local opposition to both
existing conditions and proposed expansion cannot be overemphasized. Precise
mitigation measures will have to be presented to address these impacts or pu-
blic controvery can be expected to continue in intensity.
8. PUBLIC HEALTH: Severe Adverse Impact
Location of the existing plant within a designated floodplain makes it particu-
larly vulnerable to flood conditions, when sewage is discharged into the Salt
River channel. Absence of fencing, buffers, or any other protective security
measures compounds the problem of litter, debris, and unregulated flow of ef-
fluent. Apparent failure of the present facility to meet and maintain required
EPA effluent standards constitutes a critical health hazard, notably for child-
ren playing in the channel and for cattle drinking inadequately treated waste-
water. Stagnant pools in the meanders of the river bed contribute to septic
conditions and further the vector and odor problems. Human illness and live-
stock disease/death have been reported, but these impacts are not capable of
positive documentation. Hazards are apparent in unrestricted pedestrian access
to the outflow and effluent channel in the vicinity of the 91st Avenue crossing;
protective fencing should be installed and warning signs erected. Inadequately
treated sewage wastes are permitted to pond and stagnate upstream from the 91st
Avenue roadbed due to blocked and/or inadequate culvert capacity; vegetation fur-
ther impedes flow and encourages insect breeding in the vicinity. Channelization
should be required to eliminate the meanders, and measures taken to ensure correct
operation and maintenance of both outflow points and channel carrying capacity.
Further expansion of sludge drying beds to the south of the existing site must
be vigorously opposed as contributing further to health and flood hazards. Pro-
per flood plain management techniques are seriously lacking. Effluent standards
for partial body contact must be met, in accordance with mandatory EPA limits.
9. LAND USE; Major Adverse Impact
Serious conflicts in land use result from proximity of the plant to an established
residential community and its supporting public facilities. Further growth, es-
pecially in the area of critically-needed housing, it impeded. Strenuous objec-
tion is taken to statements in the Draft EIS (p. 4-18, lines 17-23): "minor im-
pacts to local land use" is a careless understatement; "relocation of residents"
is out of the question; and"financial compensation" is an unacceptable solution.
utilization of Federal funds to expand the existing facility poses critical con-
flicts in proper utilization of public monies for incompatible land use projects.
COMMENT DOCUMENT L
-------
rO
rO
linee federal funding from varloue agendas eupporte e majority of on-going and
propoaed programa on Tribal land, thle conflict ie eubjeet to eerlou* crUiciam.
10. POTOLATIOIIi Seriou* Negative Impact
Plant axpanaion ie not expected to induce population growth In Dlatrict ?i rather,
it will tend to Inhibit new growth and development due to the undeairable environ-
mental aettlng reeultlng from current plant Impacta. The major criteria of popu-
lation impact (p. 4-14) are aa followe'i
•I Population In Immediate proximity to plant i MO
b) Number of familieai HI
e) Number of dwelling unltai 115
fffeoti of the facility on the reeident population ere deacrlbed eleewhere in
thie report.
It ahould be emphaalud that thia ia a atable, permanent neighborhood community,
established prior to const ruction of the misting plant. Since; moat persona re-
side on allotted land there is little, if any, opportunity or likelihood for
relocation to escape adverse environmental Impacts eauaed by non-Tribal projecta.
11. fUlLIC FACILITIM AND SEHVIOeSi Severe Adverse Impect
In addition to residents, the following program arses have consistently register-
ed complaints regarding noxious air and watsr quality and excessive vectorai
Community Service Center
Churchee (4)
Children's Home (20-2S reeldenta)
Convalescent Home P6 beds)
Recreation areas O)
Elderly Nutrition Program
A HDD - eubsidlsed subdivision and park development fronting on seaeline Road haa
been Impeded by failure to meet federal Environmental quality standard! in thia
area.
12. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY i Not Applicable
No economic or physical benefits would accrue to the Community, only the coats of
environmental degradation. Location of the plant aeverely impacte the Community
but doea not serve it.
13. PUBLIC AND IMBTITUTrOaAL ACCEPTABILITY I Major Adverse Impact
As noted earlier opposition will probably continue until adequate mitigation of
current impacts can be demonstrated. Thia can undoubtedly be accompliahed by
correct redeelgn, retrofit and proper operation and Maintenance of the plant and
•Sourcet Population and Housing Census, Gila River Indian Community! December,
1978.
-3-
COMMENT DOCUMENT L
outflow enamel*. The attached Tribal Council Resolution OR-1JJ-78 (September
20, 197»), requtree * site-specific esaeasment and mitigation of th« problema
Identified. Thin 1* supported further by * letter (*l*o attached) fron Governor
Alexander Lewi*, »r., to Mayor Charles Sale*. This portion of the project h«e
been the focus of extensive public participation and review line* August, 1977,
Involving the following agencies end groups i
Tribal Council
Dlstrlet-7 community reeidente and program managera
(Resolution attached)
Planning and Coning CoBBlaaion
Lend Uee Planning staff
Resource Development Committee
Economic Development Committee
Gila River Housing Authority
factor t Aesembly of Ood Church
Office of the U.S. Attorney
Tribal legal couneel
Gila River Environmental Health
2 ReuMmindatlonst
1. The existing facility muat be upgraded to neat EPA standards for aecondary
treatment, with adequate monitoring to maintain that level.
1. More detailed analyala ia required of environmental impact factora to fur-
ther Identify end mitigate problem factor!, aspsefally odor and ineect problaaa.
J. Engineering deelgn modlf icationa muat be incorporated which damonatrat* that
adveree impacta have bean reoognlied and prevented.
4. Since there la no economic or phyalcal benefit accruing to the Tribe from
thia project, plant expaneion ihould be deferred until acceptable safeguards
axe aaaured to protect the environmental quality of the Community.
5. Adequate buffara and aecurlty ahould be inatallcd, auch aa vegetative screen-
ing, fencing and warning elgne.
6. Siting of aludge treatment facilitlaa, including drying beda, ihould be direct-
ed northerly and not encroach further into the floodplaln or river bed toward alia
River Indian Community.
7. Outflow channel! ahould be regularly maintained from »xce»sive vegetation, and
aligned to regulate flow and Increece velocity. Culverta ahould be free of debris
and sedimentation, eapecially at the croeiing under the Slat Avenue roadbed, to
Improve carrying capacity and prevent ponding of effluent.
COMMENT DOCUMENT L
-------
QILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICAL RESOURCES
July 13. 1978
SACATON, AZ. 85247
PO 80K D - (802) 582-3311
(601) H3.4J23
The Honorable Charles Salem, Wat/or of Goodyear
Chairman, MarJcopa Association of
Governments Regional Council
105 La Canada Boulevard
Goodyear, Arizona 85338
SUBJECT: MAG 208 Study
Dear Mayor Salem;
We would like to take this opportunity to inform the Regional Council that Gila
River Indian Community is reviewing the proposed alternatives of the MAG 208
Program with interest and concern, and will continue to do so as the study pro-
gresses .
It seems appropriate at this time to offer several comments regarding the
project in order that certain factors can be anticipated and addressed early in
the planning process.
We refer you to the most recent publication submitted by John Carollo Engineers:
"first Draft: Evaluation of Alternate Plans (Stfestside Planning Area)"/ June,
1978; page 6-182. The concern of Gila River Indian Community residents and the
Tribal Council has been demonstrated, over a long period of time, with consider-
ably more strength of opposition than this report suggests. Consequently, we
feel a more substantial, detailed study should be made of the potential nega-
tive impacts upon GRTC by the proposed expansion of the 9.1st. Avenue water treat-
ment plant.
Concerning the Eastsi.de Planning Area, Alternatives 2 & 4, which propose utilization
of the Gila Drain and expansion of the Chandler treatment plant, you should be
alerted to the fact that original contract documents for the channel right-of-way
did not permit its use for drainage of effluent. Its further utilization and ex-
pansion should be considered only after legal determinations on this matter are
made which are satisfactory to both Gila River Indian Community and Salt River
Project.
The MAG staff, consultants and appropriate advisory groups should be aware of
the serious concern of the Gila River Indian Community regarding what appears to
be a critical lack of attention given in the study to mitigating the socioeconotnic
and environmental impacts of these proposed alternatives on Reservation land.
COMMENT DOCUMENT L
i-1 n ' i
COMMENT DOCUMENT L
-------
KM 301 ttutfy
ftgt 1
r*an* you tot th» opportunity of aatmmttaf on tt» project ft thil tim».
fary truly your*,
AJmanrfar Lewia, it., Oonmot
OiH Mvar Inditn coaawiUty
mi Jtek Dflcltkt, Sacracary, MM
MUlltm Cfte-ae, Jr., lot Project Maaaowr, v.t Any Corp* of tnglnttt*
CILA IITI1 INDIAH COMMUNITY
REgOtUTION 01-133-78
tniRIAt, tha ftaricopa Aaaoelation of Covarnnanta (MAC) haa baen
contfttctint «n *T**i>14i lot ttudy to i*«ntH
*a*tcv«t*T celltcclon «nd trtttatnt alcirniclvn
ch* rhocaii Metropolitan irta; and
(or
Y1
N>
VMIRIAt, an *lt«ra«tlv* i* the propoKd «xp«n§ion of th« *xlnt-
ln| «l»t Avtnu* Tr«atB«at Plant which now «dv«r««ly
affacta raaldaata of tha Cila Rivir Indian Raitrvaclon,
aipacially lo Diatrlct 7, by caualng noxloui ordora, by
aubatant tally concributini Coward polluting tha air
quality of tha araa, and by coapounding tha axlating
haalch haiard eauaad by fliaa and noiqultoti; and
MMKIIA8, tha «l»t Avanua Traataiant Plant la potantlally a haiard
bacauaa ot taw aawaga cont«min«tton during flood condi-
tion*; and
UH1MAS, tha 91at Avanua Traataant riant haa fallad to naat
gnvlronaiantal frotaetion Aganey alnliun atandard* for
aacondary traatnaot of affluant; and
UMgltAS, aiaca tba aortharn boundary of tha Clla Rlvar Indian
Coaauoity haa not yat baan finally dctarnlnad, tha pro-
poaad axpanalon of tha 91at Avanua, Traatnant Plant may
aneroach on Coaaunlty land;
MOV. THIierOIE. IE IT RESOLVED:
1. Tha Clla Rlvar Indian Coataunlty oppoaad axpanalon
of tha 91at Avanu* Traataant Plant aa currantly pro-
poaad by tha MAC 201 Progcam, unlaaa tha envlron-
•antal Intagrlty of Cosamnlty linda li protactad;
2. Tha Cila Rivar Indian Community racomnanda that th«
axlating 91at Avanua Traataant ba iaprovad and
upgraded to aaat Envlronaantal Protaction Aganey
rtandarda for aacondary traataant, and that aonitor-
Ing ba inatltutad to inaura that alnlnally raiiulrad
Invlroaaaatal Frotaetion Aganey lavala ara coapllad
with;
3. A formal anvlronaantal lapact aaaaaanant ahould ba
undertaken to identify problex araaa and auggaat
•pacific ra«adlal aechoda to corract and alleviate
tba problaaa cauaad by tha axlating 91at Avanua
Traataiant Plant, and tha propoaad plant axpanalon,
aa each lapacta tha Clla Rlvar Indian Community.
COMMENT DOCUMENT L
COMMENT DOCUMENT L
-------
C1LA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
Resolution CR-133-78
Page) 2
Ln
NJ
Ln
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Authority contained In Article IV-, ««c . 1 (•) , (I),
CO. (9), (12), (18) and Sec. 4 of th* Amended Constitution and
Bylaws of the Clla River Indian Community ratified by the Tribe,
January 22, 1960 and approved by the Secretary of the Interior
March 17, 1960, the foregoing resolution was adopted thla 20th
day of SEPTEMBER at a REGULAR Council meeting held In DISTRICT
fill- BLACKWATER. Arizona at which a quorum of 13 nembers were
present by a vote of 13 FOR; 0 AGAINST; 0 ABSTAIN; 4
ABSENT; and 0 VACANCY.
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
ATTEST:
.
TRIBAL COUNCIL SECRETARY
SIM RIVEK INDIAN COMMUNITY
SUBJECT: Action by District Seven Community
Special Meeting: June 29, 1978 at 2:15 p.m.
Mr. Mervin L. Thurntan, Community Chairman,
presided.
Excerpt from the official minutes:
"... The Community met with two representatives concerning the 91st Ave.
sever plant. The Community voted against the sever expansion on 91st Ave.
...Kings of problems created by the Treatment Plantt Insects, pests, and
bad odor: also don't know where the boundary line is because of the last
flooding lit was washed away). fCouncllperson) Edena Anton commented that
she lives on 79th Ave., but can still smell the bad odor...The domestic
water well is right on the bank of the river.
The expansion would be disastrous all the way around, frank Lowe commented
that it will affect the housing for our district. Alex Slve commented on
bad odor in water., .Stanley Janls also agreed with Hi. Slve. Herviri Thurman:
not healthy for the elderly and for children - bad odor could affect their
lungs, tmogene Sundust commented she gets headaches from the odor, and
that raw sewage flows and mixes with the Salt River. Mr. Shelde oommonted
rha City of Phoenix doesn't maintain what they have now. The foam from
the riverbed runs onto the 91st Avenue road.
Roderick Sunn made a motion to oppose the expansion of the 91st Ave. Sewage
Treatment Plant. Vernon Lee seconded the motion. All were in favor; none
opposed; the motion was passed and carried...
(signed)
Denise Johnson ...."
COMMENT DOCUMENT L
COMMENT DOCUMENT L
-------
m KtVtH 1MDIAM COMHUHltt
omicfttwn immune cotmtmt
Ktgultr Me«tlna.i January 9, 1179
Member* Preaenti
Arnold Churl**, Chairman (Council
Arnold Ju«n, Vice-Chairman (Council
Aratlm Shtltt (Council Member?
Hoy fhoma* (Community /lepreaentacive;
Moe&e Tracy (Council MtnberJ
Ho tic* of Coawdttn Action: MAG 301 Program -(Chandler flint)
After preaentation of a etaff report, there tfae lengthy dlacueelon con-
cernlny tht Committee1* recwwiendatl on Co tht Tribal Council r*g*rdinj
their petition on th* propo*ed nptnilon of th* chandler Miraoe treat-
a*nt plant. Thl* natter va* placed on th* Jteaource Coenlttee agenda in
r**pon«* to MAC 201 Program deadline* (January IS and 17, 1979) for
official Tribal commit on th* alternative* preaented in th* Drift tn-
vlrommnttl Iimtot 3t*t*n*nt and graft riml Pl«n - »«t«r n*n*9*m*nt Pro-
gram. P*rticul«r fmphtilt MM given to th» Kelt of /1m d«tj tapper ting
propo»»d b»n»fit» «ccrujnj to Cll* Rlv»r Indian Connnlty r»«ultin9 /ron
U1 *xf*n*loni not* *tt m*d* of th* potential for atilitatlon at effluent
I by Trlbil fmrtn operation*/ bat it ou not d*monitnt*4 th*t co*t-b*n*flt§
^ would fee tublttntltl enough to override envlromental con*ldera»« an afflnutlve rcconmendatlon.
It wu alio noted that the Tribf no* ha* *tatf capability for proper nan-
aaenent of the txlttlrig plant alt*, and that the city of chandler had
failed to operate and maintain the plant at required ittndtrdt on a con-
alatent baai*.
On motion by ffr. 8h*ldaf aeconded bu Mr. Thomae, the coenltte* voted unan-
Inoua-ly to place the matter on the Tribal Council aoenda for January 17, 1979,
with a recommendation to dlaapprotre the proposal. A resolution to that ef-
fect vlll be prepared for th* Tribal Council.
After official action on the reaolutlon by the Tribal Council, a copy 1* to
be aent to the Harlcopa Aaeoclatlon of Covernaente and Snvlronmantal Protec-
tion Agency.
COMMENT DOCUMENT L
6ILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
RESOLUTION SR-5-79
MHEREAS, In 1967 the City of Chandler leased 107 acres
located on the Gill River Indian Reservation
and has constructed a Sewage Treatment Plant;
and
WHEREAS, the MeHcopt Association of Governments (MAG)
h*s prepared * Water Quality Management Plan
and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact State-
Bent regarding sewer treatment alternatives for
the greater Phoentx area, and the expansion of
the Chandler Sewage Treatment Plant Is one of
those alternatives; and
WHEREAS, the M»r1cop» Association of Governments Regional
Council Is considering the endorsement of the
expansion of the Chandler Sewage Treatment Plant;
and
WHEREAS. NAG and EPA are requesting the position of the
G1la River Indian Community regarding the possible
expansion of the Chandler Treatment Plant to facil-
itate planning and engineering feasibility; and
WHEREAS, the Community Physical Resources Department has
prepared a report concerning the proposed ex-
pansion of the Chandler Treatment Plant and has
analyzed the possible benefits to the Community;
and
WHEREAS, the Coamunlty does not and has not received any cash
revenues from the Sewage Treatment Plant; and
WHEREAS, the proposed benefits to the Community, as outlined
In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, are out-
weighed by the adverse environmental and hulth
Impacts on the Community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Glla River Indian
Community opposes any future expansion of the
Chandler Sewage Treatment Plant.
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to authority contained 1n Article XV, Sec. 1 (a), (1),
(9). (13), (19) end Sec. 4 of the amended Constitution and Bylaws
of the Glla River Indian Community ratified by the Tribe, January
22, 1960, and approved by the Secretary of the Interior, March 17,
1960 the foregoing resolution was adopted this 17th day of JANUARY.
at a REGULAR Council meeting held 1n DISTRICT THEEE. SACATOlT
Arizona at which a quorum of 15 members were present by a "vote of
H FOR; 0 AGAINST; 2 ABSTAIN;"! ABSENT; and 0 VACANCY,
COMMENT DOCUMENT L
-------
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
Resolution GR-S-79
Page Two
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
ATTEST:
-
TRIBAL COUNCIL SECRETARY
Ln
V
"IX
>.!«.
-•; '19
\L HEAJllNJ CLERK
1979
January 15, 1979
MAG 208 Water Quality Management Program
111 South Third Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85003
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX, Hearing Office
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
RE: MAG 208 Water Quality Management Program
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
issued November 1978
Gentlemen:
On behalf of Arizona Public Service Company (APS), I would
like to comment on two documents germaine to the provision
of sewage effluent for condenser cooling at the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS); the Water Quality Management
Plan - Final Draft prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Maricopa County and MAG member agencies and the Draft Environ-
mental Assessment of the Point Source Alternatives for the
Metro Area prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. First,
the water quality management plan.
In general, we believe the plan represents a noble effort
to formulate a workable plan against a background of complex
and confusing regulatory and procedural requirements. In this
1 light, we have only one major recommendation which is that the
responsibility for setting of effluent standards for industries
and monitoring of same be placed with the State Department of
Health Services, as opposed to the MAG regional operating groups.
Rather than fragmenting jurisdiction, we believe that the
public interest is better served by vesting a single agency,
Health Services in this instance, with this area of responsibility.
Since Health Services is already involved in similar duties
and responsibilities, the agency has the necessary experience
and expertise to be the standard setter.
On the other hand, we support the plan's recommendation
that the MAG regional operating groups be empowered to set
appropriate user charges to recover construction and operation
and maintenance costs.
COMMENT DOCUMENT L
COMMENT DOCUMENT M
-------
MAG 208 Niter Quality Management Program
United State* Environmental Protection Agency
January IS, 1979
Page 2
N)
00
2 At the management plan proceed* to Implementation, I
tru*t we will hive the opportunity to provide procedunl ind
technical input ind we would lik that confident ion be given
to placing APS representative* on those committees that could
•ffect P«Io Verde and our other stations.
Regarding the drift environmental impact statement, we
are offering some tpecific technical coament* in a separate
document, but we believe that tome of these specific comments,
•* well •* our general viewi on the statement, are important
enough to warrant special attention here.
3 In our view, the statement does not follow generally
accepted guidelines for the preparation of such documents.
Among other things, Important areas such a* socio-economic
considerations, secondary Impacts, the impact on industry,
and cost/benefit analysis need to be Included. Moreover,
4 the drift is characterized by an over-abundance of subjective
analysis and a dearth of empirical evidence to support such
analysis. This weakness may stem from a failure to utilize
all the environmental impact information available.
6 For example, the environmental report and preliminary
safety analysis report prepared for submission to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in support of our Palo Verde license
application were clearly not used and are not referenced in
the draft statement. The PVNGS environmental report alone
consist* of seven volumes of material, most of which was
gathered in Maricopa County, on the impacts and benefits
of this project. It seems to us that these documents would
have been invaluable in the preparation of the MAG drift
stitement. For instance, the question of alternative sources
of condenser cooling water for Palo Verde and the attendant
environmental impacts (wet lands, etc,), were addressed in
both reports, yet this information was not used in preparing
the MAG statement.
6 As to specifics, the MAG statement is based on the assump-
tion that the Palo Verde project will use the full 140,000
acre feet contracted for on an annual basis. This is not the
case. The plant will only use the amount of sewage effluent
actually needed from the 23rd and 91st Avenue treatment faci-
lities, with rights to the contracted 140,000 acre feet.
COMMENT DOCUMENT M
MAC 208 Mater Quality Management Program
United State* Environmental Prote
January IS,
Page 3
1979
Protection Agency
Unit* 1 through 3 it Palo Verde will require in average
of about 64,000 acre feet of effluent annually and a peak
monthly requirement of about 6,550 acre feet. Even if Units
4 and 5 are built, total annual consumptive use will amount
to 107,200 acre feet by 1990. It doesn't seen logical to
base the impact statement on a figure that is over double the
annual requirements of 1 through 3 and substantially in excess
of Unit 1 through S requirements.
7 Additionally, the statement assumes use of effluent from
the Tolleson and Reems Road plants which are not part of the
1973 agreement between the cities and APS and the Salt River
Project (not ANPP as indicated in the statement). Such use
would require further study and additional facilities, at a
minimum.
8 As far as the agreements are concerned, we have not made
any litigation threats is implied in the statement. Our posi-
tion simply is that we have three vitally important nuclear
units under construction with the first unit scheduled to
KO into operation in 1982A We proceeded with construction
because, imong other things, we had an agreement with the
cities to provide the necessary condenser cooling sewage
effluent. If Arizonans are to get the needed power, then
we need to have the effluent. And since we are accountable
for insuring reliable electric service, we will do everything
we can to make sure that the contractual obligations are met.
9 One of the major questions raised in the MAG statement is
the potential conflict between agriculture and industry re-
garding effluent use. The basic economics of sewage effluent
use indicate that such a conflict could not arise because
agricultural activities simply can't absorb the costs asso-
ciated with effluent use. On the other hand, the Palo Verde
project can make cost/effective use of this effluent. Power
plant economics dictate that the impact of effluent use on
the ultimate cost of powejr from Palo Verde is relatively
snail, while the impact on the end cost of agricultural
products would be enormous. The question of alternative use
economics was examined in June, 1978 by Management Research
Inc., under contract to APS, Although this study focused
on the use of effluent for Units 4 and S only, it concluded
that such use would result in the highest tax benefits to the
state and its communities from property, sales and income
taxes. In short, economics clearly favor the Palo Verde
station in relation to the other alternative uses.
COMMENT DOCUMENT M
-------
MAG 208 Water Quality Management Program
United States Environmental Protection Agency
January 15, 1979
Page 4
10 Finally, we believe that the section in the statement
concerning projected energy use is irrelevant in terms of the
overall environmental impact of sewage effluent utilization.
This area of inquiry is exceedingly complex and, in our
judgement, generally beyond the ken of framers of non-energy
related environmental impact statements.
I hope that these general observations, along with the
specific comments we are submitting, will be useful in im-
proving the point source environmental assessment. We stand
ready to provide any further assistance that may be required.
Sincerely,
RUSSELL D. HULSE
N)
RDHitch
Attachment
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO.
COMMENTS
ON
MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMNETS
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON
POINT SOURCE METRO PHOENIX ALTERNATIVE
FOR
MAG 208 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
January 15, 1979
COMMENT DOCUMENT M
COMMENT DOCUMENT M
-------
Page 2
11 2-4 16 to 19
12 2-5 6 to 7
13 2-11 2 to 7
14
22 to 24
15 2-25 23 to 26
T
w
o
10 2-30
17 3-72 1
3-80 6
Comments
Irrigated crops ar* not the only beneficial use
of effluent.
Remove th« parenthesis and words "Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station".
The effluent will be used for the purpose of
power plant condenser cooling and other system
cooling, not reactor cooling.
Should read, "Effluent, from the 23rd Avenue plant
is discharged to an open lined ditch passing
McDonald Farm*, where an unmeasured amount of
effluent may be diverted for irrigation."
Environmental issue* have been much more complex.
Additional concerns in the areas of socioeconomics,
land use, impact* on industry, and secondary
impacts do not appear to be addressed.
Another basic Social and Economic Issue not listed
here is an item dealing with the effect of the
proposal on industry. There is no baseline
established in regard to industry and the poten-
tial use of effluent.
Section 3.1.11 Land Use is extremely brief for
such an active area of concern, the reader
cannot grasp what is taking place and what the
baseline condition is.
This section on Energy doe* not seem to contri-
bute anything to the report; -or to the subject
matter at hand, but be that as it may, the next
few comments are made to help clarify the section.
COMMENT DOCUMENT M
Page
3-80
20
21
10
12
20
22 3-133 19
23
24
24 3-134 7
18
28
26 3-135 2
27 4-11 3
Comments
SRP doct not rely on hydroelectric power, It is
« fossil-fuel based utility.
PVNGS i» a three unit plant with each unit
rat«d at 1270 MWi this i» a clarification.
Th* thr«« fossil-fueled plant* are not a part of
PVNGS or ANPP and should be another paragraph.
It should alto be clarified that they are not
being constructed in the study area.
This "Energy" section is very inadequate and
creates more inconsistencies, and we suggest that
it be stricken completely. However, in an attempt
to clarify what does exist in this section, we
offer the following comments.
