FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
ALBUQUERQUE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
Project No. 0-35-1020-01
Albuquerque, New Mexico
^e0SX
Q
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AOENCY
REGION ID
DALLAS, TEXAS
C. White
Regional Administrator
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
ALBUQUERQUE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
PROJECT NO. C-35-1020-01
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
AUGUST, 1977
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VI
DALLAS, TEXAS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FIRST INTERNATIONAL BUILDING
1201 ELM STREET
DALLAS. TEXAS 75270
August 23, 1977
TO ALL INTERESTED AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS AND OFFICIALS:
To comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposal by the City of
Albuquerque, Bernalillo County, New Mexico, to expand and upgrade the
wastewater treatment facilities of the city under EPA grant C-35-1020-01.
A Technical Reference Document containing detailed environmental data
and analyses compiled during the preparation of this EIS is available
for review. The enclosed list indicates the locations where this
material may be reviewed.
The final statement is being sent to agencies, officials and interested
persons upon request and to those who made substantive comments on the
draft. If additional information is needed, please contact Mr. Clinton B.
Spotts, Regional EIS Coordinator, EPA, Region VI, First International
Building, 1201 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75270, (214) 749-1236.
Enclosure
-------
City of Albuquerque
Water Resources Department,
Room 911
Western Bank Building
505 Marquette NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bernalillo County Administrative
Offices
County Managers Office
620 Lomas NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Zimmerman Library
Reserve Desk - Main Lobby
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, New Mexico
William Matotan & Associates
230 Truman NE
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Molzen-Corbin & Associates
2127 Menaul Boulevard NE
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Central Clearing House
338 East De Vargas
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments
Ms. Kay Kepler
Suite 1320
Western Bank Building
505 Marquette NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Albuquerque Public Library
Main Branch - Information Services
Section
501 Copper NW
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Southwest Research and Information Center
135 Harvard Drive SE
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Southwest Valley Area Council
1021 I si eta SW
Albuquerque, New Mexico
New Mexico Environmental Improvement
Agency
Water Quality Division (Frances Gonzales)
725 St. Michaels Drive
Santa Fe, New Mexico
Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm
First International Building
28th Floor Library
Dallas, Texas
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Type of Action i
2. Environmental Setting & Existing Problems i
3. Alternatives Evaluated iv
4. Proposed Actions vii
5. Environmental Impacts ix
6. Coordination and Review x
1. INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background 1
1.1 The Federal Role 1
1.2 The Stipulation 4
1.3 Standards and Goals 5
1.4 Summary of Wastewater Management Issues 5
1.5 Scope of this Document 6
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.0 Introduction 8
2.0.1 Natural Regions 8
2.0.2 Urban Features 16
2.1 Existing Wastewater Management System 16
2.1.1 Municipal Sanitary Sewers 19
2.1.2 Municipal Treatment Plants 20
2.1.3 Environmental Effects of the Treatment System 23B
2.1.4 Other Point Sources 27
2.1.5 On-Site Systems 28
2.1.6 Other Non-Point Sources 29
2.2 The Physical Environment 29
2.2.1 Terrain 29
2.2.2 Climate 30
2.2.3 Air Quality 30
2.2.4 Odors 35
2.2.5 Noise 37
2.2.6 Geology ' 39
2.2.7 Geologic Resources ..... . 39
2.2.8 Geologic Hazards 41
2.2.9 Soils 42
2.2.10 Present Impact of Sludge Reuse and Disposal 45
2.3 Hydrologic Environment 46
2.3.1 General Setting 46
2.3.2 Surface Water 50
2.3.3 Ground Water 54
2.3.4 Water Rights 56
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Section Page
2.4 Water Quality 57
2.4.1 Water Quality Goals and Standards 57
2.4.2 Surface Water: the Rio Grande 60
2.4.3 Surface Water: Nutrients; Elephant Butte Reservoir . . 64
2.4.4 Ground Water Quality in the Albuquerque Area 67
2.4.5 On-Site Liquid Waste Disposal and Water-Borne Diseases. 73
2.4.6 Summary of Water Quality Conditions 79
2.5 The Biological Environment 80
2.5.1 Communities in the Albuquerque Area 80
2.5.2 Downstream Habitats 81
2.5.3 Endangered Species 82
2.5.4 Vectors 83
2.6 Socio-Economic Environment 83
2.6.1 Population ! 83
2.6.2 Land Use 83
2.6.3 Economic Conditions 89
2.6.4 Infrastructure 91
2.6.5 Water Supply and Sanitary Sewers 92
2.6.6 Sewerage and Development in Albuquerque 95
2.6.7 Municipal Services; Utilities 95
2.6.8 Transportation; Health and Safety 97
2.6.9 Other Infrastructure Elements 97
2.6.10 Capital Improvements 97
2.6.11 Jurisdictions 99
2.7 Resource Sites; Aesthetics 99
2.7.1 Archeological and Historical Resources 99
2.7.2 Recreation, Open Space, Natural Areas 102
2.7.3 Aesthetics 103
3. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
3.0 The No-Action Alternative 105
3.1 Environmental Conditions in the Year 2000 106
3.1.1 Environmental Trends 106
3.1.2 Water Quality and Water Supply 108
3.1.3 Other Problems Related to Wastewater Management .... 114