The growth rate of U.S. electricity consumption
for 1977 was 4.5». APS'* projected annual growth
does not decline to this level until 1990.
The natural ga> supply i« projected to be good,
not dwindling as suggested here; however, price
will rise which will impact consumption negatively.
Cholla «5 has been delayed indefinitely, and
will not be available in 1985.
The statement "Energy demand will continue to
increase because of urban sprawl..." is true to a
limited extent. There are many other factors
involved that are more influential, i.e.,
increasing population.
This paragraph needa to be corrected to indicate
that Multi-Cities who have constructed 23rd and
91st Avenue sewage treatment work* have contracted
with APS and SRP for the sale of effluent up
to the amount of 140,000 AF, to be used for
COMMENT DOCUMENT M
-------
Page 3
Page 4
Ln
Page Line Comments
4-31 3 (continued)
condenser cooling at the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station (PVNGS) or any facility which
APS or SRP chooses.
9 and 10 The choice to use sewage effluent was made in the
late 1960's and early 1970's after considerable
study, consequently the design of the station
was based on effluent use after the contractual
arrangements were consummated in 1973. Potential
alternative sources for cooling water present
today are either too poor in quality; in sufficient
quantities; or, in the case of groundwater, too
precious a commodity to use for cooling purposes
in this environmental setting.
21 Neither APS nor SRP have contractual agreements
or facilities presently available to accept
future flows from the enlarged Tolleson plant.
Considerable study would have to be done before
this concept could become a reality. This
statement, as written, may give the reader an
improper picture.
30 4-51 12 to 14 PVNGS will take only the amount of effluent needed
from 23rd and 91st Avenue to run the plant,
with rights to the contracted amount. The remain-
ing effluent may be disposed of by the cities in
any manner it deems fit.
29 4-48
Page Line
31 4-54 17 to 19
32 4-58 26
4-59 1 and 2
33 4-60 11
34 4-63 25
35 4-64 S to 11
38 4-71 10
Comments
See page 4-*U comment, it also applies to the
proposed Reems Road facility.
See page 4-51 comment. Additionally, there does
not presently exist a Reems Road plant, hence,
there is no sale of effluent. We do not see
the loss of something which doesn't exist
being an adverse impact attributable to PVNGS
or any other facility for that matter.
Should read, "This may occur in the mid-1980's
when flows at 91st Avenue may become inadequate
to meet...."
The use of effluent by PVNGS will not necessarily
eliminate the discharge of effluent from the
23rd Avenue plant to the Gila River. Palo Verde
will use or take delivery of only that amount
of effluent necessary to operate, potentially
up to the contracted amount.
The contractual arrangements for sewage effluent
from 23rd Avenue and 91st Avenue are more complex
than the reader is lead to believe here. We
do not believe the use of effluent is in conflict
with any agriculture interest or farmer, see
comment 4-74.
We do not understand how the export of effluent
to PVNGS will have an adverse impact on ground-
water quantity in the Salt RiVer Valley.
COMMENT DOCUMENT M
COMMENT DOCUMENT M
-------
Page S
Page 6
Une
37 4-74
23
LO
tO
38 4-75 1
39 4-98 16
Comments
In the assessment of alternate sources of water
for PVNGS, (which took place in the early 1970'•)
there were water* available that presented a
letter expente to the utilities. However, we
are alto fully aware of th« restrictions on water
availability in the ttate. Therefore, PVNGS it
uting a relatively poor grade of water to produce
a product which hat tremendous economic benefit.
To do to, we mutt transport and and treat the
effluent at an expente of approximately $600
an acre foot. He can do thit becaute the cottt
of the water are not a major component of the
cott of the product. Other procettet, tuch at
agriculture cannot afford the large cott of
treating and trantporting water becaute it it one,
if not the major, component in their cott of
production. Therefore, after contidering
Arizona'i plight in regard to water ute and the
availability of tewage effluent, we proceeded
into contractual agreement! with the citiet.
(See comment 4-31.)
See comment on page 4-74.
The ute of effluent by APS and SRP doet not
depend on any "resolution of claima". Contractual
obligationi have been outlined in agreement!
with the Multi-Citiet that irt» involved in
the 23rd and 91at Avenue plants, and the
Buckeye Irrigation Company.
COMMENT DOCUMENT M
Page tine
40 4-98 23
41 4-135 19
42 4-166 S to 7
43
14
15
45 4-171 13 to 19
4« 4-176 2 to 8
47 4-177 2 to 15
Commentt
Should rea'5 "Some lott of wet landt may
temporarily occur in the Salt River bed when
effluent is diverted to PVNGS." (Alto tee
comment 4-51.)
Thit failt to address the economics of uting
effluent in crop production, see comment 4-74.
APS and SRP do not believe this is the caee,
after considerable study and analysis.
APS hat expretted interest in additional amounts
of effluent for peak generation periods during
summer months, not to support additional unitt
patt the number five, currently being considered.
APS and SRP have indicated that they would
pursue every potsible means to preserve the
current contractual obligations and agreements
regarding tewage effluent, in which they are
involved.
The economics of effluent ute by agriculture
and the costt of effluent has not been presented.
We do not believe the planned treatment facilities
will "tend to reduce the cost of irrigation
water", tee comment 4-74.
See comments 2-11, 4-31, 4-63, 4-74.
APS has not assumed the availability of effluent
for use at PVNGS. After considerable study
contracted for the amount needed to cool power
plant condentort and other systems not nuclear
COMMENT DOCUMENT M
-------
Page
4-177
Line
2 to 15
48 4-180 IS
20
50 4-183 Table 4-31
U, 51
U> 82
LO
4-184
5-3
Table 4-32
20
53 5-4
TH:tch
1-12-79
Page 7
Comments
(continued)
reactors. In regard to our study of alternate
sources of water, see earlier comment 4-31.
APS and SRP have secured effluent for PVNGS.
APS does not find itself in conflict with the
agricultural community, see additional comments
4-14.
APS did not threaten litigation, we suggested
that all available means would be explored
in order to supply PVNGS with an adequate
supply of waste water under existing contracts.
See above comment.
Delete "probably", the Buckeye Irrigation
Company will receive 30,000 AF of effluent
annually from the pipeline.
We do not believe that all flows to the riverbed
will be eliminated. The Arizona Game and Fish
Department has a contractual arrangement for
delivery of 7300 AF.
RECEIVED
F.f'.A. REGION IX
JulS 10 21JH'79
JOHN S. SCHAPER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
tlft CAST IKXINOTON AVCNWC
PHOENIX.ARIZONA B50I3
TCLCM40MK •OI/t«l-MI«
January 11, 1979
MAG 208 Water Quality Management Program
111 South Third Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX, Hearing Office
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Re: MAG 208 Water Quality Management Program
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
issued November 1978
Gentlemen:
This office represents the Buckeye Irrigation Company and
the Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District of
Buckeye, Arizona. On behalf of those organizations, I have
been requested to submit comments concerning the MAG 208
Plan issued in December of 1978, and the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement concerning MAG 208 Plan issued in November
of 1978. Those comments are contained in the Memorandum
attached hereto.
The Buckeye Irrigation Company is a nonprofit mutual corpor-
ation owned and operated by farmers whose lands are within
the Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District, and
irrigated with water delivered through the Buckeye Canal and
related facilities. The Buckeye Irrigation Company was
organized in 1907 under the laws of the Arizona Territory,
and is a successor to prior canal campanies which built or
operated the original irrigation facilities in the Buckeye
Valley. The Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District
was organized as a municipal corporation in 1922 under the
laws of the State of Arizona. These two entities have
responsibility for providing irrigation water and drainage
facilities for approximately 20,000 acres of land on the
north side of the Gila River, west of the confluence of the
Gila and the Agua Fria River.
1 Unfortunately, the limitations of time have made it impossible
to fully analyze and comment upon the voluminous data con-
tained in the MAG 208 Plan and in the Environmental Impact
Statement. Further, a lack of access to supporting studies
COMMENT DOCUMENT M
COMMENT DOCUMENT N
-------
HAG 201 Water Quality Management Progran
United State* Environmental Protection Agency
January 11, 1979
Page 2
MEMORAMDUM
Mai Draft Final Plan of MAC 208 Water Quality Management
Prograar and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
MAC 208 Mater Quality Management Plan
r
U)
and report* haa prevented an evaluation of the validity of
varioua aiaumptlona and conclueiona which are contained
within the Plan and the Draft BIS. Therefore, the eneloied
Memorandum doe* not purport to deal fully with all of the
mattari discussed in the Plan and the BIS which may be of
intereit to the Buckeye Irrigation Company and the Buckeye
Hater Conaervatlon and Drainage Diatrlct.
It ii requested that thia communication and the attached
comments be reproduced in the final Environmental Impact
Statement relating to the MAG 208 Hater Quality Management
Plan.
Very truly your*,
haper
JSSicfv
xci Leonard C. Halpenny
Wilbur w'. Heigold
I. Reuae of Sewage Effluent.
A. Surface Water
The term, 'surface water," is used throughout the Plan
and the DEIS to refer to water* flowing within the channels
of natural watercourse*. "Surface water" ha* a lignlficantly
different legal meaning in the State of Arizona. However,
for purpose* of the following comment*, it i* assumed that
"surface water* refer* to effluent from a sewage treatment
facility which ha* not been lost to evaporation or groundwater
recharge, ox to other water resources »xclusi.ve of groundwater.
1. Hie Interest of the Buckeye Irrigation Company.
Effluent from the 91st Avenue Plant ha* bean diverted from
the Gila River, along with other stream flow*, at the headgate
of the Buckeye Canal located approximately six mile* west of
the treatment facility for over IS year*. (DEIS Fig. 3-4)
The effluent and other stream flow* are then mixed with
groundwater pumped into the Buckeye Canal, and delivered for
the irrigation of crop* *uch aa cotton, alfalfa, maize,
2 safflower, barley and wheat. Contrary to the impression given
by the DEIS (Pig. 3-4), the Buckeye Canal does not end at
Jackrabbit Road, but travel* to, and 1* siphoned under the
Hasiayampa River.
3 The Plan (IV-2) contain* erroneous conclusions as to the
percentage of effluent discharged into the Salt River and
actually diverted downstream into the Buckeye Canal. Presum-
ably, the conclusions resulted from a failure to account for
deliveries to the Buckeye Canal from the Salt River Project
pursuant to a Decree entered in No. 30869-B in the Maricopa
County Superior Court. The correct data indicate that
between 55* and 651 of the total effluent from the 23rd Avenue
and 91st Avenue facilitie* is diverted for irrigation through
the Buckeye Canal. Channel losses account for the balance,
except for small quantities which may be bypassed when the
Buckeye Canal 1* drained, or when flow* in the Gila River
exceed the capacity of the Buckeye headgate.
In the early I960*, the Buckeye Irrigation Company entered
into negotiation* with the City of Phoenix to insure the
COMMENT DOCUMENT N
COMMENT DOCUMENT N
-------
availability of effluent for irrigation purposes. After
more than seven years of discussion and litigation, a contract
was executed under which the City of Phoenix agreed to make
30,000 a.ft. of effluent available annually at 91st Avenue
for 40 years in exchange for payment of a price per acre-foot
based upon the price to be paid for water in the Salt River
Project, and an agreement not to prosecute a pending suit to
enjoin the storage of water by the City of Phoenix at Horseshoe
Dam.
4 A conclusion appears in the DEIS that the City of Phoenix
owns all waste water within the sewage system; has the right
to use and sell such water; that a purchaser of effluent
acquires title to it at the point of purchase; and that a
discharge of effluent to a river allows comingling with State
waters and makes the effluent subject to appropriation. (DEIS
3-29,30)
The "ownership" of waste water has never been resolved by
judicial decision in Arizona. It has been generally assumed,
however, that a municipality has the right to sell effluent
so long as the purchaser uses it for reasonable and beneficial
purposes, whether a purchaser acquires "ownership" of effluent
is debatable.
Clearly, effluent discharged into the bed of a natural
watercourse, whether or not it is then comingled with other
water, becomes subject to the laws of prior appropriation of
the State of Arizona under A.R.S. S 45-101, and is no longer
subject to any rights of ownership or recapture by a munici-
pality. The rights of the Buckeye irrigation Company to divert
and use effluent in the Gila River exist by virtue of prior
appropriation for land under the Buckeye Canal, as discussed
more fully in the following section.
2. Judicial Decrees and Jurisdiction Over Effluent.
References appear in the DEIS to the Kent Decree and the
5 Globe Equity or Gila Decree, both of which adjudicated water
rights obtained by prior appripriation in Arizona. (DEIS
3-29,30) The Kent Decree established priorities for waters
from the Salt River diverted at what was formerly Joint Head
Dam and Granite Reef Dam. The Kent Decree has no relationship
to the effluent produced from any of the plants referred to
in the Plan or the DEIS. The Globe Equity Decree adjudicated
the rights to Gila River waters at various diversion points
in Arizona and New Mexico, none of which are within Maricopa
County. The Decree has nothing to do with the rights of any
persons to water from any sewage treatment plants in Maricopa
County.
-2~ COMMENT DOCUMENT N
In 1917, a Decree was entered in the Maricopa County
Superior Court in No. 7589, Benson vs. Allison and Four
Hundred Fifty Four Others, which established rights and
priorities for the diversion of flows in the Salt and Gila
River for the irrigation of lands under the St. John's Canal,
the Buckeye Canal, and other facilities downstream from Joint
Head Dam. 19,837.5 acres under the Buckeye Canal were
determined to have water rights, with priorities dating from
1887 to 1915. It is on the basis of this Decree that lands
in the Buckeye Valley are entitled to divert and use effluent
flowing in the Gila River.
Under the Benson-Allison Decree, the Superior Court
retained jurisdiction over the waters subject to appropriation;
and the uses of any waters in the Salt and Gila Rivers below
Joint Head Dam, including effluent, are subject to such
judicial supervision.
Under S 101 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. S 1251), Congress has specifically expressed the
intent that local control over water rights, and rights to
water established pursuant to local law, are not to be abro-
gated or impaired. Any provisions of the Plan or the DEIS
inconsistent with such intent, and purporting to suggest or
require allocations of effluent inconsistent with existing
water rights are inappropriate.
3. Regulation of Effluent Reuse.
The Buckeye Irrigation Company has diverted and distributed
effluent flowing in the Gila River for the irrigation of crops
consistent with State regulations, and a Health Department
permit which was issued August 26, 1964.
The DEIS suggests that any consideration for reuse of
effluent would require further examination of "costs, storage
needed for optimum operation, possible water trading, con-
tractual agreements, limitations on types of crops, and the
necessity for controlled access to the fields." (DEIS 2-5,6)
It is submitted that neither the EPA or any local agency in
Arizona has authority under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to involve itself in such matters as contractual
agreements for effluent use, crop limitations, control of
access to irrigated fields, or the desirability or need for
the storage of effluent for irrigation purposes. As previously
noted, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act makes it clear
that the allocation and distribution of water resources is
riot a matter of Federal concern. Further there is nothing in
the statutes of Arizona which would purport to give the State
Water Quality Control Council any power to regulate agricul-
tural use other than by limiting the application of effluent
upon certain crops.
-3-
COMMENT DOCUMENT N
-------
Y
W
T In the icon context, it 1* noted that the Plan and th«
DEIS both make reference to th« "Tributary Rul«" a* being
applicable to the portion* of the Salt and Olla River*
upstream front Painted took Dem for which no epeeifio atandarda
have been adopted by the State Water Quality Control Council.
(DSI8 2-28; DEIS 3-1; DEIS 3-15) the regulation to which
reference ia made, A.C.R.R. 9-21-205 atateai
"A. The primary and incidental beneficial uaea
of aurfaee water* in atraajta, and lake* including
their tributariea unleaa otherwiae designated
include* but are not limited to thoae shown in
the tablea attached to thi» article aa Appendices
1 through 9."
The implication that thia regulation waa intended to impose
the atandarda for Painted Rock Dan to the Salt River ia entirely
unjustified.
B Similarly unjustified is the purported regulation of the
Maricopa County Department of Health Services concerning the
period of time during which a contract must be entered into
for the rauae of effluent from a aewage treatment facility in
order for the contract to be valid. A local Department of
Health Servicea has no authority to regulate the time period
during which a private contract is to be maintained in effect,
and such a regulation cannot be recognized as valid.
It should alao be recognized that the authority of the •
State of Arizona, or of any county or municipal regulatory
agency to regulate water pollution is limited by the provision*
of A.U.S. S 36-1BS7 B, which prohibits the State Water Quality
Control Council from adopting any water quality standard*
which would require any appropriates, including the owners of
land under the Buckeye Canal, from ceasing the diversion or
storage of any watara from any natural watercourse for the
purpose of controlling pollution. Any provision* or auggas-
tion in either the Plan or the DEIS inconsistent with the
statute cannot be of any effect.
4. Reuse for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.
The DEIS auggesta that the uae of effluent for PVNGS must
B necessarily have an adverse effect upon agricultural use of
effluent west of the Agua Fria River. (DEIS 4-75,176) This
contention assumes that effluent production from 23rd Avenue
and 91st Avenue will be insufficient in the future to meet
the requirements of the Buckeye irrigation Company. That
assumption appear* to be based upon speculation concerning
population tranda in the future, and the quantities of
effluent which will be produced from 91st Avenue. The validity
of such assumption* is doubtful.
On November 14, 1977, in a letter to Charles H. Salem,
Chairman of the HAG Regional Council, it was explained that
the potential for effluent reuse in the Buckeye Valley is
limited by the need to maintain a hydrologic balance, and
that it does not appear reaaonable to distribute more than
80,000 a.ft. per year of effluent through the Buckeye system,
including the 30,000 a.ft. per annum referred to in the con-
tract between the Buckeye Irrigation Company and the City
of Phoenix.
On the basis of currently available projections concern-
ing the effluent to be produced by the planta referred to
in the 208 Plan, it appears that the commitment of effluent
to PVNGS can be met without seriously jeopardizing agricultural
irrigation through the use of effluent in the Buckeye Valley.
Therefore, it 1* not appropriate to conclude that there is
at thia time a conflict between agricultural users and PVNGS
as has been suggested. (DEIS 4-180)
B. Groundwater.
Both the Plan and the DEIS contain detailed discussions
of the effect of effluent upon the quality and quantities of
groundwater, particularly in relation to the 23rd Avenue and
91st Avenue facilities.
The effect of groundwater recharge produced by sewage
10 effluent may be an appropriate subject for consideration in
an environmental impact statement. However, the control of
groundwater quality is not a matter within the jurisdiction
of EPA under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The
Act contemplates the prevention of pollution of "navigable
waters* of the United States. 33 U.8.C. $ 1251(a) "Navigable
waters,* by EPA's own definition, do not include groundwater
not tributary to lakes, rivers and streams. 40 c.F,R. S 125.Up),
Nothing in Section 208 provides a baais for groundwater
regulation, or specifies that a program of groundwater quality
monitoring ia either necessary or appropriate in the formula-
tion of a 208 plan. See: 33 u.S.C. S 1288; 40 C.F.R^ S 131.11.
It is recognized that the Hater Quality Control council
of the State of Arizona does have responsibility for the
establishment of groundwater quality standards, pursuant to
A.R.8. S 36-1857. That responsibility should not be assumed
by or delegated to EPA or to local agencies acting under
S 208. MAG should not beomce Involved in programs to monitor
groundwater quality, and should leave such matters to the
State Department of Health Services and the Water Quality
Control Council, to the Arizona Water Commission, and to other
agencies currently having responsibilities in this area.
COMMENT DOCUMENT N
-4-
COMMENT DOCUMENT N
-5-
-------
Ul
00
1. Effluent Recharge and Groandwater Quality.
11 Various references appear in the Plan and the DEIS
relative to the effect of effluent upon groundwater quality
in the Buckeye Valley. Specific reference is made in the DEIS
to the conclusion that sewage effluent has resulted in a
reduction in salinity and an increase in nitrates or nitrogen
in groundwater used to irrigate land under the Buckeye Canal.
(DEIS 3-40 et seq.f Plan IV-18 et seq.) Available data do not
compel the conclusions reached.
There is no question that groundwater from wells within
the Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District has a
salinity content which is substantially higher than that of
effluent produced by the 23rd Avenue and 91st Avenue plants.
The dilution of groundwater with effluent in the Buckeye Canal
does, therefore, produce a desirable reduction in the salinity
of irrigation water delivered to farms in the Buckeye Valley.
However, the effect of effluent upon groundwater in this area
remains doubtful.
During the ten-year period between 1965 and 1974, approxi-
mately 750,000 a.ft. of effluent were discharged to the Salt
and Gila Rivers from 23rd Avenue and 91st Avenue. During the
same period, the total dissolved solids produced by wells in
the Buckeye Valley increased from 3,456 ppm to 3,733 ppm.
During the same period, there was a significant rise in water
levels in wells throughout the Buckeye Valley, indicating
substantial recharge. While the effluent undoubtedly con-
tributed to the recharge, it does not appear that during the
period in question there was any significant water quality
improvement produced by effluent recharge.
Groundwater salinity in the Buckeye Valley has decreased
somewhat since 1975. Much of the decrease must be attributed
to recharge from the nearly 1,250,000 a.ft. of water which
flowed into the Salt River Valley at Granite Reef Dam in 1973,
and moved west through the Buckeye Valley in the Gila River.
The Plan and the DEIS also conclude that sewage effluent
has increased nitrate levels in the groundwater west of the
Agua Fria River. Again, data concerning this are inconclusive.
Records of the P.uckeye Irrigation Company indicate that nitrate
levels in Buckeye Valley groundwater were higher than nitrate
levels in effluent in the 1960s. Naturally occurring nitrates
in groundwater in the western portion of the Buckeye Valley are
significantly higher than those in sewage effluent. (See:
DEIS Fig. 3-10) Finally, much of the recharge from effluent
discharged into the Salt River appears to move in a northerly
direction, rather than to the west, and affects groundwater
12
13
quality in areas influenced by the cone of depression north
of Litchfield Park rather than quality in the Buckeye Valley.
A study by the University of Arizona concerning the effect
of the use of effluent for agricultural irrigation in the
Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District has reached
no final or firm conclusions. Whether the chemical properties
of effluent have a beneficial or detrimental effect on ground-
water for agricultural use remains a subject of investigation
and discussion.
2. Groundwater Management or Planning.
A recommendation is made in the Plan for consideration of
such things as canal lining, well construction, altered
pumping practices, and various other hydrologic evaluations.
(See: Plan VI-12,19,22-23) S 208 does not contemplate pro-
visions in a plan which would have any bearing upon the
conservation, use, management, or control of groundwater.
On the contrary, and as previously noted, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act makes it clear that the management of
water resources, and the rights to quantities of water
established by State law are matters which are not within the
purview of § 208, or any other provision of the Federal law.
II. The Proposed Reems Road Facility.
DEIS Figure 4-12 contains a diagram of the proposed Reems
Road Sewage Treatment Plant, and what appears to be a scheme
for use of effluent from that plant for the irrigation of lands
south of the Buckeye Canal and east of the South Extension
Canal.
The use of effluent from the Reems Road plant for irriga-
tion purposes is compatible with current effluent use from
91st Avenue for the irrigation of land located under the
Buckeye Canal. However, the planned use of such effluent for
the irrigation of land which has no history of irrigation, no
water rights, and which is totally unsuitable for irrigation,
is not justified. The land shown in the diagram in Figure 4-12
is located primarily in the bed of the Gila River, and at the
time of the preparation of this Memorandum was under water.
The use of effluent to bring new desert land into agricul-
tural production is inconsistent with recognized conservation
concepts in Arizona as well as various laws intended to limit
the use of water resources for the development of previously
unfarmed properties.
It would also appear to be economically foolhardy to
develop a system for transporting effluent a substantial
-6
COMMENT DOCUMENT N
-7-
COMMENT DOCUMENT N
-------
distance from the point of discharge at the Reene Road plant
for the irrigation of currently uncultivated land, when the
affluent could be discharged at th* plant into the Buckeye
Canal and used for irrigation of land* now being farmed.
III. Biological Considerations.,
A. The Salt River Channel.
14 Concern is *xpre*ied in the DEIS over the poeiible elimi-
nation of phreatophyta growth in the channel of the Salt River
downstream from 91«t Avenue aa a reault of the pipeline for
conveyance of effluent for PVNGS and the irrigation of land!
under the Buckeye Canal. The conclutiona reached in the DEIS
are completely inconaiatent with the conclusion* reached in
the final Environmental Statement issued in September of 1975
in connection with the construction of Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station Units 1, 2 and 3.
The conclusions reached in the OBIS also appear to be
based entirely upon projected effluent dischargee from 23rd
and 91st Avenue. However, the data upon which the conclusions
Y1 seem to be baaed are not available in the DEIS. Obviously,
' there is a direct relationship between the accuracy of the
gn predicted effluent supply and the effect upon the downstream
biological environment in the salt River, as well as the effect
upon supplies available to agricultural reusers. Any conclu-
sions in this regard should be based upon the best available
projections by the municipalities operating the plants, a
study of other available water supplies, such as those entering
the Salt River on the south side, water supplies in the Gila
River which are not accounted for in the DEIS, and studies of
the effect on 'phreatophytes of a decrease of currently avail-
able water. No references appear in the DEIS to support the
conclusion reached. (See e.g. DEIS 4-71)
B. Flood Control Considerations.
18 The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is totally devoid
of any mention of the effect on flood hazards, flood control,
and related problems resulting from the removal of effluent
from the channels of the Salt River below 91st Avenue.
The proliferation of phreatophytes sustained by effluent
flows in the Salt River has resulted in substantial silting
and changes in elevations and locations of river channels
downstream from 91st Avenue. As a result, there has been
serious flooding of properties north of the river In 1978
which would not have otherwise occurred. This is a problem
which has been studied by the Maricopa County Flood Control
District, and which has apparently been ignored totally in
the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Clearly, the removal of some phreatophytes from the river by
the elimination of some effluent, or by the channelization
of effluent, would greatly reduce flood hazards, as wall as
the resulting economic burden placed upon Federal, State and
local gorvernmenta to provide flood relief, particularly in
the Holly Acres area.
- o- COMMENT DOCUMENT N
-9- COMMENT DOCUMENT N
-------
w
VO
David E. Creighton, Jr., P.E.
P. 0. Box 1548
Phoenix, Arizona 85001
January 15, 1979
REGIONAL HEAR'INO
JAN 1 • 1979
Maricopa Association of Governments ^fenvironmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Management Program - Region IX, Hearing Office
111 South Third Avenue, Room 300 215 Fremont Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003 San Francisco, California 94105
Gentleman:
The review of the undated, unnumbered Draft EIS for the MAG
208 Urban Quality Management Plan has prompted extensive comments.
Notice of availability of this DBS appeared in the Federal
Register for December 4, 1978 to start the 45-day review process
which will close nominally on January 19, 1979.
As with any controversial topic, the attempt to prepare a com-
prehensive environmental statement embracing land use planning
control through air and water quality regulations and Federal funding
for studies and construction requires an encyclopedic and coordinated
information process.
This DBS is a start in the process which places emphasis on the
wastewater element. The extent of the effort documents and displays
a valiant effort to re-invent the wheel by personnel inadequately
familiar with the region which they are attempting to address and
describe.
My more detailed written comments will be submitted for
inclusion in the record and to partially assist in revising efforts
to produce an adequate Final EIS.
Sincerely,
David E. Creighton r^Sr.
David E. CreiRhton, Jr., P.E.
P. 0. Box 15Z|8
Phoenix, Arizona 85001
i'73
January 19, 1979
Uaricopa Association of Governments 'Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Uanageoent Prograa . Segion IS, Hearing Office
111 South Third Avenue, Room 300 215 Fremont Street
Phoenix, Arizona 65003 San Francisco, California 9U.05
Gentlemen:
These are my additional comments referred to in my short January 15, 1979
cooments on the l!AQ 208 Point Source Phoenix Uetro Alternatives. Please provide
me with a copy of any supplements to the Draft Eli which may be prepared and
the Final Environmental Statement.
1 1. Page 1-12, Lines 1-7. Two copies of the background arid referenced material
with one copy in the Los Angeles, California USCE office and one copy at the
MAG Phoenix office which are not available over treekends and during non-office
hours hardly comports with CEQ's "Ho material may be incorporated by reference
unless it is reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested
persons within the time allowed for comment". A public or University Librar/
which has extended open hours would be a reasonable and adequate reference
location to comply with the "reasonably available" guidance.
2 2. Page 2-32, Lines 9-12. The effectiveness and the role of the Arizona
Groundnater Code in proscjbing the development of new agricultural development
on non-Indian reservation lands appears misunderstood or forgotten by the
writers due to the conplemity of the subjeet attempted. The Indian lands have
no such restriction on" new agricultural development.
3 3« Figure 2-1. Are there no WKTP facilities for Fountain Hills (organized
sanitary district), Rio Varde, or Carofrss areas?
4 li. Page 2-33. Equity Distribution of Benefits and Costs - - and subsequent
non-treatment of program capital and annual costs leaves a gaping void in the
total socioeconondc presentation. The omission of measurement data on the
economic efficiency of a major public works program funded to large extent
by Federal funds leaves an environmental statement as inadequate and deficient
as omission or other salient environmental components. The impacts of a
public works capital Improvement program costing about 8200,000,000 with
annual O&U costs anfl their impact upon local government entities, the tax-
payers and utility system users through rates and fees cannbt be divorced
from the socioeconomic environment.
5 5> Figure 3-1. "Uoraan" is a common misspelling for Mormon Flat.
6. Page 3-6, Lines 16-19. An inverted emphasis is used. The soils are such
that most, except for very rocky and sandy soils, are suitable and highly
productive for cropland if an adequate water supply for irrigation is
available. An agency familiar irith irrigated agriculture in arid lands mould
be a good reference instead of USCE.
COMMENT DOCUMENT O
COMMENT DOCUMENT 0
-------
f*4» » January 19, 197?
10
• 7. flgur* >3« An additional «m of flMurlng orotslng tin tooth study
are* boundary cut of Chandler Heights. should bt noted on platted sub-
division Undt.
7 6. Figure M. The "AlaOin* Dirt" Canal shown i* • part of th* Roosevelt
Irrigation Dlttrtot gtoundwsUr collection system, not a separate unoom«ot«d
own. Th* KSS CC-2 collecting canal system out of th* Ago*. JTU and How
ItTtri ahould bi added, nth th* excavation, concrete, end right-of-way
ftnoing iii plae* for th* Granite Ro«f Aqueduct of thi Central Arltona Project
in no»t of th* Phoenix *r»«, «propo**d* doe* not appear appropriate in the
legend. Cave Creek 0*a or ilew Cam Creek D.JI ahould to* identified. The
fiv* recreation lakes artificially maintained on dry desort plaint by
pumped groundwater do not appear appropriate to b* identified at ptrennial
water bodUi.
a 9. Pag* 3-10, lint 10. Add Seotttdalt to th* lltt of oiti»t supplied HI*
water by SUP.
9 Ltn* 22. fieri** tht "2S*" flgur* forth* final report and aaioolat* it
«.tb a tla* frame,
10> Fagot 3-10 thru U« and Figure >S. Tht Motion on flooding rtquirti up-
dating in tht Final Stattntnt to rtflaet tha floodlnf froa flow in 1966, 1968,
1973, at mil at the Dtoaabnr 1978, January 1979, and postiblr lattr ppring
1979 floodt, with addtd rtftrme* to tha Cars Crtak and Agna Pria Riv«r
flooding and damagt. Th* D*oanb*r 1976 flooding alao eomrtd portiona of th*
Mia Riv»r Indian Rotervatlon (haiwrd axwt not than on fig. >$), A tabulation
of tht flooding avtnta bttmon 1965 and pnttnt maid prvtant a non
oonprohtntlblf ploturt of th* altuation bting touttd for groundmttr rtohar|t.
11 11. Pag* 3-1$, Lin* 1. Th* ua* of "«a*r»noy* to *>br«a* itandard optratlont
for ]r*art *h*n th* tnow-oelt runoff (19U.) txoMdt vtermft capacity it a
miaUading lapr»»«ion put forth by nraooBtrt not v*rt*d in arid Und
hydrology*
12 12. Pag* >19, Llnti 21-23. An updated ttatut of tha •(rwaant rtaehad will
bt wptettd in th* final ittt*m*nt.
13 13. Pag* 3-20, tintt $-6. If fiah and wlldlif* ohano*a*nt i* twing *ff*ot*d,
th* fiah and wlldlif* agwnica ahould b* oontrlbutlag fund* or coat allocation
btntfiti to tht projtct undtr ttat*d lojuity priaeifk (pp 2-3>31i). Th*
prinoiplti of public workt eott allooationt and raqalrannti to oonfon to
th* Flth and Wlldlif* Coordination Aot and th* 7*dtnl. Satar Project R*er*ation
Act ahould bt aa applicable to EPA grant and aaaiat*BM program* at to
other public ircrka program.
14 111. Page >27, Linei 9-22. With the exUndn 12 ]r*ar rwaaaroh actiritlia
of USDA Water Conatration Laboratory, it appeart tut the eaphasi* of thi*
paragraph ii on tht wrong foot, BDQC and USOS art tht "lonertr" tgtnglai,
not USDA. A higher dtgre* of intalleotual intagritgr and candor la auggaitad.
15 I?, Page >30, Lin* 9. Th* ua* of •reeXanation* tor tie tub}»g»tion of
deatrt lands to irrigation appear* aialaading.
COMMENT DOCUMENT O
Pofl* 3 January 19, 1979
16 16. Pa«*t >30-A. OUa Decree. Thi* ahould b* r**xaoin*d to ttat* that the
50,9i6 acre* of San Carlo* todlan Irrigation Projtot land* on tht OUa Bivar
Indian fttternUoii art In addition to th* aor*ac* in th* Oila Crotaini Olttriot
•tdeh are alao recogniaed in the Decree (Olobe Equity He. $9) and which art
alao with*jth* 200 Project Study Area. The flan Carlo* Indian Irrigation Project
m-ilrniHy proride* water for a decretd acreage of 102,090 tor**. Th* d*or**d
aoreag* dot* not awan that all bat bt*n d*r*lop*d for irrigation.
17 17. PI*** 3*6, L*fmd. Tht third depth lyabol mitt b* "ovtr 200 f**t" —
200 foet Uipll** a depth not greater than at uaad which it grotaly incorrect.
10 18. Pag* 3-33, tin** 9-11. Sentence a* written ia nitlaading or inaccurate
depending upon whether ua* of water from the reservoir* i* undaritood a* in
lieu of groundwater, or how the aurface water it retained in the groundwater
baaiM. Clarify.
Line* 15-16. Th* at* of *w*tt Batln" and "tact Baain" on Pigur* 3-6 would
ataltt under(tandint.
19 19. Pag* 3-56, Lint* lii-22. Th* riparian Tegetation, altitude charaotariiatian,
and general description it tdaletding for the ttudy area ai defined and at
ahown on Figure 3~12. Th* oaiatlon of th* narahy habitat area* which developed
following th* availability of m*tewat*r and hydraulic control itructurn is
oowpl*t*ly ignored but It a aeriout and controvertial itau* to organizations
•uoh aa the Audubon Society.
Line* 23-2lt, and Tigure 3-12. With the Implication that the Phoenix
20 metropolitan area and th* Interior portion of the Salt Rivar Pro;) sot areas
of urban and cropland* are either saltbuth, or cr*otot*-bur*age is extremely
misleading. A* habitat descriptors, the urban and cropland use it an
accurate blotic descriptor for present condition*. Tht cropland delineation
on the Oila River I.R. needs to be revised. Th* University of Arizona
Cropland Atlaa would b* a reasonably accurate source from which to revise
the naJor error* of Figure 3-12• A qualification that prior to about 1668
it is believed to have been a* shorn mjuld b* son* improvement, but would not
isjprov* professional credibility.
21 20. Pag* 3-58, Line 19. The overly simplified description and interpretation
i* typical of that expected fraa a humid area origin casual observer-
interpreter aa ahown by th* "while animal* ...." introduction. This 1*
another indication of the analysis and planning by imlgrant persons not
faalliar with th* territory and orienting their planning efforts and goals to
fore* a conformity of arid lands to humid area backgrounds, training and
experience, and an unwlllingnase to learn and understand their new area.
The classification of riparian habitats in Arizona is complex, difficult
and confusing whan a single generality i* applied to cover from desert wash
riparian through atreanside to marsh. No clarification has been provided
in thi* document.
Lines 20-26. Greattailed Crackle and Starling population* should.be
astoolated with th* cropland alto.
22 21. Pag* 3-63, Line* 23-25. An off reservation Indian clustering would
probably be discernible between th* Phoenix Indian School-Indian Hospital
and th* doutown area in addition to the dispersed element.
COMMENT DOCUMENT O
-------
P»g» It January 19,
23 22. Page 3-6$, Line 11. Standard Federal Herons for Arizona are
predominantly located in San Francisco, California. A lax mantle uaa of
"regional" should be clarified for the Federal ageneleg.
24 23. Figure 3-15 shonro only 6 general aviation airports in addition to the
mentioned SkyHarbor, not the seven as stated (page 3-75, line 20).
2S 2k. Page 3-77, Line lit. Scottsdale should be added to the list.
26 2$. Table 3-20. Footnote "d" should be supplemented to apply to Scottsdale
also.
27 26. Page 3-79, Lines 10-13. Lands without surface -rotor rights receiving
irrigation water from SRP is questioned.
Lines 18-23. The pumping of about 150,000 AF/yr. by RID fron within
the SRP appears more significant than a non-productive contract for the
23rd Avenue WHTP effluant.
28 27. Page 3-80, Linas 9-11. It appears that the hydro-fossil fuel miJC for
the SRP system la not properly or correctly understood end prese.^i^d. for
an SRP system load of about 1732 1ST in 1976, the SRP system of conventional
and pumped-storage hydro was approximately 2ti2 Iff. The remainder was
supplied from owned fossil fuel, and purchased fossil fuel generation, and
purchased Federal Colorado River hydro generation.
20 28. Page 3-122, Lines 12-18. The projected decline in water demand is
discussed and presented in a manner indicating that irrigated agriculture
will decline not from urban encroachment, usurpation and possible condemnation
but through obsolescence of need for agriculture and in derogation for the
need and national goals to maintain the continued production of prime
agricultural lands.
30 29. Page >125, Lines 8-LU. The elimination of groundwater overdraft on the
basis of the discussion presented and compared with the studies for t'. 3
Arizona Groundwater Study Commission does not appear realistic.
31 30. Page U-9, Line 21. The inadequacy of the riparian discussion on pages
3-56. 52, 59, and Figure 3-12 is further confused by the indicated Treighting
factor of "Riparian woodland".
32 31. Pages ii-10, 12, and Figure U-2. With the furor raised by archeological
protagonists to public works programs, «specially the Papago Freeway, the
indicated noderate sensitivity for the lioreland Corridor area and the
undoubtedly overstated gross area of ths Salt River and 7ort licDowell Indian
Reservations and the upstream segnents of the 5 mile wide and archeologjcally
unsurveyed to comparable intensity areas discloses the apparent biases
developed and espoused by program opponents. Also compare Figures J»-2
and lt-3 for logic reasonableness and lack of cement on the cultural resource
potential.
33 32. Pages U-16,17, Lines 20-26. The mislabelled s*Ltbush, and reeosote-
bursage biotic coocunittas on Figure 3-12 for cropland and urban (ccmercial-
residential) has a carryover in the analysis he*e and the confusing insertion
of increases in cropland habitat for an area stated to decline by 236,800
acres (without condition) or IBS.ltOO acres (with conditions) (page 3-10ij).
COMMENT DOCUMENT O
Page $ January 19, 1979
34 33. P«ge li-23» Option 2, and figure lt-3, indicates a lack of adequate coordination
in locating the overland flowsita over the top of the CAP Granite Reef
Aqueduct alinement segment in Sections k,5,and 6 on the approximate 1500 foot
contour. The omission of the Bureau of Reclamation from Section 6.2.1
(page 6-7) and tho active information process could have eliminated many
inadequacies in the report.
35 3I». Page U-28, Line 8. Figure li-1 did not surface for review even after
much searching. Possibly a collating error.
Lines 12-16. Wetland creation would be a benefit, not the opportunity
which could be chimerical to fulfillment and biological effectiveness.
36
37
35. Page L-30, Line 18.
error.
Section 9.33 apparently is an inadvertent reference
38 36. Page li-32, Lines 2-5. The developed and active agricultural lands directly
adjacent to subdivisions in Scottsdale are irrigated from SRP transported
water. A confusion of the Pirn Road area south of the Arizona Canal and
UcCormick Ranch is possible.
39 37< Page h-k&> Line 8. "southwest" was probably meant rather than
"southeast".
40 38. Page U-107, Alternative 3 & ti. Northeast Plant - Option 2 location
IB in conflict with the CAP Granite Reef Aquedact, Reach 12.
41 39. Page U-120, Lines 13-1U. The wetland nassh habitat of pages U-?2
Biological Resources has become woodland riparian habitat. There is a
difference. This confusion of "riparian" habitat should be straighteded
out especially in the minds of all environmental statement writers and
editors.
42 10. Pages It-132«ol37. The extensive discussion on a very minor 2,100
to 5,500 acres of irrigated agriculture which could be supported by treated
effluent gives a nisleading impression concerning the preservation of
irrigated agriculture when the significant preservation step would be in the
fom of agricultural zoning protection and the guided dispersal of population
to the non-arable rock mountain masses and the desert peripheral band. For
overall importance, the portioft appears to be a shallow and diversionary
ptffery.
43 la< Pages IrlSS - 160, Tables U-6 to Ji-9, U-18 to 21. Agricultural land
is not per se wetlands in meaning or biological productivity particularly
with the crops indicated. Wetlands should not be used meaninglessly as a
Buzzword but should describe a biologically active h&bltat area to be
occupied effectively by aquatic oriented plants and wildlife. In such a ase
the potential irater conjunction would reduce the agricultural or industrial
water reuse potential of the effluent.
COMMENT DOCUMENT O
-------
Pa* 6 January 17, 1979
OK.ME LEWIS. JR.
44 l£. Pagtt Ii-l66 and lt-177. At tht» location and **wral othert throughout
the report the haary and coercive hand of threatened •peoial Jjrtereat
lltlfatlan to negate and abort conolueion* arrived at on tht baelt of
public tarviet and rtrll work* d*«lgn, aoonotlea, and environmental factort
•ake* a mookery of tht public participation and local planning guidance and
oontrel of public program. With a very (liable capacity of tha AHPP
•bheduled and planned for Southern California deoandt, tha intention of
California environmental, water, and power eupply proUau ahould not be
allomd to govam aotiont for tbt banaflt of Salt Rlvtr Vallay rtaldantf.
An •Ittroatin mttr tupply for AHPf for tha California allocated pomr
prodoation ihould ba trantftrrtd fron California to oantral Arlsona through
tha Oraaita Raaf Aquaduet by trantfar of an adequate quantity of Colorado
Rirw water. A precedent on Colorado River «tar ute tranafer naa eatabliahed
by aEreementt for the SunOeeert Plant at BLythe. With thle prinolple
ettablithed, the rtMinim; negotiable factor of nhioh dde of the Colorado
River the location of the ute win be It not InaurpounUble.
45 It3. Page 14-167, Table lr-22. Earlier portion* of the report indicate that
Rooeevelt Irrigation Dittrlet ahould be tnora inttead of RKD.
40 llk> 'age U-lBO, Una 10. Add a "h)" to Identify the AHPP ooneortiun.
»*fOCMI)I.A*lfON* ••01*
N)
David I. C:
Ceoeaber a, 1978
Mr. Mark frank
Marieopa County Aaeoelation of Governiient*
111 South Third Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Dear Mr FranXt
1 Hefereno* eection "2-6" of the MAG C£A on Point Source
Metro Phoenix Altertlve* 1 euggeet that the paragraph
eoenlderlng "reelduaJ waat**" need* claxafloatlon,
May I eutgeet that futher dlecuaalon with the approrprlate
offclal* of the 23rd and 91et Avenue tiewege Treatmenet
Plant* la called for due to the apparent error with respect
to the denaturing proceta. It la our expereince that the
bulk of the •atari*! la in fact dewatered. below 23*.
Sludge doe* accordingly Beet the term* of the "contract"
and 1* being (recently being dlepoied of through the
contract which in part penlta the atockplllng of the
dried eludge on City of Phoenix property, from our per*--
pectlv* thle method of dlapoaal should continue to be
a viable altetlve for both partite,
Ve hop* that thl* clarification la helpful In reviling
the draft BIS.
Sincerely,
COMMENT DOCUMENT 0
COMMENT DOCUMENT P
-------
Ul
Marlcopa Association of Governments
Water Quality Management Program
111 South Third Avenue, Room 300
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
AND
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX, Hearing Office
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
RE: Draft Environmental Assess-
ment/Environmental Impact
Statement and Drift NAG 208
Water Quality Management Plan
Dear Hearing Officer:
As a planner who has been Involved 1n the MAG 208 planning effort, I feel that
the program has produced a workable plan for an area that 1s growing with un-
paralleled speed. Given the mushrooming population, a five year scope of con-
struction based upon a twenty year plan is quite feasible and (rapleTnentable.
The final plan is perhaps not the best, nor is it the worst that could have been
formulated, given our human condition of achievement is spite of ourselves.
There are elements that perhaps could have, and should have been brought forth
within the planning effort. Certain elements encompassing effluent nutrient
quality and agricultural reuse, the salt content in cooling water for the Polo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station, the possible loss of a riparian habitat down-
stream of the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Central Arizona Project
and domestic water degradation, and flood control are key issues that must be
addressed in any continuing process. Many months ago, when I was active in the
Program, I attempted to bring these issues out to the public, as I felt I had to.
As one of my superiors had put it, my job was to be that of "devil's advocate".
However, I'm pleased that these issues have finally been brought forth.
1 There is one issue which has not come out, but which was brought up numerous times
at staff level some time back. This Issue, which the MAG 208 Plan has largely
Ignored is that portion of the wastewater treatment process that has energy pro-
duction potential. I refer to the biogas which 1s currently being flared off at
the conventional wastewater treatment plants. Presently, the 91st Avenue waste-
water treatment plant flares between 500,000 and 900,000 cubic feet of this bio-
gas per day, which has a methane rating of 60 to 75 per cent. This is a resource
which should be part of any overall wastewater plan.
Another aspect of integrating energy production into continuing 208 planning, In-
volves the study of an advanced treatment technology which is particularly suited
to the MAG region based on climatic factors. This technology utilizes Vascular
Aquatic Plants as a biological wastewater treatment process, and In turn, provider,
a source material for large scale biogas production. The Idea of producing usable
heat energy from plant matter has grown in importance In recent years as the
search for renewable energy Resources has intensified. Bioconversion of plant
material into energy is a solar energy application utilizing natural photosynthe-
sis to convert solar radiation into a usable form. Or. Carl Hodges and his asso-
ciates at the Environmental Research Laboratory, University of Arizona, has done
extensive research In recent years on bioconversion of plant material. What is
a relatively new concept is that of growing a plant for both its waitewater treat-
ment qualities and Us energy potential.
COMMENT DOCUMENT Q
In 1975, the National Aeronautics and bpace Administration at their National
Space Technology laboratories in B<),y St. Louis, Mississippi under the guidance of
Dr. B.C. Woverton began investigating the application of vascular aquatic plants
for recycling wastes and providing energy in extended manned space missions. They
found that the vjt.cr hyjcinth (Eichhornia crjssipcs) is extremely effective when
used as a natural biological filtration system, absorbing and metabolizing heavy
metals, phenols, nitrates, phosphates, and radioactive substances. In tests at
their facilities, they found that this advanced, Inovative technology can meet
the Environmental Protection Agency's stringent 1985 water quality goal of zero
discharge of pollutants Into receiving waters, at a fraction of the cost of more
conventional wastewater treatment technologies, or even the non-conventional
land treatment methods.
The water hyacinth is believed to be the most prolific plant on earth, producing
up to 800 pounds dry weight of plant matter per acre per day. For more than 75
years this plant has been considered a pest, growing in unrestricted abundance
in the southern pirt of the United States, clogging waterways and lakes. However,
this plant 1s well-suited for the production of biogas through anaerobic decom-
position, producing up to 4800 cubic feet of biogas per day on one acre of waste-
water effluent. The resulting biogas contains up to 951 methane, with little of
the hydrogen sulfide that is present in the biogas produced in the sludge diges-
tion process.
In the MAG region, this type of biological treatment should be considered in a
continuing 208 process. Although the Federal guidelines from the EPA do not
stipulate that energy potential is a desireable benefit, there are precidents
toward this stipulation. Those guidelines do stipulate and encourage nthpr
benefits to be included in wastewater management such as the reuse of effluent
and certain recreational benefits. In addition, If an inovative or non-conven-
tional technique is used in wastewater treatment, local governments can be fundod
up to 85'i of the cost by the Federal government, instead of just.75%, as will be
funded in the WG 208 plan. Unless byconversion is advocated and given incen-
tives by the EPA, the wastewater planners and engineers may be locked out of
exploring this possibility.
In order to achieve implementation, the policy must be consistent and comprehen-
sive at the federal level. It is understandable that EPA hasn't mandated guide-
lines for bioconversion, because they are not in the energy business (yet con-
ventional sewage treatment plants burn off many thousands of cubic feet of
biogas from digested sewage sludge daily). The Department of Energy fs supporting
the search for renewable energy, yet it appears they have not correlated their
activities with the waste water treatment process as a source for experimenting
with bioconversion. It seems that DOE and EPA should get together and discuss
a program of mutual interest. EPA already has an Implementation network built
up through the various Councils of Government throughout the U.S. (Arizona has
five COGs).
Perhaps in the final analysis, public awareness and official Implementation
policy will catch up to technological advances as the information and communi-
cation revolution spreads. By utilizing a more comprehensive approach 1n
solving the problems associated with wastewater treatment, the treated effluent
can be of a quality that will meet State and Federal water quality standards,
with a useful by-product produced to help satisfy our Nation's clean energy
needs.
Thomas S. Rothweiler
409 W. Pebble Beach Drive
Tempe, Arizona 85282
COMMENT DOCUMENT Q
-------
PUBLIC HEARING BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
REGION IX, IN THE HATTER OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT AND ASSESSMENT ON THE POINT SOURCE METRO PHOENIX
ALTERNATIVES FOR THE MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OP GOVERNMENTS
HATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN, JANUARY IS, 197$
SPEAKER: AORON M. REICHERT
X'B Adron Reichert speaking for the Holly
Acres Flood Control Association.
There has been oonfualoo about our location
•o I'll try once noro. Me are representing that area
from Ninety-first Avenue west to Bullard Avenue along the
Salt end Oil* River*. Or, much better described by cur
paeeing friend* a* "those denned fool* who live in the
flood plain at the confluence of the Salt, 01la and Agua
Frla Rivera.*
Just to **t the record straight, from people
who have lived in thi* flood plain, to their knowledge,
lands that were flooded In March and December of 1978
were never flooded In the fifty-seven year* *ince 1921.
Al*o, stories related to the*, it was in tho
1890s that our area waa flooded along with fcuoh of
Phoenix.
In 1941 when the flood waters at the Central
Avenue bridge raised to the bridge rail height*, out area
wa* not flooded but much of Phoenix waa. I didn't see it,
but aa I remember, the rotunda of the Arlsone State
Capitol had a water depth of about three feet. Lands and
hones along the Twenty-third, Nineteenth and Seventeenth
Avenue* in Phoenix were flooded.