3.2 Wastewater Management Alternatives 116
3.3 Sewerage and On-Site System Alternatives 117
3.3.1 Alternative On-Site System Technologies 118
3.3.2 On-Site System Management Alternatives 122
3.3.3 Alternatives Related to Sewer Construction 125
3.3.4 Comparison of Sewers and On-Site Systems 128
3.3.5 Evaluation of Specific Alternatives 132
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Section Page
3.4 Treatment Alternatives 143
3.4.1 Nitrogen Removal Alternatives 144
3.4.2 Secondary Treatment; Phosphorus Removal; Metals Removal. 157
3.4.3 Satellite Treatment Facilities 159
3.5 Solids Handling Alternatives 164
3.5.1 Sludge Processing 164
3.5.2 Sludge Reuse and Disposal 166
3.5.3 Use of Thermoradiated Sludge For Animal Feed 166
3.5.4 Comparison of Sludge Handling Alternatives 167
3.5.5 Other Solids 167
3.6 Disinfection and Chemical Odor Control 169
3.6.1 Chlorination: Environmental Concerns 169
3.6.2 Alternatives to Chlorination 170
3.6.3 Hydrogen Peroxide for Odor Control Stations 172
3.6.4 Ozone for Effluent Disinfection 173
3.7 Wastewater Reuse Alternatives 174
3.7.1 Aquaculture 174
3.7.2 Silviculture 175
3.7.3 Cooling Water 175
3.7.4 Recreation and Open Space 176
3.7.5 Other Purposes 177
3.8 Alternative Ordinance and Management Policies 177
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIONS
4.0 Sewerage System 180
4.1 Treatment System 186
4.2 Actions Regarding Odors, Nutrients and Metals 191
4.3 Priorities 195
4.4 Quality Assurance for Design and Construction 195
4.5 Operation and Maintenance 195
5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
5.0 Short-Term Impacts 198
5.1 Construction Impacts 198
5.1.1 General Characteristics 199
5.1.2 Problem Areas 199
5.1.3 Environmental Protection Measures . 200
5.1.4 Dust and Erosion 201
5.1.5 Noise and Vibration; Equipment Emissions 202
5.1.6 Traffic and Utility Disruption 203
5.1.7 Disturbance of Archeological and Biological Resources. . 203
5.1.8 Dewatering 205
5.1.9 Other Construction Impacts 205
5.1.10 Summary 206
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Section page
5.2 Long-Term Impacts 207
5.2.1 Water Quality, Water Use and Water Rights 207
5.2.2 Odors 210
5.2.3 Resource Use and Conservation 211
5.2.4 Public Health, Safety and Welfare 215
5.2.5 Ecology and Recreation 216
5.2.6 Summary of Long-Term Impacts 216
5.3 Secondary Impacts 218
5.3.1 Impacts Related to the Comprehensive Plan 218
5.3.2 Socio-Economic Impacts 219
6. ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 221
7. SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY . 222
8. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 223
9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 224
9.1 Environmental Statement 227
REFERENCES CITED 228
APPENDIX A. Comments received by mail, and responses 237
APPENDIX B. Comments received at Public Hearing, and responses 289
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Aerial View of Albuquerque, New Mexico 2
1-2 Location Map, State of New Mexico 3
2-1 Political Boundaries and Land Ownership 9
2-2 Rio Grande Drainage Basin in New Mexico 10
2-3 Natural Regions and Soils ' H
2-4 Urban Features 17
2-5 Wastewater Management 21
2-6 Air Pollution 33
2-7 Block Diagram of Albuquerque Area 40
2-8 Middle Rio Grande Gaging Stations and Wildlife Areas 49
2-9 Seasonal Distribution of Rio Grande Flows at Albuquerque, New
Mexico, 1955 - 1974 52
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
(Continued)
Figure Page
2-10 Water Table Contours 1968 55
2-11 Ground Water Quality 69
2-12 On-Site Systems: Environmental Conditions 75
2-13 Land Use Plan 87
2-14 Seasonal Distribution of Municipal Water Demand and Liquid
Waste Discharge, 1974 93
2-15 Registered Historic Sites 101
3-1 Sewerage System Analysis Areas 134
3-2 Sewerage System: Structural Alternatives 135
3-3 Treatment Plant Alternative Service Areas and Satellite
Facility Sites 149
4-1 Proposed Sewerage and Treatment System 181
4-2 Projected System Flows 187
4-3 Flow Schematic of Proposed Treatment Facilities, Plant No. 2 . . . 190
4-4 Existing and Proposed Facilities Layout At Treatment Plant
No. 2 192
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Natural Regions of the Albuquerque Area 13
2-2 Characteristics of Influent and Effluent 24
2-3 Air Quality in the Albuquerque Area 32
2-4 Noise Levels Observed in Neighborhood of Wastewater Facilities,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 38
2-5 Soils of the Natural Units, Albuquerque, New Mexico 43
2-6 Heavy Metals Concentrations in Albuquerque Soils Treated with
Digested Sludge 47
2-7 Projects Affecting Water Resources in the Middle Rio Grande Basin. 51
2-8 Water Quality Standards and Criteria Pertinent to Management of
City of Albuquerque Wastewater 59
2-9 Water Quality of the Middle Rio Grande Basin 61
2-10 Flow-Weighted Mean Concentrations of Major Phosphorus and
Nitrogen Forms in the Middle Rio Grande 65
2-11 Representative Ranges of Data on Ground Water Quality in the
Albuquerque Area 68
2-12 Information Related to Water-Borne Diseases 77
2-13 Planning Area Population Projections 84
2-14 Present and Projected Bernalillo County Employment and Other
Economic Indicators 90
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Page
3-1 Comparison of Hydrologic and Water Resource Conditions, Middle 109
Rio Grande Basin, 1975 and 2000
3-2 On-Site Wastewater Disposal Systems and Costs, by EIA Soil
Limitation Groups, for Individual and Clustered Dwelling Units . . 119
3-3 Environmental Costs and Benefits of Different On-Site Systems. . . 120