COMMENT DOCUMENT R
X don't remember the hunan pride referring to
the resident* end ferner* who lived In thoae areae a*
•thoae damned foola that live in the flood plain," or
•Mho waa that fool who built the State Capitol In a
reeoonUed flood plain.*
But if it will help to pinpoint our location,
yea, we are thoae fool*. Fool* enough to think that our
pleading to the MAC 208 Regional Council would be
eonaidered. That the effluent discharge by the Ninety-flr^t
Avenue cewaqe treataent plant to the Salt River would be
removed aa aoon a* po**lbl«. The maaaive — thus
controlling the aaaalve artificial vegetative growth
that puahed the water out of the river channel* into our
hooea and onto our land* twice in one year.
And it ha* a pretty possibility of happening
again thi* year.
Fool* enough to believe that the
-------
-P-
the flood waters would bring that catch in tho vegetative
growth along with sand and silt building islands and
forcing water flows out of established channels.
Not to build elevated roadways with culverts
to carry sewage effluent during peak loads, thus creating
ponding and establish even additional growth in the
stream bod.
Hot to stockpile. Plea number two. Wot to
stocXpilo large amounts of sand and gravel in the stream
bed to be used for road construction and road maintenance,
Fools enough to believe that the laws and
regulations devoloped by our government agencies will be
regulated.
Example. Paragraph 311 and Paragraph 10-2
of tho 1975 Flood Plane Regulations for the unincorporated
areas in Harlcopa County of the State of Arizona.
First, Paragraph 311. And I'm quoting. "The
definition of obstruction. Any dan, wall, warf, embank-
ment, levy, dike, pile, abutment, protection, evacuation
channels, rectification, bridge, conduit, culvert,
building, wire, fence, rock, gravel, refuse, fill,
structure, vegetation, and other material in, along,
across or projecting into any channel, water course,
lake or regulatory flood hazard area which may impede,
retard, or change the direction of tho flow of the water,
either in. itself or by catching or collecting debris
COMMENT DOCUMENT B
carried by such water or that's placed where the flow of
the wator raay carry th* same downstream to danage of life
and property.* Unquote.
And Paragraph 10-2, I quote again, "It is
unlawful for anj> person, firm or corporation to divert,
retard or obstruct the flow of waters in any water course
whenever it creates a hazard to life or property without
first securing written authorization required by this
regulation, Section 45-2345 of the Arizona Revised
Statutes. Any person, firm or corporation violating the
above provisions shall be guilty of a misdearaor and upon
conviction thereof shall be punishable as described by
law." DnoTiotc.
We were fools enough to believe the human
conscience process rnther than the legal process of the
courts.
As this meeting being tho last public meeting
1 of this phase of the MAG 208 Progran, our association
ccraaittee requests that a spokesman of the regional
council meet with our committee and explain why the
Ninety-first Avenue effluent cannot be programmed to be
removed from the stream bed and why it has been seemingly
a sacred cow.
You may point out to us that tho MAG 208
Program is a water quality management plan and not a
flood control plan. Please believe UB. Management or
the lack of management of th« effluent of the Ninety-
firut Avenue sewage treatment plant io our flood problem.
Mo fooling.
COMMENT DOCUMENT R
-------
PUBLIC HEARING BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
REGION IX, IN THE NATTER OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT AND ASSESSMENT ON THE POINT SOURCE MCTRO PHOENIX
ALTERNATIVES FOR THE HARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
HATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN, JANUARY IS, 1979
SPEAKER: GILBERT T. VENAILE
MX. VKHABUi My MM is Gilbert Venable. I'm
an attorney and I'm speaking on behalf of the Cltliens
Concerned About The Project 4n the Karlcopa Audubon
Society.
Pirst I would like to contend the report on
giving eome attention to ways for reuse, for irrigating
agriculture. And we commend those portions of it,
t But overall, the plan see** to be designed on
the premise that ite major function is to provide food
•nd water to the Palo Verde nuclear Power Plant. Me find
ourselves almost In unison with comments from Russell
Bulse of Arliona Public Service on the point that that
such water is not needed for the first three units and
alternatives which we feel are inportant to be considered
for the overall economic and social welfare of tho Valley
have been elininated due to the ovsrrldance by such a
large source of watsr at the new treatment plant.
2 He point particularly to the elimination of
two of the alternatives which should have been given
serious consideration and should have had careful eonsidei!-
ation given to the social and economic impact which we
feel Just as APS did have not been given adequate study
and report.
COMMENT DOCUMENT S
OM of these is the Forty-eighth Avenue --
Forty-eighth Street plant, rethor, which could supply
water tot the Wo Salado Project. And the i»p«ot of that
on our entire urban torn, I think, ar« of tremendous
consequence and really need to b« evaluated economically.
The other elimination which wo are quite
concerned about le the One Hundred Fifteenth Avenue
plant and Ague Pria Klver area plante with regard to the
ultimate depletion in groundwater in the area of Deer
Farms which le drawing In high salt pollution from other
areaa.
And we feol that if water <£•'- if wastewater
would be Bade available in that area for agricultural
reuee, It would tend to itop the flow of those high salt
water* into that area and to decrease the problem of
groundwatex depletion and qroundwater pollution which is
occurring in that aroa.
•the other two ccmsents which I would like to
sake ar<» that while the plan addresses what night be
considered a traditional point of view on wastewater
treatments, it has not looked at the relationship
between wastowater treatment and the wastewater planning
3 and flood control planning alternatives on the Bait,
Verde, Oil* and Agua Pria Rivers.
just to taXe one very obvious example, when
those rlvere flood, they tend to flood out eome of the
existing plant salts and causes some damage.
COMMENT DOCUMENT S
-------
There also are a variety of other water
problems, say nothing of economic problem* associated
with that flooding. And we think this should be given
much more thorough study.
Similarly, the report does not deal adequately
with the impact on water quality which — and on waste-
water alternatives which will accompany the delivery of
Central Arizona Project water to the Valley if the Project
gats completed.
CAP water is high in sulfates and high in TDS,
total dissolved solids. And this water, if it is
delivered, may bo suitable for certain uses but not for
other uses.
For example, it would not be a very desirable
source of water for domestic water supply.
And we feel that not enough attention has been
given to what quality water is used for what purpose.
For example, if the Palo Verde Nuclear Power
Plant is to be built, it nay well be able to utilize
groundweter which is presently in the vicinity of the
plant rather than utilising the wastewater effluent from
the City of Phoenix which is high in nutrients and seems
to be ideally suited for agricultural irrigation.
So those are several areas which we feel have
not been adequately studied, and we'd second the remarks
of APS that more thorough attention be given to the
COMMENT DOCUMENT S
economic and social impact and that real cost figures
should be put on the elimination of some of the alterna-
tives which have been eliminated seemingly without any
analysis.
COMMENT DOCUMENT S
-------
5.3 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
5.3.1 RESPONSE TO THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
(COMMENT DOCUMENT A)
nt Response
1 Historic resources in the metro Phoenix area were inven-
toried in a report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers by the State Historic Preservation Officer
(Hall, 1977). Proposed projects in the wastewater
management plan were reviewed by the Acting State His-
toric Preservation Office in 1979, and no historic
resources on the State inventory or on the National
Register of Historic Places were identified as being
affected by the plan. See FEIS pp. 3-16 - 3-17, 4-47.
5.3.2 RESPONSE TO THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
(COMMENT DOCUMENT B)
Comment Response
1 The correct name of the agency has been used in the
listing on p. v of the FEIS.
5.3.3 RESPONSES TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF
THE SECRETARY (COMMENT DOCUMENT D)
Response
Assessment of impacts without Central Arizona Project
water is beyond the scope of this EIS, although EPA
believes such an analysis would be very worthwhile.
See discussion on pp. 4-16 - 4-25 of the FEIS. Riparian
communities in the Gila River do not depend entirely on
effluent from wastewater treatment plants as a source of
water and are less likely to be affected by decreased
flows of effluent than is the stretch of the Salt River
from 91st Avenue to 115th Avenue. The probable loss of
some riparian habitat in this stretch of the Salt River
would be offset by the creation of wetlands due to
effluent reuse systems under the selected plan. As
noted in this comment, careful design and management of
these created wetlands are required to establish useful
habitat.
See pp. 3-11 and pp. 4-17 - 4-18 of the FEIS.
5-48
-------
5.3.4 RESPONSES TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL
CONSERVATION SERVICE (COMMENT DOCUMENT E)
Comment Response
1 A cost summary of the proposed plan is provided on pp.
2-32 - 2-38 of the FEIS. Detailed cost data appear in
the Point Source Final Plan (MAG 208 Program, 1979b) and
in the Conventional Treatment Design and Cost Appendix
(Morris, Clester, Abegglen and Associates, and STRAAM
Engineering, 1979).
2 While it is correct that irrigated agricultural land
declines under all the project alternatives assessed in
the DEIS, these alternatives support growth patterns that
reduce the conversion of agricultural lands, compared to
the conversions that would result without the project.
This comparison is made on pp. 4-56 - 4-60 of the FEIS.
The development of alternative land use plans to minimize
the conversion of agricultural land is beyond the scope
of this EIS.
3 The higher level of effluent quality for the Northeast
facility (Alternatives 3 and 4) was a requirement for
locating the facility on Salt River Indian Community
lands.
4 Baseline information on soils in the study area was
presented concisely in the DEIS. Few impacts to soils
were identified in the environmental assessment. Soils
are also discussed very briefly in the FEIS, and proper
reference to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, is provided (p. 3-2).
5 The overland flow site for the Northeast facility was
part of the land application treatment method, rather
than a reuse for effluent. Land application permits
recovery of the treated effluent, which may then be used
for irrigation or other purposes.
6 Figure 4-5 of the DEIS was incorrect. Effluent from the
Northeast facility would have been of sufficient quality
for unrestricted agricultural use.
5-49
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT E, CONT.
7 The statement on export of salts referred to the Salt
River Valley as Na whole. This is an incidental side
effect of the export of effluent from the Valley for use
at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (see FEIS,
p. 4-12). The statement concerning decreased salinity of
ground water in the Buckeye Irrigation District (DEIS,
p. 4-70) was derived from the ground water quality study
by Kenneth D. Schmidt (1978) for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Schmidt concludes that decreasing salinity in
the Buckeye Irrigation District is a result of the use of
wastewater effluent for irrigation. Effluent is of
relatively less salinity than is ground water in the
District.
5.3.5 RESPONSES TO THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(COMMENT DOCUMENT G)
nt Response
Impacts of growth on transportation are presented in
Section 4.3.6 (pp. 4-60, 4-66) of the FEIS.
Air quality impacts of the selected plan are presented in
Section 4.2.2 (pp. 4-12 - 4-15) of the FEIS. Air quality
in the Phoenix area in the future is described in Section
4.3.9 (pp. 4-69 - 4-71). No significant impacts to air
quality are attributable directly to the 208 plan. Both
the air quality Nonattainment Area Plan for the Phoenix
area and the MAG 208 Plan are based on population projec-
tions and land use patterns established in the MAG Guide
for Regional Development, Transportation, and Housing
(1978). The 208 plan does not support any significant
changes in growth in the metro area, and the plan is
fully compatible with the Nonattainment Area Plan.
Methods and models for estimating changes in air quality
appear in the Technical Appendix to the Nonattainment
Area Plan (Arizona Department of Health Services, 1978a).
Assessment of impacts to cultural resources was as
detailed as possible for the planning level of the EIS.
The potential for impacts to archaeological resources is
expressed in the FEIS as the number of miles of inter-
ceptor lines that will cross archaeological sensitivity
zones identified in a report by the Office of Cultural
Resource Management, Department of Anthropology, Arizona
State University (Burton, 1977). The EIS does not claim
archaeological clearance for the individual facilities
5-50
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT G, CONT.
3 cont. (see DEIS, p. 4-12; FEIS, p. 4-45). Each facility will
be required to complete a detailed archaeological recon-
naissance to qualify for funds under Section 201 of the
Clean Water Act. No historic sites have been identified
in the areas of interceptor or facility construction or
expansion (see Response 1, Comment Document A).
4 The sentence quoted in this comment is from the methodol-
ogy section of the DEIS (Section 4.1). Impacts of the
alternatives on population, land use, water quality, and
ten other environmental categories were assessed in the
DEIS by facility in Section 4.2 and by alternative in
Section 4.3.
5.3.6 RESPONSE TO THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT, PLANNING
AND EVALUATION BRANCH (COMMENT DOCUMENT H)
Comment Response
1 Impacts of reduced flows in the Salt River are discussed
on pp. 4-19 - 4-25 of the FEIS. Under all water diver-
sion projections, the allocation of 7,300 acre-feet of
treated effluent to the Game and Fish Department for
support of the wildlife management area at 115th Avenue
is assumed to be a first commitment of the cities. EPA
will certainly support protection of riparian habitat in
its actions. (See Appendix C of the FEIS.)
5.3.7 RESPONSES TO THE ARIZONA STATE LAND DEPARTMENT
(COMMENT DOCUMENT I)
Comment Response
1 Painted Rock Lake is approximately 70 miles in a straight
line from the 91st Avenue treatment plant but approxi-
mately 100 miles "as the river flows."
2-5 These portions of the DEIS have been condensed or elim-
inated. See Section 3.1 of the FEIS (pp. 3-3 - 3-17).
5-51
-------
5.3.8 RESPONSES TO THE ARIZONA WATER COMMISSION
(COMMENT DOCUMENT J)
nt Response
1 Current and Expected Water Supplies and Demands and
Groundwater Conditions (Arizona Water Commission, 1978)
has been used in the FEIS. See pp. 3-2 - 3-8, 3-18 -
3-29.
2 See pp. 4-72 - 4-73 for a comparison of water resources
under with-project and without-project conditions. The
without-project conditions are condensed from the DEIS
and indicate that ground water overdraft would be reduced.
3 See p. 2-10 of the FEIS for provisions of the Consent
Decree between the City of Phoenix and the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
4 This change has been incorporated into Table 3-1, pp.
3-21 - 3-22 of the FEIS.
5 A statement to this effect may be found on p. 3-20,
1. 17-20, of the DEIS. See also p. 3-20 of the FEIS.
6 The difference between the area of the Salt River Valley
and the study area is noted on p. 3-2 and 3-26 of the
FEIS.
7 Figure 3-6 has not been reprinted in the FEIS.
8,9 In keeping with these comments, the discussion of trends
in salinity and nitrate in the FEIS (pp. 3-27 - 3-29)
does not attribute changes in concentrations to single
causes.
10 The passage in question has not been reprinted in the
FEIS. The error in the DEIS concerning ownership of
ground water is acknowledged.
11 The passage in question has been revised for the FEIS;
see p. 3-26.
12 The passage in question has been revised for the FEIS;
see p. 3-14.
13 The estimated municipal and Industrial water withdrawal
of 340 gpcd in 1975 is given on p. 3-18 of the FEIS.
5-52
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT J, CONT.
Comment Response
14 Arizona Water Commission projections of Salt-Verde flows
are provided on pp. 4-71 - 4-72 of the FEIS.
15 Revised estimates of ground water quality under without-
project conditions are presented on p. 4-73 of the FEIS.
16 The passages in question were not reprinted in the FEIS.
The errors cited are acknowledged.
17 Both the DEIS and FEIS state that ground water quality
problems associated with effluent reuse could occur
without proper mitigation. The problems are avoidable
and therefore unlikely. Potential impacts of effluent
reuse are described to ensure that entities preparing
facility plans will be aware of these impacts and take
steps to mitigate impacts, including monitoring of ground
water quality underlying reuse sites and use of conserva-
tive loadings of nitrogen in irrigation waters. See
FEIS, pp. 4-8 - 4-11.
18 The assumption in the DEIS passage in question was that
the export of effluent to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generat-
ing Station would reduce the amount of surface water
(i.e., effluent) imported for irrigation in the Buckeye
Irrigation District. This impact has not been included
in the FEIS, because the full effects of Palo Verde's
effluent diversions on the District's effluent use are
not known. At a minimum, the District will take 30,000
af/yr of effluent through the ANPP pipeline, but diver-
sions of flows in the river may also continue to occur at
the Buckeye Heading, depending upon the availability of
flows.
19 The FEIS expands the analysis of impacts associated with
the sale and transportation of effluent to the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station. See FEIS pp. 4-19 - 4-25,
4-31 - 4-36, and Appendix C.
20 This passage has not been included in the FEIS, and the
error cited in the comment is acknowledged.
5-53
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT J, CONT.
Comment Response
21 Information in Appendix C of the FEIS indicates that
flows from the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue plants may be
sufficient to meet the needs of Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station Units 1 through 4, but appear to be
inadequate to meet peak needs of Units 1 through 5. See
Appendix C.
22 See pp. 4-31 - 4-36 of the FEIS for a discussion of the
effects of use of effluent for energy production and
agricultural irrigation.
23 The contract for effluent was negotiated in 1973 by the
Arizona Public Service Company/Salt River Project and the
Multi-City Partners using population and effluent flow
projections considerably higher than those used in the
MAG 208 Program. See Appendix C for a discussion of flow
availability.
5.3.9 RESPONSE TO ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY
(COMMENT DOCUMENT Kl)
Coaaent Response
1 Revised population projections by the Department of
Economic Security will be used in 208 plan updates.
5.3.10 RESPONSES TO THE GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY
(COMMENT DOCUMENT L)
Response
Impacts of the 91st Avenue treatment plant to the Gila
River Indian Community were identified in the DEIS (pp.
4-72 - 4-74) and the FEIS (p. 4-29). The impacts are
essentially the same as those listed in this comment.
The degree of adversity assigned to the Impacts in the
EIS is not as great as indicated in the comment because
of the regional perspective used in the EIS. Impacts of
the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue treatment plants will be
assessed in greater detail in the facility plans that are
being prepared by the City of Phoenix.
5-54
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT L, CONTINUED
Comment Response
2 The recommendations for mitigation supplied in this
comment by the Gila River Indian community have been used
by EPA to develop the plans of study for the City of
Phoenix's analysis of the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue
treatment plants. This planning effort, which is now
underway, provides an opportunity for the Community and
other members of the public to express their opinions on
the proposed expansion of the treatment plants. Any
comments will have to be addressed during the planning
process. EPA encourages full participation in the
process.
With regard to specific recommendations, we have the
following comments:
(1) EPA is requiring upgrading of the treatment plant
and has provided money to assist in improving plant
performance.
(2) These impacts are being assessed more fully in the
detailed planning being done by the City of Phoenix
for the 91st Avenue facility.
(3) The City of Phoenix is required to study and develop
measures to minimize any adverse impacts of plant
construction or operation.
(4) EPA will not issue any grant funds until environmen-
tal impacts in the area of the plant are eliminated
or minimized.
(5) Mitigation of adverse impacts must be developed in
the facility plan being prepared by the City of
Phoenix.
(6) Sludge treatment facilities will not be permitted to
be located in the riverbed or where floods might
damage them.
(7) This recommendation has been referred to the City of
Phoenix for study and appropriate action.
5-55
-------
5.3.11 RESPONSES TO ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE (COMMENT DOCUMENT M)
Response
The setting of effluent standards and the monitoring of
these standards for industries discharging directly to
surface waters is the responsibility of the Bureau of
Water Quality Control (in the Arizona Department of
Health Services) and the Water Quality Control Council.
Under the 208 plan, subregional operating groups (SROG's)
are to be responsible for the setting and monitoring of
discharge standards for industries connected to their
wastewater treatment plants. These discharge standards
are commonly called pretreatment requirements. Individ-
ual SROG's may elect to seek assistance of the Bureau of
Water Quality Control in setting and monitoring these
requirements.
Representatives of Arizona Public Service have served on
MAG 208 advisory groups in the past, and a representative
has been asked to serve on the 208 Water Quality Policy
Advisory Committee, which will assist the Regional
Council in water quality planning.
The DEIS was prepared according to the Water Resources
Council Principles and Standards, National Environmental
Policy Act, and Related Policies (33 CFR 290-294, and
393, Federal Register, Vol. 43(135): 30222-30254, July
13, 1978) and Environmental Protection Agency Preparation
of Environmental Impact Statements Final Regulations (40
CFR 6, Federal Register, Vol. 40(72): 16814-16827, April
14, 1975). The FEIS was prepared according to Council on
Environmental Quality National Environmental Policy Act
Implementation of Procedural Provisions; Final Regula-
tions (40 CFR 1500-1508, Federal Register, Vol. 43(230):
55978-56007, November 29, 1978).
Socioeconomic considerations were included in the DEIS.
Important socioeconomic issues were discussed on pp. 2-30
to 2-34 of the DEIS. The existing socioeconomic setting
was described on pp. 3-59 to 3-80. Future socioeconomic
conditions under the No Action Alternative were described
on pp. 3-89 to 3-117. Socioeconomic impacts of the
treatment facilities were included in Section 4.2 of the
DEIS; socioeconomic impacts of the alternatives were
Included in Section 4.3. The major part of Chapter 5,
Issues to be Resolved, was devoted to socioeconomic
5-56
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT M, CONT.
Comment Response
3 cont. considerations (pp. 5-5 to 5-13). In the FEIS, socio-
economic impacts of the selected plan may be found on
pp. 4-25 to 4-45.
Secondary impacts were assessed in the DEIS, but they
were not separated from primary impacts by heading. Most
of the impacts described in air quality, land use,
population, public facilities and services, and economic
activity (see Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the DEIS) were
secondary impacts. Secondary impacts of growth have been
treated separately in the FEIS (see Section 4.3 of the
FEIS).
Impacts to industry were carefully considered during the
initial phases of the 208 planning process. With the
exception of provision of cooling water for the Palo
Verde Nuclear Generating Station, no significant impacts
to industry were identified. These impacts are discussed
on pp. 4-33 to 4-36 of the FEIS.
A cost/benefit analysis was not included in the EIS
because (1) the proposed plan is a generalized program
not amenable to cost/benefit analysis, and (2) wastewater
treatment facilities are evaluated by EPA on a cost-
effectiveness rather than a cost/benefit basis in accor-
dance with regulations. The cost-effectiveness analysis
determines the present worth of the resources to be
applied to the waste management system. Social, environ-
mental, and other nonmonetary costs are accounted for in
the analysis in a descriptive sense. Alternatives having
the lowest total resource cost are considered to be the
most cost-effective, assuming that minimum treatment
levels are met. Costs of the four areawide alternatives
are shown on p. 2-77, and costs of the selected plan on
pp. 2-32 - 2-38.
4 The EIS is a plan or "program" statement, which provides
for more detailed environmental analyses to take place
later on in the wastewater planning process, i.e., when
detailed facility plans are developed. In general, the
detail of an EIS is commensurate with the detail of the
action being assessed. This EIS does not have the level
of detail of an EIS on a designed facility because 208
5-57
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT M, CONT.
Comment Response
4 coat, planning does not include design specifications for
wastewater treatment facilities proposed under the plan.
These specifications will be developed in 201 plans or
other detailed local planning. Environmental assessments
prepared for facilities will be required to provide
analyses of impacts commensurate with the level of detail
of the facility plans. This E1S does offer generic
assessments of proposed actions for the major facilities
(DEIS, Section 4.2; FEIS, Fig. 4-1). These assessments
are limited by the preliminary nature of the facility
planning but are provided to give direction to the
project-specific studies.
5 The environmental report and environmental statement for
Units 1, 2, and 3 of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1975) were
accessed during the 208 study. Details of pipeline
delivery operations did not appear in these reports, and
flow projections, flow stagings, and makeup water demands
for the station were less current than more recent data
available from other sources. For these reasons, the
environmental data prepared for the station were not
cited in the DEIS, although the documents had been
consulted. In the FEIS, the Palo Verde Units 1, 2, and 3
Environmental Statement is cited (see pp. 2-45, 4-23, and
Appendix C), as is the Units 4 and 5 Environmental
Statement (p. 4-23). In addition, a report by Management
Research, Inc. (1978), prepared for Arizona Public Ser-
vice on economic benefits of reuse of effluent was found
to be a valuable resource for the FEIS (see p. 3-37,
4-33.
6 The assumption used in the DEIS was that the full amount
of effluent optioned under contract by APS/SRP (140,000
af/yr) would be used. As noted in APS comment 27, the
contract with the Cities provides that up to 140,000
af/yr of effluent, if available, will be supplied by the
91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue plants for use as cooling
water in the generation of electrical power at any site
chosen by the utilities. Thus, the amount of effluent
that is to be provided is not necessarily tied to Palo
Verde requirements, according to the contract.
5-58
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT M, CONT.
Comment
Response
6 cont. For the FEIS, an effort was made to describe the poten-
tial range of effluent consumption under the contract
with APS/SRP. This range includes Palo Verde's annual
needs and low and high peak monthly requirements, as well
as the potential for the ultimate annual demand of
140,000 af/yr. The basic elements of the contract are
described on p. 2-45 of the FEIS, and an analysis of
available flows vs. commitments of effluent is provided
in Appendix C.
The major part of the analysis in Appendix C was prepared
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the MAG 208 Study
prior to publication of the DEIS and formed the basis for
meetings with APS, representatives of the Multi-City
Partners, representatives of affected agricultural
groups, and the entire MAG 208 advisory group structure.
Appendix C concludes that, while the annual needs of Palo
Verde Units 1 through 5 are projected to be approximately
107,000 af/yr of effluent, these units' peak monthly flow
needs are expected to require the entire 140,000 af/yr
flow rate by 1988 or 1990. It is likely that the entire
flow rate will not be sufficient to meet the peak demands
of all five units, as APS comment 43 suggests.
7 Both the DEIS and FEIS assume that APS/SRP may act to
secure additional effluent from the Tolleson and proposed
Reems Road plants if not enough effluent is available
from the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue plants to fulfill
the contractual requirements. Effluent availability from
the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue plants is presented in
Appendix C. Effluent reuse options for the Tolleson
plant are presented on FEIS p. 2-55; options for the
proposed Reems Road plant are described on p. 2-57.
8 It is understood that APS/SRP will take the steps
required to ensure that contractual commitments for
effluent are met. This position has been stated in
correspondence and is reinforced by this comment. If
steps short of legal action were not successful, it is
assumed that APS/SRP might engage in litigation. In the
FEIS, the position of the utilities is expressed as
"vigorous opposition" to the alternatives that included
the proposed Northeast facility (see p. 2-79).
5-59
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT M, CONT.
Comment Response
9 EPA does not agree that there is no conflict between
agricultural and industrial interests over effluent. The
commenter argues that there can be no conflict because
(1) agriculture cannot afford to use sewage effluent, and
(2) industry (specifically the Palo Verde Nuclear Gen-
erating Station) can. The MAG 208 Program identified
numerous instances within the planning area where sewage
effluent from the 23rd Avenue, 9lst Avenue, Tolleson,
Mesa, and other treatment plants is currently being used
to Irrigate crops economically. Furthermore, interest
has been expressed by a number of entities—including
Bogle Farms and Gila River Farms—in receiving effluent
at the projected cost of delivering it to their opera-
tions. This evidence indicates that agricultural inter-
ests are capable of bearing the cost of using effluent.
The implication that a conflict cannot occur because
industry can always out-price agriculture for supplies of
effluent is also rejected because ability to pay is not
the only determinant of regional benefits. Finally, the
fact that demand for effluent exceeds supply (see FEIS
pp. 4-33 - 4-36) indicates that there is at least the
potential for conflict among competing interests.
This comment also presents an argument for reuse of
effluent at Palo Verde based entirely on economics. EPA
acknowledges that effluent reuse at Palo Verde may
represent a beneficial economic impact (see DEIS p. 4-74,
p. 107; FEIS p. 4-33), but the range of issues and
problems involved in evaluating competing effluent reuses
is far too complex to be resolved through economic
analysis alone. Other considerations—such as the effect
of the reuse on water supply and on the conversion of
agricultural lands to urban uses—were used to evaluate
reuses in the MAG 208 Program. These and other criteria
were used in describing impacts of effluent reuses in
this EIS (see FEIS pp. 4-31 - 4-36).
It should be emphasized that the commitment of effluent
to Palo Verde was made prior to the 208 study and was not
an option chosen as part of the planning process.
However, this commitment is now part of the selected
plan. In presenting the impacts of the plan, both the
beneficial and adverse impacts of reuse of effluent at
5-60
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT M, CONT.
Comment Response
9 cont. Palo Verde have been presented. It was not the intent of
the EIS to present the relative merits of agricultural
reuse vs. industrial reuse. Both interests are served by
reuses in the selected plan. However, the commitment of
effluent to any one reuse involves the trade-off of
benefits that could occur with a different reuse. In
particular, the commitment of effluent to Palo Verde in
lieu of agricultural reuse within the study area means
that agricultural needs will be met with other sources of
water, and the potential for reuse of effluent to help
conserve resources in the Phoenix area cannot be taken
advantage of fully. In short, use of effluent at Palo
Verde may serve to increase energy production, but it
also appears to exacerbate a water supply problem that
the MAG 208 program has attempted to help remedy.
10 Energy use is related to wastewater management planning
by population growth. The provision of wastewater
treatment service supports growth, and this growth
results in increased energy consumption. Secondary
impacts of growth as they relate to energy consumption
are discussed in Section 4.3 of the FEIS (pp. 4-74 -
4-77).
11 See FEIS pp. 4-31 - 4-38 for a discussion of impacts of
effluent reuses.
12 The only viable industrial use of effluent identified in
the MAG 208 Program was use by the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station.
13 The FEIS indicates that effluent will be used as makeup
cooling water at Palo Verde (p. 2-45).
14 See p. 2-19 of the FEIS for this correction.
15 The DEIS passage in question concerned the environmental
categories that were used to narrow the large array of
alternatives to the small array in early 1977. Socioeco-
nomic impacts, including land use and industry impacts,
and secondary impacts were assessed in the DEIS. See the
response to APS comment 3.
5-61
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT M, CONT.
Comment Response
16 This section of the DEIS discussed the most important
environmental issues that had developed over the course
of the 208 study. Only a few of the socioeconomic
impacts described in later chapters of the DEIS were
focused upon in this section. No baseline was estab-
lished in regard to industry or any other element in this
section because the baseline was described in another
part of the report (Chapter 3).
17 The section on land use has been expanded in the FEIS
(see pp. 3-47 - 3-49).
18 The section on energy was included in the DEIS to provide
sufficient background Information to understand the
impacts in this area. A more detailed discussion of
energy consumption and its relationship to the proposed
plan's support of growth is provided in the FEIS (see pp.
4-74 - 4-77). The DEIS passage in question has been
corrected and condensed; see FEIS p. 3-14.
19,20, The description of existing energy conditions in the
21 Phoenix area has been corrected and briefly summarized in
the FEIS (see p. 3-14).
22,23,
24,25,
26 This section has been changed in the FEIS to focus on
projected energy consumption (see FEIS pp. 4-74 - 4-77).
27 The DEIS statement in question is correct as it stands.
The proposed Northeast plant (included in Alternatives 3
and 4) was vigorously opposed by APS/SRP because the
plant would divert flows from the 91st Avenue plant and
reduce the amount of effluent available to meet the
commitment of up to 140,000 af/yr to APS/SRP. See FEIS
Appendix C.
28 The DEIS text does not disagree with this comment.
29 See response to APS comment 7.
5-62
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT M, CONT.
Comment Response
30 As indicated in APS comment 27, the contract between
APS/SRP and the Cities provides that up to 140,000 af/yr
of optioned effluent may be used for the purpose of
generating electricity at any generating station of the
utilities wherever located (see Part 6.4 of Agreement No.
13904, Option and Purchase of Effluent). Assuming that
only the amount of effluent required by the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station is to be supplied in fulfill-
ment of the contract, the disposition of remaining
effluent is not as simple as indicated in this comment.
The contract with APS/SRP places severe restrictions and
limitations on the potential for reuse of any portion of
the 140,000 af/yr of optioned effluent. The effluent
that is available on an interim basis must be held
available for use by APS/SRP, even though the Cities may
wish to use it elsewhere. Construction of special
treatment facilities for short-term use of effluent is
not sound fiscally. Therefore, the wastewater must be
transported and treated at a location where it can be
delivered to APS/SRP on demand. This generally means the
91st Avenue plant. The options for development of new
uses of effluent there are limited by the location and
the uncertain duration of availability.
31 See response to APS comment 7.
32 See response to APS comment 7.
33 Under the contract between APS/SRP and the Cities, efflu-
ent from the 23rd Avenue plant is to be made available if
flows from the 91st Avenue plant are not sufficient to
meet demands. The analysis of flow vs. commitments of
effluent in FEIS Appendix C shows that, even under the
most optimistic assumptions, flows from the 91st Avenue
plant will be inadequate to meet Palo Verde1 s peak flow
needs by 1986 (high estimate of needs) or 1988 (low
estimate of needs).
34 Flows from the 23rd Avenue plant will probably need to be
diverted through the pipeline to the Palo Verde plant to
augment supplies from the 91st Avenue plant as early as
1986 (see Appendix C). Flow projections indicate that
5-63
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT M, CONT.
Comment Response
34 cont. 23rd Avenue effluent will be required to supply peak flow
needs to the year 2000. Although discharges from the
23rd Avenue plant to the Salt River will not be elim-
inated, they will be significantly reduced (see FEIS
pp. 4-19 - 4-23).
35 Impacts of effluent reuse for agricultural irrigation and
power production are discussed on FEIS pp. 4-31 - 4-36.
See also response to APS comment 9.
36 By exporting effluent outside the study area, the amount
of water available to recharge the aquifer through
infiltration-percolation is reduced. The net effect is a
reduction in ground water quantity in the Salt River
Valley.
37 The MIS text does not disagree with this comment. See
FEIS pp. 4-31 - 4-36 and response to APS comment 9.
38 See FEIS pp. 4-31 - 4-36 and response to APS comment 9.
39 The DEIS text was in partial error. Claims for 91st
Avenue effluent are fully resolved through contractual
agreements. However, the amount and legal status of the
use of effluent from the 23rd Avenue plant by McDonald
Farms is currently unknown. It is possible that the
Farms has a right to effluent prior to either APS/SRP's
or Roosevelt Irrigation District's rights.
40 Effects of reduced discharges to the Salt River are
discussed on FEIS pp. 4-19 - 4-25.
41 Use of effluent for near-site agricultural irrigation of
restricted crops was identified as very cost-effective
and environmentally beneficial in MAG 208 studies (see
PotentialReuse Options for Wastewater Effluent and
Residual Solids,U.S.Army CorpsofEngineers,1977).
See also response to APS comment 9.
5-64
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT M, CONT.
Comment Response
42 According to the analysis of effluent flows and commit-
ments in Appendix C, total flows from 91st Avenue and
23rd Avenue will be approximately equal to the flow rate
required to meet peak needs of four units at Palo Verde
under the high estimate of needs. This analysis does not
take into consideration peak needs of the Buckeye Irriga-
tion District, losses of effluent due to evaporation, or
the inability of Palo Verde to utilize all the effluent
available if effluent quality does not meet on-site
treatment requirements at the plant.
43 According to Management Research, Inc. (1978), APS
requested an additional 50,000 af/yr of effluent from the
91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue plants. This would bring the
total amount of effluent committed to APS/SRP to over
190,000 af/yr. This is a flow rate of 34,000 af/yr over
that required under the high estimate of peak monthly
demand for all five units as indicated by APS (1978);
59,000 af/yr over the rate for the low estimate of peak
monthly demand for the five units; and 83,000 af/yr over
the current estimate of the total annual needs of the
five units (see Appendix C). Because of these excess
volumes of effluent, the conclusion was drawn that ANPP
was considering the construction of more than the five
units currently planned.
44 See response to APS comment 8.
45 See response to APS comment 9 and FEIS pp. 4-31 - 4-36.
46 See response to APS comment 9 and FEIS pp. 4-31 - 4-36.
47 This DEIS statement was in error. The FEIS describes the
contractual nature of the commitment of effluent explic-
itly (see p. 2-45).
48 The DEIS text in question is not in conflict with this
comment.
49 See response to APS comment 9.
50 See response to APS comment 8.
5-65
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT M, CONT.
Comment Response
51 See response to APS comment 8.
52 See FEIS p. 4-20 for this correction.
53 Both the DEIS and FEIS assume that, at a minimum, 7,300
af/yr of effluent will be discharged to the Salt River in
fulfillment of the contract with the Arizona Game and
Fish Department.
5.3.12 RESPONSES TO JOHN S. SCHAPER (COMMENT DOCUMENT N)
aent Response
Access to materials prepared in the MAG 208 Program was
provided by establishing information depositories in over
50 public libraries and other appropriate public loca-
tions. See p. ix of the FEIS for a partial listing of
the Phoenix area information depositories.
DEIS Figure 3-4 has been revised and may be found in the
FEIS as Figure 3-2 (p. 3-5).
See pp. IV-1 - IV-2 in the Final Plan for a revision of
the passage concerning diversion of effluent by the
Buckeye Irrigation Company.
It is acknowledged that rights to municipal effluent
remain somewhat obscure. The DEIS passage in question
has not been reprinted in the FEIS. See p. 3-42 of the
FEIS for a statement concerning the Buckeye Irrigation
Company's rights to divert and use effluent in the Gila
River.
The DEIS section describing the Kent and Gila Decrees has
not been reprinted in the FEIS. See p. 3-42 of the FEIS
for a short description of the Benson-Allison Decree.
Reuse considerations listed on DEIS pp. 2-5 - 2-6 are
related to on-site or near-site irrigation with effluent
from new or expanded treatment facilities. In partic-
ular, these considerations are important for the Reems
5-66
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT N, CONT.
Comment Response
6 cont. Road, Gilbert (north and south), and Chandler plants.
The considerations would not affect the existing arrange-
ment with the Buckeye Irrigation Company for use of
effluent from the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue treatment
plants.
EPA does not propose to become involved in the issues
cited except to approve local plans and arrangements for
reuse of effluent. For EPA to approve local actions,
these actions must provide adequate protection for water
quality and must be legally sound. EPA is not proposing,
by approving the MAG 208 Water Quality Management Plan,
to become involved in allocation and distribution of
water resources. Any such arrangements would have to be
made by local entities.
7 The following explains the derivation of the "tributary
rule" from Arizona surface water quality regulations.
(1) Article 2, "Water Quality Standards," at R-21-201
entitled "Scope," states that: "These Water Quality
Standards apply to all surface waters of the State
except those wholly private waters closed to all
public uses and not discharging into or polluting
any other waters of the State. Waste from munici-
pal, industrial, or any other type of man's activity
shall not degrade the water quality of the surface
waters beyond the limits prescribed by the Water
Quality Standards. The Standards are designed to
protect the surface waters for the designated uses."
(2) "Surface waters" is defined at R9-21-203 A.5. (Def-
initions) as "waters of the State but excludes
ground water. ..."
(3) R9-21-205, "Surface Water Beneficial Uses in Ari-
zona," at Part A, states that "The primary and
incidental beneficial uses of surface waters in
streams, and lakes including their tributaries
unless otherwise designated includes . . . those
shown in the tables attached to this article as
appendices 1 through 9." [Emphasis added]
5-67
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT N, CONT.
Comment Response
(4) An examination of Appendix 6 reveals that the Salt
River below Granite Reef Dam is not specifically
designated; therefore, the appropriate water quality
standards (WQS) on the Salt River below Granite Reef
Dam and the Gila River, from its confluence with the
Salt River to Painted Rock Lake, are:
(a) those WQS applicable generally to all surface
waters of the State by R9-21-206, "General
Standards Applicable to all Surface Waters,"
and R9-21-207, "Specific Standards Applicable
to all Surface Waters," and
(b) the WQS specifically designated for Painted
Rock Lake in Appendix 6, because the Salt River
is a tributary to Painted Rock Lake via the
Gila River, i.e., it is the first body of water
downstream which has specifically designated
uses, and WQS are intended to protect down-
stream uses.
(5) By Appendix 6, the designated uses of Painted Rock
Lake are as follows:
Primary Use: Flood Control
Incidental Use: Partial Body Contact
Warm Water Fishery
Agriculture
Aquatic Life and Wildlife
Aesthetics
In addition, new surface water quality standards proposed
by the Bureau of Water Quality Control are expected to
replace existing standards by Fall of 1979. The new
standards provide specific designated beneficial uses for
the segments of the Middle Gila Basin that were not
previously so designated and were, therefore, under the
"tributary rule," The effect of the new standards is to
clearly establish the highest protected use of Painted
Rock Lake (partial body contact) as the highest protected
use for the segments of the Middle Gila in question, with
the same numerical criteria.
5-68
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT N, CONT.
Comment Response
8 While the Maricopa County Department of Health Services
has no direct authority to regulate the time period
during which a contract for reuse of sewage effluent is
to be maintained, the Department can, and will, withhold
approval of a treatment facility that does not provide
for a guaranteed, approved reuse for the time period
during which the plant will operate.
9 The DEIS and FEIS conclusions that not enough effluent
may be available to supply the needs of the Buckeye
Irrigation District and the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station are based upon an analysis of flows vs. commit-
ments provided in FEIS Appendix C. Flow projections in
Appendix C were prepared on the basis of Arizona Depart-
ment of Economic Security (DES) population projections,
MAG population allocations within Maricopa County,
wastewater unit flows developed in the MAG 208 Program,
and waste flow reduction projections also developed in
the MAG 208 Program. These effluent flow projections are
approximately 25 percent lower in the year 2000 than
those developed by the City of Phoenix and supplied to
Arizona Public Service when the contract for sale of
effluent was negotiated in 1973.
The difference in the projections stems from at least two
sources:
(1) DES population projections are lower than the
projections made by the Cities in the Multi-City
Agreement in the early 1970's. DES projections were
used in the MAG 208 Program in compliance with
Executive Order 77-5, which designated DES as the
official population projection and estimating agency
for the State of Arizona. DES was so designated
because of the Department's past performance in
accuracy of projections. It is expected that DES
population projections will be adjusted upward
slightly for the next few years due to unusually
rapid growth in the Phoenix area, but the longer
range (year 2000) projections are still considered
to be accurate.
5-69
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT N, CONT.
Comment Response
9 cont.
(2) MAG effluent flow projections Include flow reduc-
tions of approximately 10 percent over the next 20
years. If the current MAG waste flow reduction
program is successful, it will result in an even
greater flow reduction of about 15 percent over the
next 3 years.
Information pertinent to questions raised in this comment
is presented in Appendix C and FEIS pp. 4-19 - 4-23 and
4-31 - 4-36.
10 Although ground water regulation is, without question,
the responsibility of the State, it is also true that
Section 208 of PL 95-217 does provide for EPA's involve-
ment in the analysis and development of controls for
protection of ground water quality. Section 208 (b) (2)
(k) provides authorization for the study of ground water
pollution and the development of control measures, as
follows: "(2) Any plan prepared under such process shall
include, but not be limited to ... (k) a process to
control the disposal of pollutants on land or in sub-
surface excavations within such area to protect ground
and surface water quality." The control measures will be
developed by the State, MAG, and local entities.
11 Ground water data used in the DEIS, FEIS, and the 208
Plan consisted of long-term records on the chemical
quality of water from wells in the Buckeye Irrigation
District and from other wells. For a more complete
presentation of the data, see Groundwater Quality in the
Major Basins of Maricopa County (K. D. Schmidt, 1978) and
Nonpoint Sources of Groundwater Pollution, Final Report
(MAG 208 Program, 1979).
The conclusion on decreasing salinity in well water in
the Buckeye Irrigation District was based on interpreta-
tion of water quality hydrographs prepared for each
Buckeye Irrigation District well. This allowed consid-
eration of all analyses and annual variations. Such
Information is more definitive than comparing only two
analyses per well, as was apparently done for this
comment. Also, electrical conductivity—which was the
method of measurement used in the MAG 208 studies—is
probably a more accurate parameter than is total dis-
solved solids. Both were examined in the 208 ground
water study.
5-70
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT N, CONT.
Comment Response
11 cont. The commenter compares total dissolved solids in well
water in the Buckeye Irrigation District between 1965 and
1974. The MAG 208 ground water study (Schmidt, 1978)
evaluated salinity as expressed in electrical conductiv-
ity from the late 1960's through 1978. Although the
flood of 1973 may have decreased salinity to a degree,
the water quality hydrographs show that the decrease
started in the late 1960's. Accompanying increases in
nitrate are not explained by the theory that flooding was
responsible for decreased salinity.
The basis for the conclusion on increases in nitrate
content was interpretation of water quality hydrographs
prepared for each well in the Buckeye Irrigation Dis-
trict, Roosevelt Irrigation District, and Goodyear Farms
area. To compare nitrogen levels in ground water with
those in sewage effluent, the total nitrogen content of
the sewage effluent must be utilized, not nitrate.
Nitrogen in sewage effluent occurs primarily in the
ammonia and organic forms. Some losses of nitrogen can
occur as the effluent is applied to land, through pro-
cesses such as crop uptake and denitrification. The
total nitrogen content of the effluent has usually
exceeded 30 mg/1, which is the equivalent of more than
130 mg/1 of nitrate. Thus, the total nitrogen content of
the effluent was much greater than that of ground water
east of Buckeye prior to the late 1960's. No mention was
made in the DEIS of nitrate increases in ground water
west of Buckeye. Lastly, much of the effluent is mixed
with well water and applied to farmland, from which
return flow occurs. This is a more significant source of
recharge in the Buckeye area than is effluent in the
stream channel.
Ground water quality in the metro area is described on
pp. 3-27 - 3-29 of the FEIS, ground water impacts of the
selected plan on pp. 4-8 - 4-12, and ground water impacts
of growth on pp. 4-72 - 4-73.
12 In regard to the Clean Water Act (Section 208) and the
management of sources of ground water pollution, see
responses to comments 6 and 10 (Comment Document N).
5-71
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT N, CONT.
Comment Response
12 cont. In regard to management of water resources, the interpre-
tation of the Act reflected in this comment is erroneous.
EPA's Counsel has concluded as follows on this matter:
"It is obvious that Congress did not intend to prohibit
EPA from taking such measures as may be necessary to
protect water quality. It is noteworthy that the 1977
Amendments left untouched both §301(b) (1) (C), which
requires without exception that point source discharges
be controlled to meet water quality standards, and
S101 (a) (2), which declares the national 'fishable,
swiomable' water quality goal.
"It is also noteworthy that §510(2), which Congress ex-
pressly declined to change, provides that States' water
rights are not to be impaired 'except as expressly
provided in this Act.1 Thus . . . the requirements of
water quality standards, §402 and §404 permits, and §208
plans may incidentally affect water rights and usages
without running afoul of §101(g) and §510(2)."
In addition to these considerations, it should be noted
that the 1977 Amendments require EPA to provide to
Congress "recommendations concerning the policy ... of
the Act to improve coordination of efforts to reduce and
eliminate pollution in concert with programs for managing
water resources" §102(d)).
13 The area designated for agricultural reuse of effluent
from the Reems Road plant in Figure 4-12 of the DEIS was
improperly drawn. Approximately 690 acres of farmland
currently under cultivation exist in an irregularly
shaped area between the Buckeye Canal and the Gila River,
west of Sarival Road. This area would be adequate to
utilize all the effluent expected from the initial phase
of the Reems Road plant under the cropping patterns
proposed (see Table 4-7, p. 4-32 of the FEIS). Most of
this area is classified as prime farmland or other farm-
land by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service.
The additional effluent produced by increased flows at
the Reems Road facility could, with limited pumping, be
utilized In the area north of the Buckeye Canal. For
purposes of estimating costs of construction and site
acquisition, a lagoon treatment process for the Reems
5-72
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT N, CONT.
Comment Response
13 cont. Road plant was assumed. Effluent from a lagoon system
would not meet EPA requirements for discharge to a
receiving stream (the Gila River or the Buckeye Irriga-
tion Canal, which empties into a receiving stream).
Therefore, near-site restricted agricultural reuse of
effluent will be required for the facility to be devel-
oped with the lagoon system. A more advanced treatment
system would allow for direct discharge or off-site
agricultural use. These options for the Reems Road
plant, presented on FEIS p. 2-57, will be studied further
in detailed facility planning.
14 Flow projections developed in the MAG 208 Program are not
as great as those assumed in the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station Units 1,2, and 3 Final Environmental
Statement (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1975).
The Palo Verde ES apparently used population projections
and future flows supplied by the municipalities that
share in the operation of the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue
treatment plants. The MAG 208 Program developed flow
estimates on the basis of population projections from the
Arizona Department of Economic Security, the designated
State planning agency. See also response to comment 9
(Comment Document N).
The FEIS concludes that some changes in riparian vegeta-
tion along the reach of the Salt River from 91st Avenue
to 115th Avenue will probably occur due to reduced
effluent discharges (see pp. 4-19 - 4-25). To predict
specific riparian community changes between 91st Avenue
and 115th Avenue will require field investigations to
track and quantify the movement of effluent and to
establish transpiration requirements for vegetation in
the wildlife management area and along the reach from
91st Avenue to 115th Avenue.
Riparian communities between 115th Avenue and the Buckeye
Heading receive additional flows in the form of tail-
waters from irrigation occurring on both sides of the
Salt River and deliveries of surface water from the Salt
River Project just upstream of the confluence of the Agua
Fria and Gila Rivers. Thus, riparian communities down-
stream of 115th Avenue are not totally dependent on
5-73
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT N, CONT.
Comment Response
14 cont. wastewater flows. However, a reduction in flows will
probably result in some changes to the biotic communities
downstream of 115th Avenue. Changes in densities,
production, and vigor of existing species and introduc-
tion of new species may result. These changes would be
more explicit in areas just downstream of 115th Avenue
and diminish further downstream as other sources of water
are introduced into the stream reaches.
15 Flood control considerations are mentioned in the FEIS
(p. 4-25), but an investigation of the relationship
between flooding and changes in riparian communities
downstream from the 91st Avenue plant is beyond the scope
of this EIS. This problem is being studied by the
Central Arizona Water Control Study, which is being
conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
5.3.13 RESPONSES TO DAVID E. CREIGBTON (COMMENT DOCUMENT 0)
Comment Response
1 Supporting documents for the EIS are available at over 50
locations in the Phoenix area. A partial list of 208
information depositories is provided on FEIS p. ix.
2 The DEIS text in question is not in conflict with this
comment.
3 This figure has been revised for the FEIS (see Figure
2-2, p. 2-13).
4 Costs of the selected plan are presented on FEIS pp. 2-32
- 2-38. A cost/benefit analysis was not included in the
EIS because (1) the selected plan is a generalized
program not amenable to cost/benefit analysis, and (2)
wastewater treatment facilities are evaluated by EPA on a
cost-effectiveness rather than a cost/benefit basis. See
also response to comment 3, Comment Document M.
A more detailed cost analysis will be provided as part of
201 facility plans, or other detailed plans. These plans
will include refined estimates of capital and operation
5-74
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT 0, CONT.
Comment Response
4 cont. and maintenance costs, as well as expected costs per
residential, commercial, and industrial user served. The
distribution of these costs will have to be determined by
the subregional operating groups (SROG's) responsible for
coordination, operation, and planning in designated
wastewater service areas.
5 This error has been corrected on Figure 3-1, FEIS p. 3-3.
6 Figure 3-3 has not been reprinted in the FEIS.
7 DEIS Figure 3-4 has been reprinted in the FEIS as Figure
3-2 (p. 3-5).
8 This correction may be found on p. 3-7 of the FEIS.
9 The CAP is described breifly on FEIS p. 3-18.
10 Since the EIS is not on a flood control project, the
presentation of data on flooding has not been expanded
(see FEIS pp. 3-19 - 3-20).
11 This passage has been deleted from the FEIS.
12 The provisions of the Consent Decree are briefly related
on p. 2-10 of the FEIS.
13,14,
15 No response required.
16 The section describing the Gila Decree has not been
reprinted in the FEIS.