3-4 Summary of Tradeoff Costs and Benefits of Different Wastewater
Disposal Options 121
3-5 Summary of Needed Interceptor Capacity Increases 129
3-6 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of On-Site Systems and Sewers. 130
3-7 Summary of Sewer Extension Alternatives 137
3-8 Environmental Evaluation of Sewerage System Alternatives 138
3-9 Tradeoff Factors to be Considered in Environmental
Evaluations of Advanced Treatment and Land Application 145
3-10 Cost-Effective Display: Nitrogen Removal Alternatives 156
3-11 Cost-Effective Analysis of Secondary Treatment Alternatives. . . . 163
3-12 Summary Evaluation of Alternatives for Sludge Handling and
Disposal,with Relative Ranking 168
3-13 Comparison of Disinfection and Odor Alternatives 171
4-1 Proposed Sewerage Actions 183
4-2 Summary of Proposed Actions for Odor Control Stations 184
4-3 Summary of Proposed Actions for Lift Station Renovation 185
4-4 Estimated Total Dollar Cost of Proposed Treatment Actions 188
4-5 Description of Unit Operations and Processes — Proposed Treatment
System 189
4-6 Projected Characteristics of Albuquerque's Wastewater in the
Year 2000 193
4-7 Priority and Implementation Schedule for Facility Plan
Recommendations 196
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
( ) Draft Environmental Statement
(xx) Final Environmental Statement
City of Albuquerque Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, Dallas, Texas
1. Type of Action. (xx) Administrative ( ) Legislative
2. Environmental Setting and Existing Problems.
General setting. Albuquerque lies along the Rio Grande in a broad river
valley flanked on either side by gentle mesa uplands, backed on the east by the
rugged Sandia Mountains. The valley, mesa and mountain regions represent
the basic environmental units of the planning area, which encompasses the City
of Albuquerque, major populated portions of Bernalillo County and the incorporated
villages of Corrales, Los Ranchos de Albuquerque and Tijeras. This area had a
population of about 375,000 „'.n 1975, four-fifths within the City. Albuquerque is
actively growing, and is expected to reach a population of between 590,000
and 687,000 by the year 2000. For environmental analyses the planning area
extends downstream to Elephant Butte Dam and Reservoir, the southern limit of the
Middle Rio Grande Basin.
Albuquerque is above an elevation of 5000 feet and has a mild, sunny, arid
climate. Air pollution problems are serious and worsening due to emissions
from vehicular traffic aggravated by natural pollutants and climatic conditions.
Geologically, most of the area is characterized by a thick basin-fill of
alluvial sediments which is an excellent aquifer; however, the mountains are
underlain by consolidated rocks with poor water-bearing properties. No
unusual geologic resources or hazards have been identified. Soils tend to
be loamy along the valley bottom, sandy on the mesas and rocky in the mountains
and in the volcanoes area west of the City.
The Rio Grande is a perennial stream with a median discharge of 600 cubic-
feet per second. Flow is erratic from year to year and season to season, and
much of the discharge is carried outside the channel in irrigation ditches.
Prolonged periods of no-flow have been observed in the river as it passes
through Albuquerque. In the Middle Rio Grande Basin surface water resources are
scarce, and demands are high for downstream irrigation, recreation and support
of fisheries and wildlife habitat. Extensive governmental modification programs
have been undertaken to maximize the surface water supply and to obtain flood
control. River flooding has largely been controlled by structural
modifications, and damage from mountain and mesa arroyo floods is gradually being
reduced. Over the next few decades the programs will tend to stabilize the
river flow regime somewhat, and will slightly increase total discharge.
Ground water resources are excellent in the area of basin-fill, where an
almost unlimited fresh water supply is available. City wells tap this resource
and divert approximately 80,000 acre-feet per year at present, causing river flows
to be reduced by about 50,000 acre-feet. The water table tends to slope south
and west toward and along the axis of the valley. Beneath the river floodplain
ground water is normally within 5-20 feet of the surface throughout the year.
In the mountain area ground water conditions are varied, and supplies are limited
or locally unavailable.
Forested areas support good wildlife habitat in the mountains, while the
mesas are characterized by generally poor grass and shrublands of much lower
wildlife value. Along the river are found woodlands and wetlands of considerable
significance to waterfowl and other wildlife. In downstream areas these habitats
i
-------
support valuable wildlife refuges which are frequented by several endangered
and threatened bird species. Elephant Butte Reservoir is the only significant
aquatic ecosystem and fishery in the Basin; productivity is limited by physical
factors such as high natural turbidity.
Land use is characterized by urban sprawl in much of the valley and mesa
area, with semi-rural, rural, open and vacant lands elsewhere. Federal, Indian
and State lands abut the planning area on three sides. Large portions of the
valley remain in irrigated agriculture, especially south of the City and east of
the river. Beyond the City limits much of the mesa is grazing land awaiting
development. Most of the mountain area is within Cibola National Forest;
semi-rural development occurs in lower-lying sections.