17 Figure 3-6 has not been reprinted in the FEIS.
18 This statement has not been included in the FEIS.
19,20, DEIS Figure 3-12 showed potential vegetation in the
21 Phoenix area. This figure has not been reprinted in the
FEIS. For this EIS, the term "riparian" was chosen to
indicate vegetation associated with a water source other
than precipitation. It is acknowledged that many more
5-75
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT 0, CONT.
Comment Response
19,20, distinctions could be^ made within the category to charac-
21 cont. terize particular kinds of riparian vegetation, but the
choice was made to simplify the description for purposes
of this programmatic E1S.
22,23 No response required.
24 Figure 3-15 has not been reprinted in the FEIS. See p.
3-13 of the FEIS for the correct number of airports in
the metro area.
25 This correction may be found on p. 3-15 of the FEIS.
26 Table 3-20 has not been included in the FEIS.
27 This passage has not been reprinted in the FEIS.
28 The section on energy has been corrected and summarized
in the FEIS (see p. 3-14).
29 The projected decline in water demand under the No Action
Alternative was attributed in the DEIS to a dispersed
growth pattern that would cause a greater conversion of
agricultural land to urban uses than would the MAG re-
gional growth plan—in other words, "urban encroachment,"
as indicated in this comment.
30 The elimination of ground water overdraft under the No
Action Alternative was projected in the DEIS on the basis
of population distribution and land use assumptions quite
different from those assumed by the Arizona Water Commis-
sion (see DEIS Sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 for these assump-
tions). In brief, the No Action Alternative assumed a
greater distribution of population in a low-density
pattern in the Phoenix area, leading to a greater conver-
sion of agricultural land to urban uses. In general,
urban uses require less water than agricultural uses.
Ground water overdraft would be less under the No Action
Alternative because the decline in irrigated acreage
combined with a wide dispersal of urban population would
lead to lower rates of water use.
5-76
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT 0, CONT.
Comment Response
30 cont. Although no new analysis of ground water quantity under
without-project conditions was done, the presentation of
these impacts in the FE1S was condensed to indicate only
that ground water overdraft would be reduced rather than
eliminated (see FEIS p. 4-73).
31 See response to comment 20, this comment document.
32 Assessment of impacts to cultural resources was as
detailed as possible for the planning level of the EIS.
The potential for impacts to archaeological resources is
expressed in the FEIS as the number of miles of inter-
ceptor lines that will cross archaeological sensitivity
zones identified in a report by the Office of Cultural
Resource Management, Department of Anthropology, Arizona
State University (Burton, 1977). The map shown on Figure
4-2 of the DEIS was taken from this report. The EIS does
not claim to provide archaeological clearance for the
individual facilities (see DEIS, p. 4-12; FEIS, p. 4-47).
Each facility will be required to have completed a
detailed archaeological reconnaissance to qualify for
funds under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act.
33 The DEIS passage in question concerned the minor direct
effects of facility construction and operation on biolog-
ical resources. Although some natural habitat would be
lost because of construction of some facilities, all of
the alternatives provided for reuse of effluent for
agricultural irrigation and thus supported agriculture
through maintaining cropland habitat. Conversion of
agricultural lands to urban uses as a result of popula-
tion growth is discussed in the FEIS (see pp. 4-60,
4-64).
34 It is acknowledged that a portion of the overland flow
site for the Northeast facility would be in the project
path of the Granite Reef Aqueduct. This inconsistency
would require modification of this option for this
facility, should the facility be reintroduced into the
regional wastewater treatment plan in the future.
35 Figure 4-1 (both DEIS and FEIS) is a large matrix showing
environmental effects of facilities. It may be found at
the back of the documents.
5-77
-------
RESPONSES TO COMMENT DOCUMENT 0, CONT.
Comment Response
36 In the context of planning, opportunities for improving
the environment are considered benefits.
37 The error is acknowledged.
38 The error is acknowledged.
39 The error is acknowledged.
40 See response to comment 34 (this comment document).
41 See response to comment 20 (this comment document).
42 Assessment of alternatives that would redistribute
population to preserve agricultural land is beyond the
scope of this EIS. See response to comment 2 from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
(Comment Document E).
43 Page 4-155, lines 8 and 9, of the DEIS make clear that
the term "wetlands" refers to impoundments associated
with certain types of wastewater treatment and with the
storage of effluent for irrigation. Pages 4-155 and
4-160 of the DEIS point out that recreational possibil-
ities that may be developed using these impoundments
require the appropriate institutional framework and
physical design. These statements have been expanded in
the FEIS to clarify the fact that creation of recrea-
tional opportunities at the facilities depends upon
arrangements that ensure that biological resources are
properly developed at the lagoons and storage ponds (see
FEIS, p. 4-18). The development of recreational oppor-
tunities at the facilities will be addressed in detailed
facility planning.
44 The contract for effluent was negotiated in 1973, prior
to the MAG 208 study, and was accepted by the study as an
existing condition. EPA has asked the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission to ensure that PVNGS uses only the minimum
amount of effluent necessary.
45 This error in the DEIS is acknowledged.
46 This error in the DEIS is acknowledged.
5-78
-------
5.3.14 RESPONSE TO ORME LEWIS, Jr. (COMMENT DOCUMENT P)
Comment Response
1 The DEIS passage has been corrected, see p. 2-44 of the
FEIS.
5.3.15 RESPONSE TO THOMAS S. ROTHWEILER (COMMENT DOCUMENT Q)
Comment Response
1 Methane gas from the sludge digesters at the 91st Avenue
and 23rd Avenue plants Is being largely wasted at this
time. However, studies are now being conducted to deter-
mine if the excess gas can be used for power generation
as well as in-plant process heating needs.
5.3.16 RESPONSE TO ADRON W. REICHERT (COMMENT DOCUMENT R)
Comment Response
1 Representatives of MAG have met with members of the Holly
Acres Flood Control Association since the January 15,
1979, Public Hearing. Although much of the effluent from
the 91st Avenue treatment plant will be diverted from the
riverbed when units at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station go on-line, some discharge to the river will
continue. The City of Phoenix has a continuing commit-
ment to the Arizona Game and Fish Department for the
supply of 7,300 af/yr of effluent to support the wildlife
management area near 115th Avenue. The disposition of
effluent will be studied in the 201 facility plan for
residuals management. This plan was rescoped to include
the study of disposal of effluent as a response to
comments from the Holly Acres Flood Control Association.
Other studies underway will also have a bearing on this
issue. Channel clearing has been approved by the Mari-
copa County Flood Control District, but an environmental
assessment must be completed before clearing can com-
mence. The effects of phreatophyte growth in the Salt-
Gila system downstream from 91st Avenue are being studied
by the Central Arizona Water Control Study.
5-79
-------
5.3.17 RESPONSES TO GILBERT T. VENABLE (COMMENT DOCUMENT S)
Comment Response
1 The contract for sale of effluent to Arizona Public
Service/Salt River Project for use at the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station was negotiated in 1973, prior
to the MAG 208 Program. Any changes in the contract
would require legal action. EPA has asked the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to ensure that PVNGS uses only the
minimum amount of effluent necessary.
2 The 48th Street plant was voted down by the MAG Regional
Council because of uncertainty about the Rio Salado
Project, difficulty in negotiating with the Salt River
Project, and the possibility of future odor and nuisance
problems. The Northwest plant was voted down because Sun
City West decided to construct its own plant, and Luke
Air Force Base, El Mirage, and Surprise decided to tie
into the 91st Avenue plant. See Section 2.3 of the DEIS
for a discussion of the refinement of alternatives.
3 Flood control issues are being studied currently by a
number of local, State, and Federal agencies. The 208
study does not have a mandate to study flooding or
develop flood control measures. However, EPA and MAG
will work with agencies with direct flood control respon-
sibility and authority to ensure maximum protection of
water quality.
4 The evaluation of the effects of the importation of
Central Arizona Project water into the study area is
beyond the scope of the MAG 208 Program. EPA has consis-
tently urged the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to fully
address the water quality impacts of the CAP in its EIS's
and planning.
5-80
-------
References
-------
REFERENCES CITED
Arizona (State) Revised Statutes, 1976. Arizona Native Plant Law,
Article 7, Sec. 3-901 - 3-908.
Arizona Department of Economic Security, 1976a. Population Esti-
mates of Arizona as of July 1, 1975; Report No. 8. Phoenix,
Arizona, June, 1976.
, 1977a. Population Estimates of Arizona as of July 1, 1976.
Phoenix, Arizona, July, 1977.
, 1977b. Maricopa County Labor Market Review: The Delicate
Balance. Phoenix, Arizona, September, 1977.
, 1977c. Annual Planning Report, Balance of Maricopa County.
Phoenix, Arizona, April, 1977.
Arizona Department of Health Services, 1978a. Nonattainment Area
Plan for Carbon Monoxide and Photochemical Oxidants, Maricopa
County Urban Planning Area. Prepared by Technical Staff,
Bureau of Air Quality Control, Division of Environmental
Health Services, Arizona Department of Health Services.
Phoenix, Arizona, December, 1978.
, 1978b. Identification of Areas Within Arizona That Do or
Do Not Meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Phoenix,
Arizona, August, 1978.
, I978c. 1977 Air Quality Data for Arizona. Phoenix,
Arizona, July, 1978.
Arizona Department of Transportation, 1979. Personal Communica-
tion from K. Arthur, Senior Planner, Systems Modeling and
Simulation Section, to Dames & Moore, March 19, 1979.
Arizona Game and Fish Department, 1978. Threatened Wildlife in
Arizona.
R-l
-------
Arizona Public Service, 1978. Letter from E. E. Van Brunt,
Jr., APS Vice President, ANPP Project Director, to H. W.
Worthington, Chief, Phoenix Urban Study, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, August 10, 1978.
> 1979. Personal Communication from E. Knowles, Research and
Planning Department, to Dames & Moore, May 30, 1979.
Arizona Water Commission, 1978. Current and Expected Water
Supplies and Demands and Groundwater Conditions in Maricopa
County; prepared for the Maricopa Association of Governments.
Arthur Beard Engineers/Camp, Dresser and McKee, 1978a. Environ-
mental Evaluation of Westside Alternatives, Draft Memorandum
No. A, Phoenix, Arizona, March, 1978.
, 1978b. Memorandum No. 1, Existing Environmental Setting.
Phoenix, Arizona, April 17, 1978.
, 1978c. Memorandum No. 2, Future Environmental Setting.
Phoenix, Arizona, April 15, 1978.
Boyle Engineering Corporation, 1979. Small Array of Wastewater
Land Treatment Alternatives. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Phoenix Urban Study. Phoenix, Arizona.
Burton, Susan B., 1977. A Regional Archaeological Overview of the
Phoenix Metropolitan Area, Maricopa County, Arizona; prepared
for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Tempe, Arizona, January,
1977.
Clark, Thomas, et al., 1975. Arizona State Water Plan, Inventory
of Resources and Uses, Phase I: A Report for the Arizona
Water Commission. Phoenix, Arizona, July, 1975.
Daaes & Moore, 1977. Environmental Inventory for Non-Point Source
Non-Metro Study; prepared for the Maricopa Association of
Governments. Phoenix, Arizona, February, 1977.
, 1978. Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Opportunities for the
208 Point Source Metro Phoenix study; prepared for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Phoenix Urban Study. Phoenix,
Arizona, November, 1978.
Federal Register, 1975. Primary Drinking Water Proposed Interim
Standards. Vol. 40, No. 51, 11990-11998, March 15, 1975.
R-2
-------
, 1977, Proposed Secondary Drinking Water Standards. Vol.
42, p. 17143, March 31, 1977; Vol. 42, p. 20314 April 19,
1977.
Ferguson, Morris & Simpson/Stevens, Thompson & Runyon, 1977a.
Inventory and Assessment of the Existing Waste Treatment
Management Agencies. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers, Phoenix Urban Study. Phoenix, Arizona, March, 1977.
, 1977b. Large Array of Collection and Treatment Alterna-
tives. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Phoenix
Urban Study. Phoenix, Arizona, February, 1977.
, 1977c. Wastewater Treatment Alternatives, Conventional
Treatment Progress Report. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Phoenix Urban Study. Phoenix, Arizona, February,
1977.
, 1978a. Sludge Management (Working Paper). Prepared for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Phoenix Urban Study. Phoenix,
Arizona.
, 1978b. Eastside Subregional Alternatives. Prepared for
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Phoenix Urban Study. Phoenix,
Arizona, April, 1978.
Frank, H. J., 1977. Arizona Energy Inventory: 1977; a Report on
the State's Energy Position and Outlook to 1985. Prepared
for the Office of Economic Planning and Development of the
State of Arizona, February, 1977.
Hall, Dorothy H., 1977. An Initial Survey of Historic Resources
Within the Phoenix Metropolitan Area, Maricopa County,
Arizona; prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Phoenix Urban Study. Phoenix, Arizona, February, 1977.
Garrison, J., 1979. Personal Communication to Dames & Moore,
June 19, 1979.
Halpenny, L. C. and S. D. Clark, 1977. 1977 Supplement to Water
Balance Investigations of River Bed, Salt and Gila Rivers,
23rd Avenue to Gillespie Dam. Arizona Water Development
Corp., Tucson.
R-3
-------
Halpenny, L. C. and D. K. Greene, 1975. Water Balance Investiga-
tion of River Bed, Salt and Gila Rivers, 23rd Avenue to
Gillespie Dam, Arizona. Water Development Corporation,
Tucson, Arizona, October, 1975.
Isserman, A. M. and K. L. Majors, 1978. General Revenue Sharing:
Federal Incentives to Change Local Government? Journal of
the American Institute of Planners, July, 1978.
John Carollo Engineers, 1978. Metropolitan Phoenix Facility Plan,
Evaluation of Alternate Plans (Westside Planning Area).
Phoenix, Arizona, June, 1978.
, 1978. Westside Wastewater Treatment Alternatives Summary
Report. Phoenix, Arizona, June, 1978.
Management Research, Inc., 1978. Economic Benefits of Alternative
Uses for Effluent from the 23rd Avenue and 91st Avenue Sewage
Treatment Plants; a Study for Arizona Public Service Company,
Project Manager, Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.
Maricopa Association of Governments, 1977. Regional Development
and Transportation Reevaluation Study. Phoenix, Arizona.
, 1978. Guide for Regional Development, Transportation and
Housing, Report N-78-1. Phoenix, Arizona, January 4, 1978.
Maricopa Association of Governments 208 Water Quality Management
Program, 1978. Metro 208 Areawide Alternatives. Phoenix,
Arizona, October, 1978.
, I979a. MAG 208 Final Plan. Phoenix, Arizona, June, 1979.
, I979b. Point Source Final Plan. Phoenix, Arizona, June,
1979.
, 1979c. Final Point Source Management Plan. Phoenix,
Arizona, June, 1979.
, 1979d. Nonpoint Sources of Groundwater Pollution - Final.
Phoenix, Arizona, June, 1979.
Morris, Clester, Abegglen and Associates, and STRAAM Engineering,
1979. Conventional Treatment Design and Cost Appendix.
Prepared for U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Phoenix Urban
Study. Phoenix, Arizona, July, 1979.
R-4
-------
Phoenix (City of), Waters and Sewers Department, 1978. Personal
Communication from Quon Chin, Water Production Laboratories,
Deer Valley Water Treatment Plant, to Dames & Moore,
September 18, 1978.
Phoenix Newspapers, 1977. Inside Phoenix, 1977. Phoenix,
Arizona.
Rainwater, F. H., 1962. Stream Composition of the Conterminous
United States. U.S. Geological Survey.
Robinson, T. W. , 1965. Introduction, Spread and Areal Extent of
Salt-Cedar (Tamarix) in the Western United States. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 491-A.
Schmidt, Kenneth D., 1978. Existing Groundwater Quality, Metro
Area of Maricopa County; prepared for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Phoenix Urban Study. Phoenix, Arizona, August,
1978.
Stone, Lyle, 1976. Archaeological Surveys in the Blackwater and
Casa Blanca District of the Gila River Indian Reservation.
Tempe, Arizona, 1976.
Thiele, Heinrich, 1965. Present and Future Water Use and Its
Effect on Planning in Maricopa County: A Study for the
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and the Maricopa County
Planning and Zoning Commission and Department. Scottsdale,
Arizona, September, 1965.
Todd, R. L., 1976. Non-Game Investigations. Arizona Game and
Fish Department, W-53-R-26, June 30, 1976.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1976. Final Environmental Impact
Statement, New River and Phoenix City Streams Flood Control
Project, Maricopa County, Los Angeles, California, March,
1976.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Water Conservation Laboratory, 1977. Wastewater Renovation
by Spreading Treated Sewage for Groundwater Recharge, in
Annual Report, 1977, pp. 16-1 - 16-58. Phoenix, Arizona.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1977.
Soil Survey of Maricopa County, Arizona, Central part.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.
R-5
-------
U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1979.
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, Repub-
lication. Federal Register, 44(12): 3636-3654, January 17,
1979.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1979.
National Register of Historic Places. Federal Register
44(26): 7422-7424, February 6, 1979.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. Wastewater Treatment
with Land Systems. EPA Document 403/9-75-03.
, 1976. Land Treatment by Municipal Wastewater Effluents:
Design Factors II.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1972-1976. Water Resource Data for Salt,
Verde, and Gila Rivers, Water Years 1972-1962.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1975. Final Environmental
Statement Related to Construction of Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station, Units 1,2, and 3. NUREG-75/078, Nation-
al Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.
, 1979. Draft Environmental Statement Related to Construc-
tion of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 4 and 5,
Proposed by Arizona Public Service Company, et al. NUREG-
0522, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, Washington, D.C., April, 1979.
Valley National Bank of Arizona, 1977. Arizona Statistical
Review, 33rd Edition. Phoenix, Arizona, September, 1977.
R-6
-------
Glossary
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
The following terms and/or abbreviations are meant to reflect word
meanings as they appear in the context of the main body of this
report.
AAG - Agricultural Advisory Group (organized for the MAG 208 Water
Quality Management Program).
ACRE-FOOT - The quantity of water required to cover one acre of
land to a depth of one foot. Equivalent to 43,560 cubic feet or
326,000 gallons.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE - Process that removes organic matter from sewage
by saturating it with air and adding biologically active sludge.
ADHS - Arizona Department of Health Services.
ADOT - Arizona Department of Transportation.
ADSORPTION - An advanced way of treating wastes in which carbon
removes organic matter from wastewater.
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT (AWT) - Additional sewage treatement
steps beyond primary and secondary treatment to remove organic or
inorganic compounds. Usually, additional biochemical oxygen
demand and suspended solids are removed, and nutrients (such as
phosphorus, nitrogen, and potassium) are taken out. AWT is also
known as tertiary treatment.
AERATION TANK - A chamber for injecting air into wastewater. The
addition of oxygen breaks down organic wastes by bacterial action.
AEROBIC - Living or active in the presence of free oxygen.
AESTHETICS - Of or pertaining to the beautiful; pleasing to the
senses.
ALLUVIUM - Material deposited by running water; alluvial deposits
usually result from the action of rivers.
G-l
-------
ALTERNATIVE - A choice. In this report, alternatives are differ-
ing wastewater treatment management plans for metro Phoenix.
ANAEROBIC - Living or active in the absence of free oxygen.
ANAEROBIC DIGESTER - In wastewater treatment, a type of equipment
used to decompose (digest) sludge in the absence of oxygen.
Volatile organic material is reduced to methane gas by microbial
activity in the digester.
ANPP - Arizona Nuclear Power Project, an energy consortium that
will construct and operate the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
Station near Buckeye, Arizona.
AQUATIC - Consisting of or pertaining to water.
AQUIFER - A porous, underground, water-bearing geologic formation.
The tern is generally restricted to formations capable of yielding
an appreciable supply of water.
BACTERIA - Small, living organisms. In wastewater treatment,
bacteria consume organic constituents in sewage.
BENTHIC ORGANISMS - Organisms that live on the bottoms of water
bodies.
BIOTIC COMMUNITY - An assemblage of populations (plant and animal)
occupying a particular area or physical habitat.
BOD - Biochemical oxygen demand. The amount of dissolved oxygen
required for the decomposition of organic matter in water. BOD is
used as a measure to determine the efficiency of a sewage treat-
ment plant or to determine the potential of effluent to degrade a
stream. The lower the BOD measurement, the cleaner the effluent.
BUFFER ZONE - An area used to separate components of a sewage
treatment system from the public, e.g., a land strip around a
treatment plant.
BWQC - Bureau of Water Quality Control (in the Arizona Department
of Health Services).
CAG - Citizen Advisory Group (organized for the MAG 208 Water
Quality Management Program).
CAP - Central Arizona Project, a Bureau of Reclamation project to
bring Colorado River water into central and southern Arizona via
aqueduct.
G-2
-------
CAPM ZONES - Community Aggregate Planning Model zones. These
zones are smaller than census tracts and are used to allocate
population within municipal planning areas.
CARCINOGENS - Substances or agents producing or inciting cancer.
CFS - Cubic feet per second. A unit of measure used to describe
volume of streamflow, equal to 1 cubic foot in 1 second (also
called "second-foot").
CHLORIDE - A major constituent of common table salt. Excessive
concentrations of chloride in drinking water impart a salty
taste.
CHLORINATION - Process of combining or treating with chloride or
a chlorine compound in order to destroy harmful microorganisms.
CHROMIUM - A blue-white metallic element occurring in nature and
as a by-product of several industrial operations.
CLARIFIER - A component of a treatment plant, consisting of one or
more tanks that contain partially treated wastewater, in which
sewage is allowed to settle out.
Clean Water Act - PL 95-217, which amends the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500).
CO - Carbon monoxide. A very toxic, colorless, and odorless gas;
one product of combustion of gasoline in automobile engines.
COLLECTOR LINES - Sewers that collect wastewater from residences
and commercial establishments and convey it to interceptor sewers,
where it is carried to wastewater treatment plants.
CONFLUENCE - The point at which a tributary converges into or
joins the main stream.
CONSUMPTIVE USE - The measure of the amount of water removed from
the water supply system; synonymous with "depletion".
CONVEYANCE LINE - Structure to transport treated wastewater from
point of discharge at plant outfall to reuse location.
COOLING WATER - Water used to dissipate waste heat from genera-
tors, particularly in nuclear or fossil-fueled electric generating
stations.
G-3
-------
CREOSOTEBUSH - Low, woody plant with numerous branches near ground
level, characteristic of desert areas.
DECIDUOUS - Refers to plants that lose their leaves regularly each
year.
DEIS - Draft environmental impact statement.
DEMOGRAPHY - Study of population and population changes.
DENSITY - Demographic term referring to the number of people in a
specified area.
DEPENDABLE SUPPLY - The estimated amount of water that can be
depleted annually without lowering storage levels in either
surface or ground water reservoirs over a long period of time.
DEPLETION - The measure of the amount of water removed from the
water supply system for a use; synonymous with "consumptive
use".
DEWATERING - Process where sewage is reduced in volume by removing
a portion of its water content.
DIGESTED SLUDGE - Sludge in which the major portion of bio-organic
material has been decomposed.
DIGESTION - Process that takes place in tanks whereby sludge
decomposes, resulting in partial gasification, liquification, and
mineralization of pollutants.
DOWN FAULTING - A fracture zone in the earth where downward
displacement has occurred parallel to the fracture.
ECOLOGY - The totality or pattern of relations between organisms
and their environment.
EFFLUENT - The liquid that comes out of a wastewater treatment
plant after completion of the treatment process.
EIS - Environmental impact statement.
ELECTRODIALYSIS - Process used to remove particulates from water
or sewage effluent.
EMISSIONS - Substances discharged into the air.
G-4
-------
ENVIRONMENT - "That which surrounds." This all-embracing term
generally includes natural (physical and biological) elements and
human (socioeconomic and cultural) elements.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - A study to determine harmful or bene-
ficial changes to the human and natural environmental system
resulting directly or indirectly from changes caused by an action.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - Effect upon the physical, biological,
socioeconomic, and cultural elements of an area produced by an
action.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) - A report issued by a
Federal agency responsible for a major action that assesses the
action's impact on the environment.
EPHEMERAL STREAM - A stream that flows only during and following a
period of rainfall.
EVAPORATION - The process of converting a liquid to a vapor.
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION - The process of converting liquid (such as
precipitation) to vapor in the air through direct evaporation from
the ground surface or by transpiration of vegetation. (See
EVAPORATION and TRANSPIRATION).
FACIES - A rock or group of rocks that differs from comparable
rocks, as in composition, age, or fossil content.
FAUNA - Animals or animal life.
FECAL COLIFORM - Bacteria associated with the human digestive
tract. The number of these bacteria in a given volume of water is
used as indicator for the acceptable bacterial level in a water
source.
FEIS - Final environmental impact statement.
FLOCCULATION - Process by which clumps of solids in sewage are
increased in size. A chemical, or flocculant, is added to the
sewage to produce aggregate or compound masses of particles.
These aggregates then settle to the bottom and may be removed for
further treatment or disposal.
FLOOD PLAIN - The land area adjoining a river, stream, or water-
course that has been or may be covered by floodwater.
G-5
-------
FLORA - Plants of a given region.
FUGITIVE DUST - Dust and soil particles carried by winds.
GPCPD - Gallons per capita per day. A measure of consumptive
water use.
GROUND WATER - The body of water beneath the surface of the
ground, found in aquifers. It is made up primarily of water that
has seeped down from the surface.
HABITAT - The environment in which the life needs of a plant or
animal are supplied.
HYDROLOGY - A science dealing with the properties, distribution,
and circulation of water on the surface of the land, in the soil
and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere.
IMPOUNDMENT - A basin or other area surrounded by physical struc-
ture(s) in which water is contained.
INFILTRATION - The penetration of water through the ground's
surface into subsurface soil.
INFLUENT - Sewage flowing into a treatment plant.
INTERCEPTOR LINES - Sewers in a system that control the flow of
sewage to the treatment plant. In a storm they allow some of the
sewage to flow directly into the receiving stream, protecting the
treatment plant from being overloaded in case of a sudden surge of
water into the sewers. Interceptors also collect the flows from
main and trunk sewers and carry them to the points of treatment.