The City/County Comprehensive Plan forcefully states long-term planning
goals, which are to support growth through infill of the already urbanized area,
with some extension of development onto the adjacent mesas. The remaining rural
portions of the valley, mesa and mountains are to be protected for low-density
or open space uses. Historically, market forces have tended to lead to develop-
ment of these rural lands, despite zoning, taxation and other measures which
are used to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
Albuquerque has a relatively healthy economy, but with a high incidence of
low-income families, especially in the valley. The population is ethnically
diverse with a large Spanish-surnamed component. Government facilities and
services are well developed within the City limits, but much less available
outside. For example, densely populated unincorporated areas in Bernalillo
County normally rely on household wells for water, and septic tanks for waste
disposal.
Archeological sites are abundant throughout the area, especially near
existing and former water bodies. Remains of the Pueblo and early Spanish
cultures are especially significant, but much of the resource has been destroyed
by development and agriculture. Recreation is focused on developed parks, the
National Forest, and at Elephant Butte Reservoir. Increasing interest is being
shown toward use of the river environs within Albuquerque for recreational
pursuits, including direct use for swimming and boating. Many irrigation drains
are stocked for fishing purposes.
Wastewater facilities. Municipal sewers extend throughout the City and
collect domestic and industrial liquid wastes which are then treated at one or
both of two central treatment plants. The plants are south of the City center,
adjacent to the Rio Grande. Plant #1 is in an industrial/commercial neighborhood,
while #2 is in a rural setting near the community of Mountainview. The two
facilities use trickling filters to provide initial treatment; all wastewater is
then pumped to brand-new activated sludge units at Plant //2, and further treated
until effluent quality meets the standards now required by Federal regulations.
In mid-1976 the total wastewater treated was about 36 million gallons per day
(mgd). All effluent was discharged to the Rio Grande. This discharge provided
the City with a water rights credit of AO,000 acre-feet/year, offsetting most of
the pumping effects of City wells. The new activated sludge facilities are now
operating at near-capacity and will be expanded to process about 47 mgd by late
1979 or early 1980. The expansion, which is funded largely by grants outside the
scope of this EIS, is known as Phase IA.
Sludge handling facilities which digest and dewater the solids produced
by wastewater treatment are deficient at Plant #2, and will be expanded during
Phase IA. Digested sludge is used as a soil conditioner at City parks. Sludge
gas is burned to generate electricity. Chlorination is used on some sewer lines
and at the treatment works in order to control odors and kill off disease-
causing bacteria.
ii
-------
Outside the City limits, the common practice is to dispose of wastewater
via on-site systems (OSS) such as cesspools and septic tanks: about 20,000 such
systems occur in the planning area. The OSS discharge about 6 mgd of wastewater
into area soils. Sewer extensions have been approved for a portion of the South
Valley, and will replace about one-third of the OSS. A small independent treat-
ment plant serves the needs of Sandia Heights. Separate facilities also serve
parts of Kirtland Base which is outside the jurisdiction of the Albuquerque
planning study.
Problems related to wastewater management. Many significant existing and
potential future environmental problems are related to wastewater management in
the Albuquerque area, including: growth and land use; surface water quality;
ground water quality; operation and maintenance; odors; and resource management.
Growth projections in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan indicate that
present treatment capacity will become inadequate shortly after 1980. The
Comprehensive Plan requires that any expansion in capacity, and especially extensions
of sewer lines, be carefully coordinated with land use policies. In particular
it is considered critical that sewer service not be provided in rural or open
areas unless such areas are urbanizing in accordance with established policies,
or unless the sewers are essential for environmental protection.
No major adverse water quality impacts can be reasonably attributed to the
discharge of contaminants in City wastewater. At present only the stream
standard for fecal coliform bacteria is widely violated in the Middle Rio Grande
Basin; Albuquerque effluent is considered to be a minor source of this problem.
Albuquerque's wastewater will be required to meet secondary treatment standards
set forth in a NPDES permit. The potential exists that additional
treatment mighr eventually be needed to control possible pollution related to
the discharge of nutrients, salts and/or metals. However the need for such treat-
ment before the year 2000 cannot be demonstrated at this time. Reports prepared
by the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission indicate that non-point source?,
including natural runoff, are the most significant origin of contaminants which
may interfere with beneficial water uses. The Commission has also found that
water quality per se is not the crucial factor limiting aquatic productivity
and recreation potential m the Basin. Physical factors such as water supply
fluctuations and the impact of hydrologic modification projects severely restrict
aquatic ecosystems and flat-water recreation in the river system, and to a lesser
extent adversely effect the value of Elephant Butte Reservoir for these uses.
The massive reliance on on-site systems for waste disposal in unincorporated
areas appears to have contributed to widespread degradation of ground water in
the shallow aquifer beneath the Rio Grande floodplain. Agricultural practices
and animal confinement facilities are also thought to contribute to this pollution,
which is characterized by elevated levels of dissolved solids and hardness,
excess concentrations of iron and manganese, and higher-than-background amounts
of nitrate-nitrogen. The contamination impairs some domestic water supplies,
leads to surface water pollution, and is a long-term threat to the deeper
aquifers which are used as the municipal water source. Regional problems of
bacteria contamination and adverse public health impacts have not been identified,
but local problems may occur due to site-specific unsanitary conditions.
Such conditions stem primarily from the widespread use of on-site systems in
close conjunction with household wells on small lots where the water table is
shallow or where flooding or soil percolation limitations exist- An extreme
iii
-------
nitrate contamination problem has been observed in the Tijeras and Mountainview
areas, where many water supplies do not meet health standards. The best evidence
now available suggests that natural sources are probably responsible; on-site
systems are only a minor cause of the problem.
Odors have been and remain the most significant adverse impact on the
environment from Albuquerque wastewater facilities. Both treatment plants, portions
of the sewerage system, and areas of high density OSS use have been sources of
chronic odors. These problems are especially severe in the South Valley where
they combine with odors from animal confinement facilities to significantly
degrade the quality of life. The odors at the treatment plants reflect physical
limitations of the facilities inadequate operation and maintenance, inadequate
budgets and inadequate levels of staffing. In 1973 a legal document known as the
Stipulation resolved a lawsuit which was partly related to odor problems and required
the City to implement Best Practicable Control Technology for odor control. Progress
on such control has been slow and has elicited extensive adverse public comment.
In 1976 when the activated sludge units at Plant #2 were brought into operation,
the lack of adequate sludge-handling facilities resulted in critical operational
deficiencies and severe odors. The City proposes to solve these problems
with emergency operational procedures coupled with capacity and sludge-handling
improvements constructed during the Phase IA expansion of Plant #2. Upon
completion of Phase IA some odor sources will remain; the large-scale use of
drying beds for sludge dewatering will probably be most significant.
A general concern has been expressed that wastewater management should promote
resource recycling and conservation. Exploration of effluent reuse for agriculture
and aquaculture is specifically mandated by the Stipulation. The present discharge
of effluent to the Rio Grande results in complete reuse downstream, with no
evident major adverse impacts. The present sludge recycling practices also do
not appear to adversely impact the environment. The recycling of sludge gas is
presently impaired by insufficient capacity, and some gas is flared. Scum material
is not recycled, and contributes to the overloading of sludge-handling facilities.
Resource consumption of the treatment works is not unusually high, although energy
and chemical demands are significant.
Other problems related to wastewater management in Albuquerque include:
safety hazards associated with chlorine use; the need for renovations at both
treatment plants and at most lift and chlorination stations; the presence of some
interceptor sewers which will soon become overloaded; the discharge of heavy
metals by some industries in amounts which violate the City Liquid Waste
Ordinance; high noise levels at both treatment plants, and especially near the
new pump station at Plant //2.
3. Alternatives Evaluated.
Alternatives have been developed for all aspects of wastewater management
including the collection system (and on-site systems); sites and processes for
wastewater treatment; solids handling; disinfection and chemical odor control;
and others. The general alternative of taking no action is unacceptable because
without improvements to wastewater facilities existing problems such as ground
water contamination and odors would remain, and Albuquerque would not be able
to develop in the orderly manner set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
Collection system. For settled or developing areas not now served by the
City sewerage system the two major collection alternatives are to construct
sewers or to retain the use of on-site systems (OSS) such as septic tanks and
drainfields. Major factors to be considered in evaluating these alternatives
include:
- sewers (coupled with central treatment) provide a high degree of
environmental protection, especially to ground water quality and public
health;
iv
-------
- areas with small lots and/or adverse soil and water table conditions may
not be suited for OSS;
- sewers tend to support high-density land use and may conflict with
the Comprehensive Plan in areas designated as rural and semi-rural;
- sewers generally are a higher dollar cost option than on-site systems,
especially in low-density areas;
- sewer construction causes significant short-term impacts, especially in
areas with a shallow water table or shallow bedrock.
When these factors are assessed for each portion of the planning area it is
evident that no significant obstacles exist to extending sewer service to urban
and urbanizing neighborhoods (where lots are normally smaller than one-acre).
Conversely, ir. semi-rural settings OSS appear preferrable, in order to protect the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan and reduce direct dollar costs, even though some
ground water contamination and sanitation problems may result. As most of the
rural areas are characterized by shallow water table or shallow bedrock, the use
of OSS also avoids substantial construction impacts.
Because the use of OSS in rural areas has adverse environmental effects,
the no action alternative with regard to OSS management is undesirable. The
simplest and least costly alternative is to upgrade government regulation of
on-site systems, by requiring the use of advanced units such as aerobic tanks
and evapotranspiration fields on sites with adverse soil or water table conditions,
and by requiring frequent inspection and upgrading of existing cesspools and
septic tanks. A greater degree of environmental protection would be obtained by
alternatives which would provide for the strong centralized management and/or
public ownership of OSS, treating the installation and operation of septic tanks
as a public utility. However, such alternatives are not yet proven and cannot
be implemented at this time.
A number of collection system alternatives relate to design or upgrading
of facilities. The lowest cost options in general are also those with the least
impact. These alternatives include: sizing and phasing of sewer lines in
accordance with population projections; selection of routes to minimize environ-
mental and other problems; use of permanent pipe materials to minimize leakage
and the need for replacement; renovations and improvements to lift and odor
control stations to provide for proper operation; construction of parallel lines
to relieve overloaded interceptors.
Treatment system: plant sites. Alternatives exist to concentrate all
facilities at Plant //2, or to provide some facilities elsewhere. Centralization
at #2 has advantages of lower treatment cost and increased reliability and ease
of operation. It also limits adverse land use impacts to a single site, and
avoids construction impacts which would occur if new facilities were constructed
elsewhere. Alternative sites include continued use of Plant //l, construction of
a major plant west of the river, and construction of a plant on the Southeast
Mesa as part of an irrigation project.
Abandonment of Plant //I would reduce long-term dollar costs, would permit
the City to concentrate its management efforts at it2, would remove a source
of odors in the Barelas neighborhood, and would permit conversion on the plant
site to industrial, commercial or recreational use. Continued operation of the
Plant has no evident environmental benefits. Construction of a Westside plant
built in the Far South Valley would eliminate the need to pump sewage across
the river to 02, but would be costly and would mandate construction of large
interceptor sewers through rural areas in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan.