INTERMITTENT STREAM - A stream that flows only during part of the
year, in contrast with perennial streams, which flow all year, and
ephemeral streams, which carry only stormflows.
INVERSION - An increase in air temperature with an increase in
altitude. An event associated with air pollution.
LAGOON - A shallow, artificial pool or pond for processing sewage,
usually by aerating the wastewater. (See AERATION).
LAND APPLICATION - Discharge of wastewater effluent onto the
earth, with recapture of the land-treated effluent from ground
water for reuse.
G-6
-------
LEACH - An action which separates soluble components, such as
salts, out of a medium, such as soil, by the action of percolating
water.
LEACHATE - The liquid, including chemical components, which is a
product of the leaching process.
MAG - Maricopa Association of Governments.
MAG-TPO - Maricopa Association of Governments—Transportation and
Planning Office.
MATRIX - A figure, consisting of rows and columns, which portrays
information where items in rows and items in columns interact.
MGL - Milligams per liter.
MITIGATE - To alleviate or modify adverse or negative impacts
resulting from a specific action.
MITIGATIVE MEASURE - A step taken to moderate the severity of the
effects of a proposed action.
MIXED-MEDIA FILTER - That component of a treatment plant which
further upgrades secondary-treated wastewater through advanced
physico-chemical processes.
MULTI-CITY SEWER AGREEMENT - An agreement among the Cities of
Phoenix, Scottsdale, Mesa, Tempe, and Glendale, entered into in
1967 to build and operate a joint wastewater treatment system.
NONATTAINMENT AREA PLAN - A plan required under the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1977 for areas that have air quality problems with
certain pollutants. The plan identifies control strategies that
will result in the areas' meeting National Ambient Air Quality
Standards by 1982.
NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act (1969).
NONCONSUMPTIVE USE - Water use that does not reduce the water
supply available for other purposes. Examples of nonconsumptive
water use are: generation of hydroelectric power, fishing,
boating, and swimming.
NONPOINT SOURCE - Generalized discharge of waste into a water
system. Examples are: street runoff, agricultural irrigation
return flow, etc.
G-7
-------
NPDES - National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. An
environmental program, administered by EPA, in accordance with the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500), as amended, to
control discharge of wastes into waters of the United States.
OUTFALL - The outlet of a river, stream, lake, drain, or sewer.
OVERDRAFT - Term used to identify ground water supplies when
more ground water is being pumped and used from an area than
is returned to replenish the ground water in the area. The
difference between consumptive use and dependable supply.
OXIDATION - Addition of oxygen which breaks down organic wastes or
chemicals in sewage by bacterial and chemical means.
OZONE - A major component of photochemical smog.
PACK-AGE TREATMENT PLANT - A small wastewater treatment plant
partially or completely preassembled by a manufacturer and shipped
to the designated location. Most package plants provide secondary
treatment.
PALOVERDE - A desert tree that is characterized by small leaves,
thorns, and blue-green to yellow-green new growth.
PARTIAL BODY CONTACT - A level of water quality where the human
body may come in direct contact with the water, but normally not
to the point of complete submergence. Sensory organs will not be
exposed to water of this quality.
PARTICULATE - Of or pertaining to particles, or occurring as
minute particles.
PERCOLATION - Movement of water through subsurface soil layers,
usually continuing downward to the ground water table.
PERMEABILITY - The capacity of a soil to transmit a fluid.
PHREATOPHYTES - Plants with extensive root systems that are
dependent upon ground water. In the Phoenix area, salt cedar is
the dominant phreatophyte. Salt cedar proliferates in areas where
the water table is close to the land surface and cannot exist,
unless irrigated, in places where the depth to water table is much
greater than about 15 feet.
G-8
-------
PL 92-500 - Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. An
act passed by the Congress of the United States and signed by the
President, to control pollution of the Nation's waters and improve
its quality.
PL 95-217 - Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972. PL 95-217 is known as the Clean Water Act.
POTABLE WATER - Drinkable water.
POINT SOURCE - A stationary, readily identifiable source of
pollution.
PPM - Parts per million.
PRIMARY TREATMENT - Level of wastewater treatment that removes
pollutants that will settle, such as the heavier suspended solids,
or float, such as grease. Primary treatment will typically remove
about 60 percent of suspended solids and about 35 percent of the
biochemical oxygen demand.
PROCESS TRAIN - The order in which sewage is treated as it flows
through a treatment plant.
RECHARGE - Process by which water is absorbed and added to the
ground water aquifer, either directly into a particular water-
bearing formation, or indirectly by way of another formation.
RIO SALADO PROJECT - A floodplain reclamation proposal for the
Salt River bed and adjacent lands in the Phoenix area.
RIPARIAN - Pertaining to the banks of a body of water.
RIVERINE - Living or situated on the banks of a river.
SECONDARY TREATMENT - Level of treatment that oxidizes the bio-
chemical oxygen demand (BOD) that escapes the primary process and
provides added removal of suspended solids (SS). Oxidation is
typically achieved by biological processes, either in a trickling
filter or in an activated sludge process. Collectively, primary
and secondary treatment remove approximately 85 percent of the BOD
and SS. Current national water quality standards require a
minimum secondary level of treatment for municipal wastewater
treatment plants.
G-9
-------
SEDIMENTATION TANK - Chamber in which suspended solids (SS) are
removed from sewage. In a sedimentation tank, solids settle to
the bottom or float on the top of the wastewater. The floating
material is skimmed off the top and the solids on the bottom are
pumped out of the tank for incineration, digestion, filtration, or
other means of disposal.
SEPTIC TANK - A method of treating sewage, characterized by an
underground tank, usually concrete, to which sewage is discharged
and digested. Septic tanks are normally used in rural areas to
treat sewage from a small group of people, for example, a family.
SEWAGE - Wastewater that flows in sewers from residential, commer-
cial, and industrial establishments to wastewater treatment
plants.
SEWER - Pipe, conduit, or other physical facility used to carry
wastewater.
SEWERAGE - System of sewers; physical facilities employed to
transport, treat, and discharge sewage.
SEWER DISTRICT - Semiautonomous governmental unit whose purpose is
the provision of sewerge or a special assessment district within
which sewerage facilities are provided to residents.
SHARD (also SHERD) - Fragments of pottery vessels found on sites
from previous cultures.
SITE-SPECIFIC - Pertaining only to individual areas; in this
report the term refers to impacts.
SLUDGE - Solid matter in sewage that settles to the bottom,
floats, or becomes suspended in sedimentation tanks during waste-
water treatment. Sludge must be disposed of by filtration and
incineration or by transport to appropriate disposal sites.
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS - Large shallow beds scooped out of the ground
and into which digested sludge is placed for dewatering.
SROG - Subregional operating group. Three multiple-member and
five single-member SROG's are being formed under MAG to manage and
operate the wastewater treatment system in Maricopa County.
STREAM BED - Channel that contains the stream's waters: all the
space ordinarily covered by water and lying between the lands on
each side of the stream.
G-10
-------
SUBSIDENCE - Settling of the surface of the ground to a new
level.
SUSPENDED SOLIDS - Solids that are not in true solution and can be
removed by filtration.
TAILWATER - Irrigation water that drains from the field at the
lower end or remains in an irrigation canal downstream from the
last field normally served.
IDS - Total dissolved solids. The chemicals in true solution in
water, usually expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/1) or parts
per million (ppm).
TERRESTRIAL - Consisting of or pertaining to the land.
TERTIARY TREATMENT - Advanced wastewater treatment (AWT). Addi-
tional sewage treatment steps beyond primary and secondary treat-
ment to remove organic or inorganic compounds. Usually, addi-
tional BOD and SS are removed, and nutrients (such as phosphorus,
nitrogen, and potassium) are taken out.
TOPOGRAPHY - Physical features of a district or region such as are
represented on maps.
TRANSPIRATION - The process of passing off liquid through a living
membrane in the form of vapor.
TRICKLING FILTER - Usually a bed of rocks or stones over which
sewage is trickled and where bacteria break down organic wastes.
TSP - Total suspended particulates. An air quality term used to
denote a quantity of matter, such as dust or sand, in a given
volume of air.
208 PLAN - An areawide waste treatment management plan developed
under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) and the Clean Water Act of 1977
(PL 95-217).
201 PLAN - A plan developed under Section 201 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) and the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) for constructing and operating
wastewater treatment facilities.
UNDERFLOW - Part of the flow of a stream that is immediately below
the surface of the ground, usually in sand and gravel.
G-ll
-------
UPLIFTING - Elevation of any extensive part of the earth's surface
relative to some other parts.
VECTOR - A disease-transmitting organism, such as the mosquito.
VOLATILIZATION - A process whereby a liquid is caused to atomize
or evaporate quickly.
WASTEWATER - Any water derived from one or more previous uses.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - A facility consisting of a series of
tanks, screens, filters, and other components that process waste-
water so that pollutants are removed.
WATER SUPPLY - A volume of water that is ready for use, either in
its natural state or through treatment.
WATER TABLE - The upper limit of the portion of the ground wholly
saturated with water.
WITHDRAWAL - The process of capturing or acquiring water either by
diversion from a surface water source or by pumping from the
ground water basin.
WQCC - Arizona Water Quality Control Council.
G-12
-------
Appendices
-------
APPENDICES
A PERTINENT NUMERICAL CRITERIA FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED ARIZONA
SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
B ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES REGULATIONS FOR RECLAIMED
WASTES
C WASTEWATER FLOWS FROM THE 91ST AND 23RD AVENUE TREATMENT PLANTS
VS. EXISTING COMMITMENTS AND OTHER CLAIMS ON EFFLUENT FOR REUSE
D ADVISORY GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS AND MAG REGIONAL COUNCIL
RESOLUTIONS CONCERNING SELECTED PLAN
E MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS AND THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
BUREAU OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL
-------
APPENDIX A
PERTINENT NUMERICAL CRITERIA FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED
ARIZONA SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
-------
FROM EXISTING (JUNE 1979) STANDARDS:
SUMMARY OF ARIZONA WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
FOR DESIGNATED BENEFICIAL USE STANDARDS
Domestic
& In-
Full Partial dustrial Cold Warm Aquatic
Body Body Water Water Water Agri- Life &
Standard Contact Contact Supply Fishery Fishery culture Wildlife
Geometric
mean
90% value
(for 5
samples
over 30
days)
Range
Maximum
change
Streams
Lakes
Fecal
200 1,000
400 2,000
6.5-8.6 6.5-8.6
+ 0.5 + 0.5
Lowest practica-
ble value (LPV)
LPV
Colif orms
1,000
2,000
£«
(No./lOO ml)
1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
None 6.5-8.6 6.5-8.6 None 6.5-8.6
None
Turbidity
None
None
+ 0.5 + 0.5 None + 0.5
(JTU)
10 50 None LPV
25 10 None LPV
Minimum
Maximum
change
Maximum
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1)
None None None 6.0 6.0
Temperature (°F)
5° 5° None 2° 5°
93° 93° None 55°(wint.) 93°
70°(summ.)
None
None
None
None
No temp.
inter-
ference
No temp.
inter-
ference
A-l
-------
Standard
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
(hexa-
valent )
Copper
Cyanide
Mercury
Lead
Phenol
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Full
Body
Contact
0.050
1.000
None
0.010
0.050
1.000
0.200
0.005
0.050
0.001
0.010
0.050
5.000
Partial
Body
Contact
0.050
1.000
None
0.010
0.050
1.000
0.200
0.005
0.050
0.001
0.010
0.050
5.000
Domestic
& In-
dustrial
Water
Supply
Toxics
0.050
1.000
None
0.010
0.050
1.000
0.200
0.005
0.050
0.001
0.010
0.050
5.000
Cold
Water
Fishery
(mg/1)
0.050
0.500
None
0.010
0.050
0.050
0.100
0.005
0.050
0.001
0.010
0.050
0.500
Warm
Water
Fishery
0.050
0.500
None
0.010
0.050
0.050
0.100
0.005
0.050
0.001
0.010
0.050
0.500
Agri-
culture
None
None
1.000
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Aquatic
Life &
Wildlife
0.050
0.500
None
0.010
0.050
0.050
0.100
0.005
0.050
0.001
0.010
0.050
0.500
A-2
-------
oo
MI
10
FROM PROPOSED (JUNE 1979) STANDARDS;
>
R9-21-209
PARAMETER
ftCAL CQUFORM* (UNITS / 100 nil)
I. GEOMETRIC MEAN (5 SAMPLE MINIMUM)
2. IOK, OF SAMPLES FOR JO DAY PERIOD
SHALL NOT EXCEED
). SINGLE SAMPLE SMALL NOT EXCEED
I. MAXIMUM
2. MINIMUM
3. MAXIMUM CHANGE DUE TO WASTE DISCHARGE
TRACE SUBSTANCES* (MAXIMUM. HC7L1
ARSENIC (AS As}
BARIUM (AS 8d)
BORON (AS B)
CADMIUM (AS Cd)
CHROMIUM (AS Cr, MEXAVALENT S TRIVALENT)
COPPER (AS Cu)
LEAD (AS PL)
MANGANESE (AS Hn)
MERCURY (AS Hg)
SELENIUM (AS Su)
SILVER (AS Ag)
ZINC (AS In)
AMMONIA (AS UN-IONIZED NHj)
CYANIDES (AS CYANIDE ION t COMPLEXES)
PHENOLICS
SULFIUES (TOTAL)
TA6LE I. SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR PROTECTED USES
PROTECTED USES
DOMESTIC WATER
SOURCE
1000
2000
1*000
RECREATION
FULL BODY
200
1(00
BOO
NS
NS
NS
0.050 o
1.000 D
NS
0.010 T
0.050 o
1.000 D
0.050 0
NS
0.002 T
0.010 D
0.050 D
5.000 D
NS
0.200
0.005
NS
9.0
6.5
0.5
0.050 D
1 . 000 0
NS
0.010 T
0.050 o
Nb
0.050 0
NS
0.002 T
0.010 0
0.050 0
NS
NS
0.200
0.005
NS
PARTIAL BODY
1000
2000
<«000
9.0
6.5
0.5
b
~ b
I"b
b
~~_b
"Ib
NS
AQUATIC AND
WILDLIFE
1000
2000
"»000
9.0
6.5
0.5
0.050 D
NS
NS
0.010 Oc
0.050 D
0.050 D
LESS THAN 0.050 0*
NS
LESS THAN 0.002 Te
0.050 T
0.050 D
0.500 D
0.020
LESS THAN 0.020e
0.005
LESS THAN O.IOOe
IRRIGATI
1000
2000
1)000
9.0
t<.5
NS
2.000 T
NS
1 .000 T
0.050 T
1 .000 T
5.000 T
10.000 T
lO'.OOO T
---b
0.020 T
NS
10.000 T
NS
NS
NS
NS
AGRICULTURAL
M.
•STOCK WATERING
1000
2000
1(000
9.0
6.5
NS
0.200 T
NS
NS
0.050 T
1 .000 T
0.500 T
0.100 T less
NS
0.010 T less
0.050 T
NS
25.00 T
NS
0.200
0.005
NS
RIPARIAN
HABITAT
1000
eooo
1000
9.0
6.5
NS
O.OSOO
NS
NS
0.0100
0. 0500
0.0500T
than 0.060 Oe
«s „
than 0.00? T
0.050 T
0.050 0
25.00 D
NS
0.200
0.005
NS
a. For limit* a|)|>licjblc to effluent dominated streams, iee Table II. For limits applicable to direct wastewater re-use, see A.C.R.R. R9-20-
-------
I
00
PROPOSED (JUNE 1979) STANDARDS, CONT.
R9-?l-?09
TABU
SPECIFIC STANDARDS FM PROTECTED USIS • coo id
PARAMETER
PROTECTED VSiS
>
I
DOMESTIC MATER
SOURCE
RECREATION
FULL AW
PARTIAL «oor
AQUATIC AMD VIIDUFI
WARM WATER
FISHERY MAIJTAT
caO MATER
FISMCR1T HABITAT
TIMPtHATURt*' h
H£AYA06(0 IT A OlSCMAdGt OK COM (NATION
OF DISCHARGES SHALL HOI RAISE THE NATURAL
AMBIENT WATER TEMPERATURE MORE THAN
_ OEGRUS CELSIUS
'
.
Tllf R(6I1T5 Of THt ACTIVITIES «f ^W
SHALL NOI CAUSE THE TURBIDITY TO EXCEtO
_ JACKSON TURHOITTf UNITS IN:
STREAMS -
l**ts '
Dissmvio OXYGEN'
TJlOtSIJl TS'Df 7)11 ACT I VI II {S Or WN
SHALL NOT LOWER THE DISSOLVED OXYGEN
CONCENTRATION TO I CSS THAM
NS
MS
SO
25
50
25
10
10
NS
AGRICULTURAL
IRRIGATION AND
LIVESTOCK WATERING
NS
NS
NS
NS
RIPARIAN
HAS I TAT
NS
NS
NS
NS
appMes ahu to effluent dtMtrxted itre
-------
PROPOSED (JUNE 1979) STANDARDS, CONT.
TABLE II. SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EFFLUENT DOMINATED STREAMS
PARAMETER
fECAL CQLIFORM (UNITS / 100 ml)
CfOHElBIC MEAN (5 SAMPLE KIMIHUM)
SMALL NOT EXCEED: ,
ENTERIC VIRUS. GEOMETRIC MEAN
(5 SAMPLE MINIMUM) SMALL NOT EXCEED
ASCARIS LUH6R1COIOES EGGS
(ROUNDWORM)
ENTAHOtBA H1STOLYTLCA
IfttNlARimiCMUS SAGINATUS tCGS
(COMMON LARGE TAPEWORM)
PROTECTED USES (US£ AS DOMESTIC WATER SOURCE IS PROHIBITED)
RECREATION
FULL BODY PARTIAL BODY
RIPARIAN
HABITAT
1000
AQUATIC ANO
WILDLIFE
200
1009
1000
AGRICULTURAL
IRRIGATION LIVESTOCK WATERING
DAIRY NON-DAIRY
note b 200 1000
NS
NS
NS
NS
1 PFU/<»0 LITER6
NONE
DETECTABLE
NONE
DETECTABLE
NS
125 PFUAO LITER
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
1 PFUAO LITER3'
NONE
DETECTABLE"6
NONE
DETECTABLE
NS
a
NS
NS
NONE
NS
NS
NS
N
NONE
DETECTABLE DETECTABLE
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
lilt RFSiinS BrTIIE ACTIVITY OF MAN
SMALL NOT LOWER THE UISSOIVEO OXYGEN
CONCENTRATION TO LtSS FIIAH MG/L
|)ll, Triir.e Substances, Temperature,
Turbidity
GIVEN IN
TABLE 1
GIVEN IN
TAULE 1
GIVEN IN
TABLE I
GIVEN IN
TABLE I
NS
GIVEN IN
TABLE I
NS
GIVEN IN
TABLE I
NS
GIVEN IN
TABLE I
NOTES
a. standard upplicjblu only when use i& irrigdting food crops to be consumed in raw or natural state.
b. fecal cullforui standards for this use are in accordance with A.C.R.ft. Title 9, Chapter 20, Article ^ (re-use).
c. "luntu dtCec table" means no pathogenic miccooryani ±iu* ubserved durinij examination of a water sample by a mlcrob iologl it or other qualified person.
d. dbureviiiliuns used in this table: NS - NO STANDARD, I'FU ' I'l A()UE TOKMING UNITS
ii> orUt-i' lu meet thuse stream standards in erfluunl dontiikated streams, disinfection to 2.2 fecal col i form units/100 nil or advanced wj--. t uwd I cr
lieitin^nl nirjy l>c necessary for sccondaly effluent.
-------
APPENDIX B
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
REGULATIONS FOR RECLAIMED WASTES
-------
Sec.
R9-20- 01.
R9-2O400.
R9-2&401.
R9-2(M02.
R9-20-403.
R9-20404.
R9-2O40S.
R9-2O406.
R9-2O407.
R9-2(W08.
CHAPTER 20
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ARTICLE 1. RESERVED
ARTICLE 2. RESERVED
ARTICLE 3. RESERVED
ARTICLE 4. RECLALMED WASTES
Reserved.
Reclaimed wastes.
Policy.
Applicability.
Secondary treatment.
Secondary treatment and disinfection.
Tertiary treatment and disinfection.
General requirements for industrial uses.
Other requirements for industrial uses.
ARTICLE 5. CLASSIFICATION OF TREATMENT PLANTS
AND CERTIFICATION OF OPERATORS
R9-20-501. Legal authority.
R9-20-502. Policy.
R9-20-503. Violations.
R9-20-504. Definitions.
R9-20-505. Certification committee.
R9-20-506. Classification of treatment plants and systems.
R9-20-507. Wastewater treatment plants and collection systems.
R9-20-508. Water treatment plants and distribution systems.
R9-20-509. Certification; general.
R9-20-510. Temporary certification.
R9-20-S11. Prior certification.
R9-20-512. Certification without examination.
R9-20-513. Higher classifications.
R9-20-514. Renewal of certificates.
R9-20-515. Lapsed certificates.
R9-20-516. Denial; suspension and revocation.
R9-20-517. Reciprocity.
R9-20-518. Requirements and qualifications.
R9-20-519. Regular examinations.
R9-20-520. Experience and education.
R9-20-521. Requirements for special certificate.
B-l
-------
R9-20-01 HEALTH SERVICES Tide 9
ARTICLE 1. RESERVED
ARTICLE 2. RESERVED
ARTICLES. RESERVED
ARTICLE 4. RECLAIMED WASTES
R9-20- 01.
Reserved
R9-2MOO.
R9-20-401. Legal authority
Tbt refutations in this article are adopted pursuant to the authority granted by
AJLS. §§ 36-1854J and 36-1857.
AM* **«- 1-72.
R9-2M02. Policy
The regulations in this article govern the direct reuse of reclaimed wastes, and all
waste discharges into the waters of the State shall be in compliance with the "Water
Quality Standards for Surface Waters in Arizona**.
Added Rcc. 1-72.
R9-2O403. Applicability
A, The' direct reuse of wastes originally containing human or animal wastes b
prohibited unless such wastes comply with the standards in this article.
B. Nothing in this article shall be construed as an exemption from other
applicable Rules and Regulations of the Arizona State Department of Health
including but not limited to R9-8-249.
Added ft*. 1-72.
R9-2(M04. Secondary treatment
Al wastes shall receive a minimum of secondary treatment or its equivalent
before they are used for any of the following purposes:
A. Irrigation of fibrous or forage crops not intended for human consumption.
E. Irrigation of orchard crops by methods which do not result in direct
application of water to fruit or foliage
C Watering of farm animals other than producing dairy animals.
Added Ret. 1-72.
R9-20-40S. Secondary treatment and disinfection
A- AD wastes shall receive a minimum of secondary treatment or its equivalent
«td disinfection before they are used for any of the following purposes:
B-2
-------
Ch. 20 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL R9-20-406
1. Irrigation of any food crop where the product is subjected to physical or
chemical processing sufficient to destroy pathogenic organisms.
2. Irrigation of orchard crops by methods which involve direct application of
water to fruit or foliage.
~3. - Irrigation of golf courses, cemetenes and similar areas.
4. Watering of producing dairy animals.
5. To provide a substantial portion of the water supply in any impoundment
used for aesthetic enjoyment or for purposes involving only secondary contact
recreation.
B. Following treatment specified in A. above, the monthly arithmetic average
density of the coliform group of bacteria in the effluent shall not exceed 5,000 per
100 milliliters and the monthly arithmetic average density of fecal coliforms shall
not exceed 1,000 per 100 milliliters. Both of these limits shall be an average of at
least two consecutive samples examined per month during the irrigation season, and
any one sample examined in any one month shall not exceed a coliform group
density of more than 20,000 per 100 miliiliters, or a fecal coliform density of more
fr»n 4,000 pet 100 milliliters.
Added Ref. 1-72.
R9-20-406. Tertiary treatment and disinfection
A. All wastes shall receive a minimum of secondary treatment or its equivalent
foDowed by tertiary treatment and disinfection unless tertiary treatment effects
disinfection before they are used for any of the following purposes:
1. To provide a substantial portion of the water supply in any impoundment
used for primary contact recreation.
2. .Irrigation of school grounds, playgrounds, lawns, parks or any other area
where children are expected to congregate or play.
3. Irrigation of food crops which may be consumed in their raw or natural
state.
B. Following the treatment specified in A. above, the effluent shall not contain
more than 10 mg/1 of 5 day BOD, 10 mg/1 of suspended solids and 200 fecal
coliform per 100 milliliters. When the arithmetic average of five consecutive daily
samples taken over a period not exceeding fifteen days is greater than the values
given above for BOD or suspended solids or when the arithmetic average of five
consecutive daily samples taken over a period not exceeding fifteen days is greater
than the value given above for fecal coliform, use of the effluent shall cease
immediately upon notification by the Department. The use of such effluent shall
not resume until the values of five consecutive daily samples taken over a period
not exceeding fifteen days meet the requirements for BOD, suspended solids and
fecal coliform listed above.
Added Ref. 1-72.
B-3
-------
R9-20-407 HEALTH SERVICES Tide 2
R9-20-407. General requirements for industrial uses
Reclaimed wastes used for industrial purposes shall have received a minimum of
secondary treatment, or its equivalent.
A&M Reg. 1-72.
R9-20-408. Other requirements for industrial uses
The variety of industrial uses is so extensive that establishing specific criteria
governing all uses is not possible. Each industrial use will be considered on an
individual basis. In fixing such treatment requirements and quality criteria the
Department shall give consideration but not be limited to:
I. The degree of potential contact with the reclaimed wastes by the general
public.
2. The degree of potential contamination of the products or by-products being
produced or handled in the industrial process.
A4tf*d Rtg. 1-72.