No significant environmental benefits would be obtained from a Westside facility.
v
-------
The alternative of building a new plant on the Southeast Mesa is attractive
if irrigation is to be used to provide advanced treatment of wastewater.
However, development of an entirely new irrigated farm on the mesa would be
expensive in terms of both dollar and resource costs, especially as it would
add a major new source of water depletion to the already water-short Rio Grande
Basin. Construction impacts would also be very significant, and long-term air
pollution problems related to wind erosion could result. Irrigation sites other
than the Southeast Mesa all have similar or greater drawbacks.
Alternatives were evaluated with regard to small treatment plants to
serve Sandia Heights (existing), Corrales, Tijeras, the Far South Valley and the
Far North Valley. At this time a need can be demonstrated only for the Sandia
Heights facility; its continued use would conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
Treatment system: process. The primary alternative for meeting NPDES
requirements is to expand the activated sludge facilities at Plant #2 as needed
to provide adequate capacity. Advantages of this course of action include: low
dollar costs compared to other options; significant removal of nutrients and
metals; ability to be modified through add-on of advanced treatment processes
to achieve any degree of nutrient or toxic substance removal which might reasonably
be expected to be required in the future; minimal land requirements; potential
for nearly complete odor control. Disadvantages include significant energy use,
and the large sludge volumes produced by the process.
The alternative of developing a large-scale irrigation program to provide
secondary treatment is not cost effective because of high dollar and resource
costs and potential impacts related to clearing of highly erodible soils. More
favorable cost factors are associated with the option of constructing primary
clarifiers at Plant if2, and then disposing of the effluent by infiltration/
percolation through seepage ponds east of Mountainview. Potential benefits
ascribed to this alternative are small and include: some reduction in energy
use; some increase in nutrient and metals removal; and possible increased
ground water supplies. Drawbacks are significant: a large land requirement;
increased water depletions; no agricultural or other productive use of the
water depleted; potential for major odor problems.
Given existing effluent regulations and quality there is no evidence to
indicate that special nutrient or metals removal processes are needed. In fact,
as such processes are expensive and involve considerable resource use, they
should be undertaken only when benefits can be clearly demonstrated. Of the
available options for nitrogen removal those involving land application have
already been discussed; a number of others would be feasible only if implemented
as part of the next plant expansion, which will probably occur before any new
standards are adopted. The most reliable alternative which could be added on
to activated sludge units at any time is a three-stage nitrification-denitrification
process; the process could be sized to provide as much N-removal as required.
Phosphorus removal by chemical precipitation could also be added, if and when
needed; it would greatly increase sludge handling problems. One alternative
to expensive advanced treatment processes is expected to be studied further
during the next several years—land application on existing irrigated fields of
the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District.
Solids handling. A number of alternatives are available to improve solids
handling capabilities at Plant //2, including: mechanical thickening instead of
gravity thickening; mechanical dewatering instead of sand-bed dewaterine: and use
of aerobic digesters for waste activated sludge, instead of anaerobic digesters.
While these new processes would increase energy consumption by a small amount, they
vi
-------
would considerably improve odor control and thus have substantial environmental
benefits. Continued use of sludge as a fertilizer/dressing for City parks is
not expected to lead to environmental problems. Alternatives include: sale
for rangeland use; disposal by landfill; use of thermoradiated sludge as an
animal feed supplement. The latter has the most potential for fully utilizing
the resource value of sludge, but has not yet been demonstrated to be safe
and economically feasible. Disposal by landfill is acceptable if sludge
volume exceeds the demand for park fertilizer.
Disinfection and chemical odor controls. Chlorine use to control
odors along the sewer system and to disinfect treated effluent has many
environmental drawbacks: chlorine is a hazardous substance which may be released
accidently in toxic quantities; its use results in chlorine residuals and
chloramines which adversely affect aquatic life; its use may result in
production of chlorinated hydrocarbons suspected of being carcinogenic; it
does not kill off all disease-causing organisms, especially virus materials.
For odor control along the sewer lines an alternative with many environ-
mental advantages exists—use of hydrogen peroxide. Benefits include minimal
safety hazards, no adverse water quality effects and increased dissolved oxygen
levels in raw wastewater reaching the treatment plant. The cost of replacing
chlorination units by hydrogen peroxide is only slightly higher than the cost
of upgrading the units. For disinfection at Plant //2 the only alternative
which would substantially reduce water quality impacts is the use of ozone; this
option has the added advantage that virus control is relatively effective. At
present, ozone use is not yet well enough established at a reasonable cost to
make it preferable over chlorine use, especially as its production would require
considerable energy resources. Alternatives for other aspects of solids handling
include collection and recycling of scum and recycling of all digester gas to
generate electricity for plant operations. These options promote resource reuse
without having significant adverse impacts on the environment.
Other. The present practice of discharging effluent to the Rio Grande
benefits the water resources of the Middle Rio Grande Basin; all City
wastewater is used for beneficial purposes downstream. Alternatives which
could provide more direct reuse benefits include: irrigation; aquaculture;
silviculture; cooling water; recreation. Only one cost-effective option can now
be identified, sale of 1 mgd of effluent to Public Service Company of New Mexico
for use as boiler cooling water at a power plant. Of the remaining alternatives,
irrigation reuse and aquaculture are not now practicable, but are worth consideration
in the future. In particular, it may prove feasible to discharge effluent
directly to downstream irrigation systems to increase nutrient recycling.
Management alternatives available to the City include: progressive
enforcement of the Liquid Waste Ordinance to reduce metals levels; operation
of a toxic metals disposal facility; promotion of water conservation programs
to reduce wastewater flows; energy conservation at treatment facilities; use
of solar energy where feasible; noise controls at Plant #2. These alternatives
generally have environmental and other benefits, and no significant adverse
impacts.
4. Proposed Actions.
It is proposed to construct 105 miles of new interceptor and collector
sewer lines within the planning area by 1995 to serve the following areas:
-------
Arenal District, South Valley; south and eastern part of the North Valley;
portions of the Southeast Valley near Treatment Plant #2, including Mountainview;
developing portions of the West Mesa; developed and developing portions of the
Candelaria and North Industrial Parks and North Albuquerque Acres; Four Hills
and other parts of the Northeast Heights. Also, relief interceptors will be
constructed parallel to overloaded lines and lift and odor control stations will
be upgraded. Permanent pipe will be used for all facilities; each line will be
designed and placed in accordance with population projections based on the
Comprehensive Plan. Chlorination control stations will be changed over to
utilize hydrogen peroxide. The total cost of the sewerage system improvements
is estimated at $25,000,000.
New requirements are proposed for the on-site sys terns which will be utilized
elsewhere in the planning area. Regulations will be modified to require the
use of advanced aerated or evapotranspiration units at sites not suited for the
conventional septic tank and drainfield. More frequent inspections of
existing units, to detect sanitation problems, are also proposed.
It is proposed that the activated sludge facilities at Plant #2 be expanded
to accommodate projected population growth and wastewater flow increases as
follows: Phase IA, 47 mgd capacity by 1979 (already approved); Phase II,
59 mgd capacity by 1983; and Phase III, 76 mgd capacity by about 1990. All
facilities would be designed to meet NPDES permit requirements. For emergency
odor control purposes it is proposed that thickener units be included in
Phase IA. Phase II will involve elimination of Plant //I and a number of
modifications and improvements to Plant //2. Mechanical sludge dewatering will
replace sandbed drying; preliminary treatment facilities will be provided for the
activated sludge units; scum handling and improved gas recycling facilities will be
constructed; an administration/laboratory building and a rail line for chlorine
delivery will be built; aerobic digesters are tentatively to be used for waste
activated sludge; existing trickling filter facilities will be renovated.
The completion of the measures set forth in Phase II is expected to achieve Best
Practicable Control Technology for odors. However, the most serious existing
odor problems will be solved earlier, upon completion of Phase IA in 1978 and
1979. The total cost of the treatment plant actions will be $18,000,000.
It is proposed that 1 mgd of effluent be sold to Public Service Company
of New Mexico for use as cooling water. All other effluent will be discharged to
the Rio Grande as at present. Sludge will be used as fertilizer/dressing on
City parks. Scum and digester gas will also be recycled. Grit will be
disposed of by sanitary landfill. Progressive enforcement of the Liquid
Waste Ordinance will reduce industrial metals discharges to the collection system.
If necessary, the City will construct a toxic waste facility for processing
of industrial sludges. Over time, energy and water conservation programs
will be implemented.
It is proposed that additional actions be reevaluated during the next
20 years, and that they be implemented if changing factors lead to a favorable
cost-effective analysis. These actions include: construction of sewers in
presently rural areas, should the areas urbanize despite implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan; centralized management of on-site systems; land application
of effluent, especially on existing farms in the Middle Rio Grande Basin;
advanced treatment of effluent, in the event a nitrogen or phosphorus effluent
standard is established; use of ozone for wastewater disinfection; thermoradiation
of sludge.
The City is committed to measures which include improved operation and
maintenance of all facilities, through necessary repairs and rehabilitation,
reorganization and increased staffing, and improved process control. EPA
will assure the proper operation and maintenance of the facilities by require-
ments for a Plan of Operation, operation and maintenance manuals, enforcement
viii
-------
of the NPDES permit, requirements for an adequate users fee, and requirements for
State inspections. EPA will assure the adequate design and construction of major
facilities by requirements for a value engineering analysis, and by use of con-
struction inspection services under contract to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
5. Environmental Impacts
The proposed actions will accommodate the orderly growth of the Albuquerque
area; protect and improve water quality and water supply conditions in Albuquerque
and downstream; implement Best Practicable Technology for odor control; conform
to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo Comprehensive Plan; and benefit long-term
productivity. Unavoidable adverse impacts include those related to project
construction and operation, and are considered minor. No alternatives exist
which would increase benefits and reduce adverse effects. The actions conform
to requirements set forth in the NPDES permit, Basin Plan and Stipulation.
Short-term impacts. Existing odor problems and contamination caused by
on-site systems in densely settled valley areas will remain until appropriate
portions of the project are completed. In the case of odors, serious potential
problems will remain until 1978-1980, and some odors may be of concern
until 1983. The major adverse impact of the proposed actions is the short-term
effect of construction, especially for interceptor sewers built in the valley
or in undeveloped portions of the mesas. The adverse effects may include: dust,
erosion, noise, vehicle emissions, disruption of traffic and utility service,
disturbance or loss of unregistered archeological and historical sites, and
water-table drawdown caused by dewatering. The City will develop' a specific
environmental protection program to mitigate site-specific impacts of each project.
An archeological survey will be part of the design phase of each project, and
archeological clearance will be required as a grant condition.