B-4
-------
APPENDIX C
WASTEWATER FLOWS FROM THE 91ST AND 23RD AVENUE
TREATMENT PLANTS VS. EXISTING COMMITMENTS
AND OTHER CLAIMS ON EFFLUENT FOR REUSE
Prepared by
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Phoenix Urban Study Office
and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
-------
FLOWS FROM 23RD AND 91ST AVENUE TREATMENT PLANTS
The amount of effluent available from the 23rd and 91st
Avenue treatment plants for the period 1980 to the year 2000 has
been estimated as shown in the following table.
TABLE C-l
FLOWS FROM 23RD AVENUE AND 91ST AVENUE PLANTS
1980 - 2000 (in mgd)
1985 1990 1995 2000
91st Avenue 84.5 98.0 102.9 113.7 124.3 137.0
23rd Avenue 36.5 36.4 36.4 36.4 36.7 37.2
TOTAL 121.0 134.4 139.3 150.1 161.0 174.2
These estimates of flows were prepared on the basis of
Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES) population projec-
tions, population allocations within Maricopa County made by the
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), wastewater unit flows
developed in the MAG 208 Water Quality Management Program (MAG 208
Program), and waste flow reduction projections also developed in
the MAG 208 Program. The figures in the table reflect the long-
range MAG flow reduction goals of about 10 percent by the year
2000.
Population forecasts will be adjusted yearly and reflected in
MAG 208 Plan updates. It is expected that they will be adjusted
slightly upward for the next few years due to unusually rapid
growth in the area. However, the longer range (year 2000) fore-
casts are still considered to be accurate.
The 1983 flows in the table represent the addition of the El
Mirage (.4 mgd), Surprise (.4 mgd), Luke AFB (1.5 mgd), Guadalupe
(.5 mgd), and Gilbert (.1 mgd) flows to the 91st Avenue plant,
along with the 3.3 mgd flows from Mesa due to the abandonment of
the Mesa treatment plant.
C-l
-------
EFFLUENT COMMITMENTS
Effluent from the 23rd Avenue treatment plant is currently
discharged to a canal which empties into the Salt River. An
undetermined amount of effluent is taken up from the canal for use
by McDonald Farms, a private farming operation. The Roosevelt
Irrigation District has an option for 20,000 af/yr of 23rd Avenue
plant effluent, provided that: (1) it meets standards for unre-
stricted agricultural irrigation, (2) it can be economically
transported to the district's existing canal system, and (3) it
is not required as cooling water for the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station, as described below.
Effluent from the 91st Avenue plant is committed for use as
cooling water at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (up to
140,000 af/yr), to the Buckeye Irrigation Company for restricted
agricultural irrigation (30,000 af/yr), and to the Arizona Game
and Fish Department for maintenance of a wildlife management area
in the Salt River bed near 115th Avenue (7,300 af/yr). A commit-
ment of 1,200 af/yr to the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory was
cancelled when the laboratory's research facilities at Flushing
Meadows were washed out by flood waters in 1978.
The contract for sale of effluent for use at the Palo Verde
Nuclear Generating Station was negotiated in 1973 between the
cities in the Multi-City Sewer Agreement and the Arizona Public
Service Company (APS) and the Salt River Project (SRP). APS is
the project manager for the station, and the project is known as
the Arizona Nuclear Power Project (ANPP).
The commitment for the sale of effluent to ANPP is secondary
to prior commitments of effluent to the Buckeye Irrigation Company
and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. On the other hand, the
agreement between the City of Phoenix and the Roosevelt Irrigation
District is clearly secondary to the agreement with ANPP. The
amount and legal status of the use of effluent from the 23rd
Avenue plant by McDonald Farms is currently unknown. It is
possible that the Farms has a right to effluent prior to either
ANPP's or Roosevelt Irrigation District's rights.
The amount of effluent optioned in the ANPP contract is
140,000 af/yr. If the amount of effluent at the 91st Avenue plant
is insufficient to meet the requirements of the commitment, then
the contract calls for use of effluent from the 23rd Avenue
treatment plant. The contract requires the cities to deliver to
C-2
-------
ANPP, after first satisfying the prior commitments to the Buckeye
Irrigation District and the Arizona Game and Fish Department, all
of the effluent available at the 91st and 23rd Avenue plants up to
the maximum amount of 140,000 af/yr. The contract expressly
disclaims any warranty that 140,000 acre-feet of effluent will
become available at any time or in any year. However, whenever
that quantity does become available, the cities are required to
deliver such amount, according to the contract.
The contract also commits the cities not to install any new
treatment plants that will impair the ability of the cities to
deliver the amount of effluent optioned to ANPP. The contract
exempts from this commitment the new treatment facilities planned
for installation in the Gila and lower Litchfield tributary
basins, as identified and described in the Wastewater Report for
the Valley Metropolitan Area of Phoenix, Arizona (John Carollo
Engineers, 1968). These treatment plants are known as the
Chandler and Reems Road plants in the selected 208 wastewater
management plan.
Development of a Northeast plant was vigorously opposed by
APS and SRP because it would impair the ability of the cities to
meet the effluent commitment as specified in the ANPP contract.
APS and SRP indicated that they would oppose development of the
plant until such time as "(i) the capacity of the 91st Avenue and
23rd Avenue Plants has been expanded to permit fulfillment of all
outstanding commitments for delivery of wastewater effluent from
such plants and (ii) effluent flows are sufficient to meet such
commitments" (Arizona Public Service and Salt River Project,
1978). Regarding the Tolleson plant, APS and SRP stated that they
were opposed to the temporary diversion of flows from Glendale and
Sun City East unless they could "obtain either an assurance that
such diversion will not become permanent or a right to acquire
wastewater effluent from the Tolleson plant equivalent to that
diverted from the 91st Avenue Plant. . ." (Arizona Public Service
and Salt River Project, 1978). However, the contract does not
preclude expansion of plants such as that at Tolleson.
The option on the effluent, as agreed to in the 1973 con-
tract, was exercised in mid-1976, when the Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3 received ^"T^rilv^o?
from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Actua1 delivery of
effluent for cooling water will not take place until 1982 when the
unit at Palo Verde is scheduled to go on line The second
C-3
-------
Each unit at Palo Verde is estimated to require 21,400
af/yr of effluent. Three units would require 64,200 af/yr of
effluent, and all five units would require 107,000 af/yr. During
the summer months when atmospheric conditions result in highest
evaporation rates, the peak requirements for cooling water are
estimated to range from 2,200 to 2,600 af/mo.
These estimates of water use per unit at Palo Verde were
furnished to the MAG 208 Program on August 10, 1978, by E. E. Van
Brunt, APS Vice President and ANPP Project Director. More recent
estimates of annual use in the Draft Environmental Statement
Related to Construction of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
Units 4 and 5 (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1979) vary from
21,300 to 23,500 af/yr per unit (106,500 to 117,500 af/yr for 5
units). It was not felt that this analysis, which assumes 21,400
af/yr per unit or 107,000 af/yr for 5 units, needed to be revised,
as the estimates that were used were relatively conservative. The
basic conclusions of the analysis would be the same using the
range of estimates of annual use found in the Palo Verde Units 4
and 5 Environmental Statement, except that use of higher estimates
in the range (115,000 and 117,500 af/yr) would result in a greater
and earlier shortfall of effluent for Palo Verde.
This analysis, however, does not include other factors which
need to be considered, but for which the necessary inforamtion is
not available. One is the amount of effluent that may be lost
between the headworks of the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue treatment
plants and the nuclear reactors. The second is the amount of
effluent that may be available for delivery to the power plant but
cannot be used because of unacceptable quality. The third is peak
demand requirements of the Buckeye Irrigation District. All of
these factors will reduce, by some unknown amount, the quantity of
effluent available for Palo Verde. Because of these factors, the
conclusions on availability of effluent for Palo Verde stated in
this analysis are likely to be better than the actual situation.
ANALYSIS OF AVAILABLE FLOWS AND COMMITMENTS
Figures C-l through C-3 (following pages) plot the flows
available from the 23rd Avenue and 91st Avenue plants under the
selected wastewater management plan and show the projected uses
and ultimate commitments to ANPP, the Buckeye Irrigation Company,
and the Arizona Game and Fish Department. The flow needs of the
C-4
-------
five Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station units are shown as
follows: 1) annual demand of 21,400 af/yr per unit (Figure C-l);
2) low estimate of peak month flow needs of 2,200 af/mo, or a flow
rate of 26,400 af/yr, per unit (Figure C-2); and 3) high estimate
of peak month flow needs of 2,600 af/mo, or a flow rate of 31,200
af/yr, per unit (Figure C-3). Flows are shown in thousands of
acre-feet per year and millions of gallons per day (1 mgd = 1,120
af/yr).
Figures C-l through C-3 indicate the following:
1. Maximum flows available from the two treatment plants
are not sufficient to meet the peak month needs of all
five units under the high estimate of needs (Figure
C-3).
2. With the exception of the Arizona Game and Fish Depart-
ment's flow of 7,300 af/yr, discharge to the Salt River
would be eliminated during the peak months starting in
1988 under the high peak month estimate of needs, and in
1990 under the low peak month estimate (Figures C-2,
C-3).
3. Flow for the Roosevelt Irrigation District's commitment
(20,000 af/yr), or for the development of the Northeast
plant (diverting flows of 9.1 mgd), would not be avail-
able until after 1995 if the cities must first meet the
maximum commitment of 140,000 af/yr to ANPP (Figure
C-l).
4. Effluent available from the 91st Avenue plant only,
under the low estimate of peak month needs, would be
sufficient for the first three units on schedule and the
fourth unit sometime between 1995 and 2000 (Figure
C-2).
5 Effluent available from the 91st Avenue plant only,
under the high estimate of peak month needs, would be
sufficient for the first two units on schedule, the
third reactor between 1990 and 1995, and the fourth
reactor after the year 2000 (Figure C-3).
C-5
-------
2OO
224
150
(0
o
LL
100
50
,Q
Maximum Commiled Flow
Under APS / SRP Contract
112
I «•-
L.*"*** Reactor
«....-|"'+
»* • O^AA»A.
5 (1990)
Reactor 4 (1988)
Reactor 3 (1980)
R»«ctor 2 (1984)
56
Rtaclor 1 (1962)
/ Arizona Own* and
Rth Dwrtm^t
BocKey. lrr,0.tion District
1980
83 8"5
.^SHO
Year
Sfc
LEGEND
• Flows From 91 st Ave WWTP Only
O Flows From 23 rd Ave, and
91 st Ave WWTP
••••* Estimates of Annual Water Needs
158 MOD or 177.300 AF/Yr
129 MOO or 144,300 AF/Yr
110 MOO or 122.900 AF/Yr
91 MOO or 101.500 AF/Yr
72 MOO or 80.100 AF/Yr
52 MOO or 58,700 AF/Yr
33 MOO Of 37.300 AF/Yr
27 MOO or 30,000 AF/Yr
2000
Without Roosevelt Irrigation Districts
Commitment or Flows to McDonald Fa
-------
200
224
• <•«'
150 •
(0
o
168
Maximum Commited Flow
Under APS / SRP Contract
O-'
I "*
J
Reactor 5 (1990)
lOO-' 112
...
• „.••*•* Reactor 4 (1988)
"
50
Reactof 3 (1986)
Reactor 2 (1984)
56
Reactor 1 (1982)
Arizona Game and
_. . _ . .
Fish Department
Buckeye Irrigation District
' "
I9'80
83 85
,.,90
Year
LEGEND
* Flows From 91 st Ave WWTP Only
O Flows From 23 rd Ave and
91 st Ave WWTP
••» Estimates of Annual Water Needs
>•«• Low Estimate of Peak Month
Reactor Needs
158 MGD or 177,300 AF/Yr
151 MGD
128 MGO
104 MGO
80 MGD
57 MGD
33 MGD
27 MGD
Without Roosevelt Irrigation Districts
Commitment or Flows to McDonald Farms
95 2000
AVAILABLE FLOWS 23RD AVENUE & 91 ST
AVENUE WWTP VS. EXISTING COMMITMENTS*
Figure C-2
-------
200
150
CO
o
LL'
100
'
50
0_
*
N
Ik
<
224
J— ~~~~— ^*-
Maximum CommMed Flow 1 __-^*O****
1 Inrtetr APS 1 SRP GootfftCt K a* * ^
o •c*" I "
• 1 Reactor 4 (1966) „„--•
r..--^*""*
H2 At*** j Reactor 3 (1966)
7 Reactor 2 (1964)
56 J
| Reactor 1 (1962)
/ Arizona Game and
~ Fish Department Buckeye Irrigation District
LEGEND
• Flows From 91 st Ave WWTP Only
O Flows From 23 rd Ave and
91 st Ave WWTP
— • Estimates of Annual Water Needs
~—~. High Estimates of Peak Month
Reactor Needs
> 173 MOO
158 MOD or 177.300 AF/Yr
145 MOO
i
117 MOO
89 MOO
61 MOO
33 MOO
27 MOD
27 MOO or 30.000 AF/Yr
19(90 83 85 .90 9'5 2000
Year
'Without Roosevelt Irrigation Diatncla AVAILABLE FLOWS 23RD AVENUE & 91 ST
Commitment or Flows to McDonald Farms AVENUE WWTP VS. EXISTING COMMITMENTS*
Figure C-3
-------
REFERENCES
John Carollo Engineers, 1968. Wastewater Report for the Valley
Metropolitan Area of Phoenix, Arizona.
Arizona Public Service and Salt River Project, 1978. Letter from
Russell P. Hulse, Arizona Public Service Company, and Leroy
Michael, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and
Power District, to H. W. Worthington, Chief, Phoenix Urban
Study, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 20, 1978.
Arizona Public Service, 1978. Letter from E. E. Van Brunt,
Jr., APS Vice President, ANPP Project Director, to H. W.
Worthington, Chief, Phoenix Urban Study, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, August 10, 1978.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1979. Draft Environmental
Statement Related to Construction of Palo Verde Nuclear
Generating Station Units 4 and 5, Proposed by Arizona Public
Service Company, et al. NUREG-0522, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington,
D.C., April 1979.
C-9
-------
APPENDIX D
ADVISORY GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
AND MAG REGIONAL COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS
CONCERNING SELECTED PLAN
-------
MAG 208 PROGRAM ADVISORY GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCERNING DRAFT 208 PLAN
TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP January 8, 1979
Discussion focused on the accuracy of the engineering as-
sumptions made in the Plan and the need for annual evalu-
ations and updates.
The Technical Advisory Group recommends that the MAG 208
Draft Final Plan be approved.
AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY GROUP January 9, 1979
The ngricultural Advisory Group recommends that the MAG 208
Draft Final Plan be approved with the following condition:
that, in the area of Nonpoint Sources of Pollution (landfills,
irrigated agriculture, septic systems, urban stormwater run-
off, feedlots and dairies, etc.)> Natural Resource Conserva-
tions Districts should be designated as the lead or primary
management agencies to deal with nonpoint sources of pol-
lution in Maricopa County.
CITIZEN ADVISORY GROUP January 9, 1979
The Citizen Advisory Group recommends that the MAG 208 Draft
Final Plan be approved with the following conditions:
1) That continued examination of the 48th Street and
Northeast Area Wastewater Treatment Plants be an
element of the annual MAG 208 Plan update,
2) That involvement by citizen, agricultural and techni-
cal representatives on the Wastewater Policy Ad-
visory Committee and in the Subregional Operating Group
structure (SROG Board and/or Technical and Citizens
Advisory Committee) be mandatory and not optional,
3) That sodium and boron concentrations of reclaimed waste-
water be examined during continued 208 planning, with
respect to its impact on intended uses and potential for
control, and
4) That current plans by the Arizona Nuclear Power Project
and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to control the
impacts of the solid salt concentrations resulting from
evaporated cooling water (117,000 tons per year) be ex-
amined during the continuing 208 planning program.
D-i
-------
MANAGEMENT SUBCOMMITTEE (EXPANDED) January 10, 1979
The Management Subcommittee met to discuss the recommenda-
tions of the three advisory groups, as well as their own
concerns on the 208 Draft Final Plan."
In regard to the advisory group conditions for approval
the Management Subcommittee took the following action.
Technical Advisory Group - No action needed.
Citizen Advisory Group - Concurred with conditions 1,3,
and 4. Condition 2, which would make citizen, agricul-
tural, and technical involvement on the Wastewater Poli-
cy Advisory Committee and the Subregional Operating
Groups mandatory, the Subcommittee concurred with the
recommended mandatory involvement on the Wastewater Poli-
cy Advisory Committee but left involvement by these in-
terests in the Subregional Operating Groups as opticnal.
Agricultural Advisory Group - Without the benefit of ad-
ditional information on nonpoint source problems and
Natural Resource Conservation Districts (NRCD), the Sub-
committee chose to defer formal consideration of the Ag-
ricultural Advisory Group Committee recommendation. Meet-
ings will be scheduled as soon as possible with represen-
tatives of the Natural Resource Conservation Districts,
Arizona Department of Health Services, and MAG to further
examine the Agricultural Advisory Group recommendation.
The Management Subcommittee, in consideration of the
advisory group recommendations and subsequent discus-
sion on the 208 Plan, recommends that the MAG 208 Draft
Final Plan be approved.
208 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE January 11, 1979
The 208 Executive Committee met to discuss the recom-
mendations of the three advisory groups, the Manage-
ment Subcommittee, as well as their own concerns on the
208 Draft Final Plan. In regard to the advisory group
conditions for approval, the Executive Committee took
the following action.
Technical Advisory Group - No action needed.
Citizen Advisory Group - Concurred with the actions of
the Management Subcommittee.
D-2
-------
Agricultural Advisory Group - Concurred with the actions of
the Management Subcommittee.
In addition, the Executive Comnittee recommended that the
potential for future improvement of groundwater quality
through the utilization of some poor quality groundwater
and irrigation drainage water by the'Arizona Nuclear Power
Project should be investigated in the future by the ongoing
MAG 208 Program.
The Executive Committee, in consideration of the advisory
group recommendations, the Management Subcommittee recom-
mendations and subsequent discussion on the 208 Plan, recom-
mends that the MAG 208 Draft Final Plan be approved.
D-3
-------
RESOLUTION
BY THE MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS REGARDING THE AREAWIDE
WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT PLAN FOR THE PHOENIX METRO-
POLITAN AREA.
WHEREAS, the Maricopa Association of Governments has been desig-
nated as the areawide water quality management planning agency by
the Governor of Arizona and the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, and;
WHEREAS, the MAG 208 Water Quality Management Program has been
initiated to identify and address water quality control problems
within Maricopa County, and;
WHEREAS, the cities and towns and the County are experiencing simi-
lar and related water quality problems which require mutual action
to mitigate said problems, and;
WHEREAS, water quality problems have been historically associated
with inadequate sewage collection and treatment systems, and;
WHEREAS, the MAG 208 Water Quality Management Program has identified
a wastewater collection and treatment plan necessary to mitigate
water quality problems in specific areas of the Phoenix Metropolitan
Area, and;
WHEREAS, the aforementioned identification and approval calls for
construction or expansion of the following:
Seven plants to serve the Phoenix Metropolitan
area to the year 2000. The existing 90 mgd
91st Avenue plant would be expanded to 134.6
mgd to serve all service areas except
Tolleson/Peoria, portions of Gilbert, Chandler,
Litchfield Park, Avondale, and Goodyear which
are served by their own treatment facilities.
The 91st Avenue plant would be expanded by
30 mgd immediately to handle flows from the
contributing service areas to between 1990
and 1995. At that point, an additional ex-
pansion would come on line to handle flows
through the year 2000.
D-4
-------
Flows from northeast Phoenix and portions of
Paradise Valley would be served to the 23rd
Avenue plant. Year 2000 projections are
for the plant to handle 37.2 mgd.
A new major interceptor system and pump
stations would be constructed to collect
and carry flows to the 91st Avenue plant
from Surprise, El Mirage, Youngtown, Luke
AFB, Glendale, Sun City East and Phoenix
to a major interceptor along 99th Avenue.
The northeast area, Mesa, and the northern
most portion of Gilbert would be served
to 91st Avenue by the existing collection
system plus a new relief interceptor
along Baseline and Southern. No pumping
would be required. A new interceptor
system would also be required to collect
and carry flows from East Mesa to the
Southern Avenue interceptor.
Flows from Peoria would be collected and
carried to the expanded Tolleson facility
via a new interceptor along 99th Avenue.
The Tolleson plant would be expanded to
handle a year 2000 flow of 7.2 mgd.
Flows from Chandler would be served to the
expanded plant by the existing sewer system
plus new major interceptors along Pecos
and Ray Roads.
Two separate collection systems would serve
the major portion of the Gi Ibert Area, the
majority of the north system to be con-
structed immediately and the south system
to be constructed by 1990.
Flows from Litchfield Park, Avondale and
Goodyear would be carried to a new facility
at Reems Road via a major new interceptor
from Thomas Road to the plant. A new pump
station and pressure sewer would be required
to lift and carry flows from Litchfield Park
to the interceptor. A new lift station would
also be required at Reems Road to lift flows
to the plant.
D-5
-------
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Maricopa Association of
Governments Regional Council, after reveiw and consideration,
approveds the selection of Alternative 2 (as identified in the
MAG 208 Program - Areawide Alternatives Brochure) as the waste-
water treatment needs of the area over a twenty-year period with
the provision for continuing study of the Northease area plant,
and that the 48th Street plant, which could serve as a stimulus
to the development of the Rio Salado, be given continued
consideration in future 208 planning. This resolution should be
forwarded to the Arizona Department of Health Services and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Passed and adopted this 1st day of November, 1978 by the
Maricopa Association of Governments Regional Council.
thanes H. Salem
Chairman, MAG Regional Council
Attest
G. Kenneth Driggs
Staff Coordinator
D-6
-------
RESOLUTION
APPROVING THE MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
WHEREAS, Public Law 92-500, Section 208, requires a water
quality management planning process to be established in
each area experiencing significant water quality problems,
and;
WHEREAS the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) has
been designated by the Governor of Arizona, and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX Administrator to
prepare the Areawide Water Quality Management Plan for the
Maricopa County area in accordance with the provisions of
Clean Water Act (Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217) Section 208,
and;
WHEREAS the MAG has developed a program designed to address the
water quality problems in the MAG area consistent with the re-
quirements set forth in Public Law 92-500 and Public Law 95-217.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the Regional Council of the
Maricopa Association of Governments does hereby approve the
MAG Areawide Water Quality Management Plan.
AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED THAT, all water quality management
activities conducted in the MAG area shall be in accordance with
these plans.
Approved this 27th day of Jun
diaries H. Salem
Chairman, MAG Regional Council
n-7
-------
APPENDIX E
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MARICOPA ASSOCIATION
OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
BUREAU OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL
-------
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
AND
THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
BUREAU OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL
The purpose of this memorandum of agreement between the Maricopa Association
of Governments and the Arizona Department of Health Services, Bureau of Air
Quality Control is to provide for integration of work plans and consistency
of data and control strategies relative to the MAG 208 Areawide Waste Treat-
ment Management Planning program and the Phoenix Air Quality Maintenance Area
(AQMA) analysis and planning program.
This memorandum of agreement also satisfies the reouirement of U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) Program Guidance Memorandum AM-14 dated
October 30, 1975, that agencies responsible for developing 208 areawide plans
"Develop letters of agreement with corresponding A9MA planning agencies to
cover such items as integration of work plans and consistency of data and
control strategies."
It is understood by the parties of this memorandum that:
1. The Governor, consistent with EPA requirements, has designated
the Department of Health Services, through its Bureau of Air
Quality Control, as the agency responsible for the AQMA programs,
including the coordination of the Phoenix AOMA Task Force, the
operation of the supporting Technical Operations Committee, and
the revision of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air
pollution control.
2. The Governor, consistent with EPA regulations, has designated the
six Councils of Government in Arizona as the official areawide
planning agencies for the purpose of preparing areawide water
qua!ity management plans.
3. The Governor has directed that the Department of Health Services,
Bureau of Water Quality Control, and the Office of Economic Plan-
ning and Development cooperatively fulfill.the official State
Agency role in 208 water quality manaaement planning.
It is agreed by the parties of this memorandum that:
Aspects of 208 planning and AQMA planning are interrelated, both in terms of
their impact on one another and in terms of their similarities of approach.
Both are concerned with maintaining environmental quality; both utilize an
areawide aoproach in which areas of potential or existing problems are iden-
tified and a unified plan is developed for the entire area. However, when a
program is designed to control pollution in just one medium, it can result
in environmental deterioration in another. The goal of both AOMA and 208
planning is to improve the quality of the environment, but by focusino on the
problems within a single medium, conflict may arise with the attainment and
E-l
-------
maintenance of standards in the other medium. At the same tine, if care is
taken to coordinate their development, the plans produced through these two
proarams can be mutually supportive.
In order to facilitate coordination between 208 and AQMA olanning, the parties
of this memorandum will:
1. Effectively coordinate the 208 and AQMA. programs.
2. Relate 203 metro and non-metro areas and the AQMA boundary as much
as possible.
3. Ensure that there is adequate and periodic reporting of the 208
planning agency with the corresponding AOMA planning agency in-
cluding semi-annual reporting to the EPA Regional Office.
4. Jointly review 208 and AOYA clans for consistency.
5. Resolve through negotiation any conflict which may develop durina
the planning stage between an AOMA and a 20S area.
f. Specify in their work plans how coordination will occur throughout
the olanning process.
7. Integrate the HAG 208 study with the AOMA. planning efforts so that
the information obtained for the 208 plan is transferable to AOVA
planning.
Have appropriate representation on 208 and AOXA advisory orrurs.
Inform the AQMA plannina agency about 208 alternatives beinc con-
sidered, and offer them an opportunity to review and cor^ment en
alternatives. In addition, the environmental assessment associated
with a 208 plan must address the imoact of the alternatives and the
selected plan.
The terms of this memorandum of agreement are hereby accepted..
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES MARICQPA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
8.
c
By:
By:
Title:
Ted Williams
Deputv Director
Address: 1740 W. Adams Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Aoril 2S, 1977
Date: '
\John j DeBolske
Title: Secretary
Address :1820 West Washinaton St,
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Date: \.\ .••.
7
E-2
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
------- |