Long-term impacts. The proposed actions have substantial beneficial long-
term effects, including: protection of water quality in the Middle Rio Grande
Basin for all existing beneficial water uses; reduction of contamination
associated with extensive use of on-site systems and a corresponding reduction in
sanitation and health problems; augmentation of flows in the Rio Grande,
especially during drought periods; provision of a water supply to support down-
stream irrigation, wetland habitats,aquatic ecosystems and flat-water recreation;
protection of a substantial water rights credit; elimination of significant odor
problems; elimination of safety hazards associated with chlorine use at odor
control stations; recycling of waste materials such as sludge, sludge gas
and scum; availability of 25 acres at Plant //I for an alternative use.
It is probable that fecal coliform contamination will be reduced as the result
of elimination of on-site systems; however, stream standards may not be met
because of the influence of other non-point sources. The projected improvement
in ground water quality will occur only over a prolonged period, and will not
necessarily lead to drinking water standards being met in the shallow aquifer.
The proposed actions also have some adverse long-term impacts, including:
consumption of energy, materials, chemicals and financial resources; generation
of small amounts of non-recycled wastes and pollutants, such as grit and emissions
from sludge gas burning; reduction in recharge in valley areas, due to elimination
of on-site systems; continued discharge of pollutants from the on-site systems
which remain in the area; commitment of 25 acres of farm land at Plant #2.
It is likely that the actions will cause substantial increases in sewer fees
charged to all customers. It will be necessary to continue to monitor potential
adverse long-term impacts such as increased salinity, impairment of water use
for irrigation, and excess nutrient loadings at Elephant Butte Reservoir. The
proposed actions do not foreclose any decisions which might be needed should
such impacts be observed.
ix
-------
Secondary impacts. The proposed actions conform to the policies and
goals of the City/County Comprehensive Plan. In so doing they minimize
adverse secondary effects, help restrict development in environmentally
sensitive areas, and promote a more efficient urban form which in turn will
help minimize problems such as vehicle travel, air pollution and energy use.
However, in some areas sewer construction will remove a constraint to development,
requiring other measures to be used to implement the Comprehensive Plan. The
substantial investment in construction projects and operation of facilities
will provide jobs and stimulate the local and regional economy. Adverse
economic effects will be felt by the on-site systems industry.
Persons who now use on-site systems, and who will obtain access to
sewers, should experience an increase in property values and property
taxes, increased access to financial institutions, reduced sanitation-related
health problems, and lower total costs for liquid waste disposal. Overall
these effects will improve the economic condition of many residents, especially
in neighborhoods now marked by a high frequency of low-income families.
The quality of life in the vicinity of Plant //I and it2 should be sub-
stantially improved. Areas which retain the use of on-site systems will be
affected by an increased degree of government regulation.
6. Coordination and Review.
The City of Albuquerque held four public hearings and numerous informal
open meetings in 1975 and 1976 to discuss alternative wastewater management
actions.
The draft environmental statement was distributed on June 14, 1977 to
agencies, organizations and individuals who are identified on the attached
distribution list. A public hearing on the draft statement was held in
Albuquerque on July 20, 1977. Comments on the draft were received through
August 8, 1977. No testimony or comments were received which indicated
significant objections to the proposed actions. Testimony and comments
indicated matters requiring clarification or restatement, and expressed
concerns that some alternatives should be reevaluated at appropriate points
in the future. The most common point made in the testimony and comments was
that assurances were needed that the design, construction and operation of
the proposed facilities would in fact achieve the recognized planning goals.
Federal Offices (other than EPA).
Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D. C.
Bureau of Reclamation, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bureau of Reclamation, Amarillo, Texas
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bureau of Land Management, Santa Fe, New Mexico
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Albuquerque, New Mexico
National Park Service, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Army Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Kirtland Air Force Base, Albuquerque, New Mexico
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.
Farmers Home Administration, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Farmers Home Administration, Washington, D.C.
Soil Conservation Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico
U.S. Forest Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Cibola National Forest, Albuquerque, New Mexico
x
-------
Four Corners Regional Commission, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Federal Energy Administration, Washington, D.C.
Energy Research and Development Administration, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Department of Transportation, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C.
Federal Commissioner and Chairman, Rio Grande Compact Commission, Denver, Colorado
Honorable Pete Domenici, U.S. Senate
Honorable Harrison J. Schmitt, U.S. Senate
Honorable Manuel Lujan,Jr..U.S., House of Representatives
State Agencies (all Santa Fe, New Mexico)
State Planning Office (A-95 Clearinghouse)
State Historical Preservation Officer
Environmental Improvement Agency
State Engineer Office
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Parks and Recreation
Museum of New Mexico
Governor's Office
Legislative Council
Other Agencies
City of Albuquerque
Museum of Albuquerque
Environmental Planning Commission, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bernalillo County
Village of Corrales
Village of Los Ranchos de Albuquerque
Village of Tijeras
Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Southern Rio Grande Council of Governments, Las Cruces, New Mexico
Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo and Flood Control Authority
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Elephant Butte Irrigation District, Las Cruces, New Mexico
El Paso County Water Improvement District, El Paso, Texas
International Boundary and Water Commission, El Paso, Texas
Governor, Isleta Pueblo
Governor, Sandia Pueblo
Irrigation Committee, Middle Rio Grande Pueblos, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Water Resources Research Institute, Las Cruces, New Mexico
Environmental Organizations; Individuals*
Southwest Research and Information Center, Albuquerque, New Mexico
New Mexico Citizens for Clean Air and Water, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Sierra Club Albuquerque Chapter, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Sierra Club Rio Grande Chapter, Santa Fe, New Mexico
Central New Mexico Audubon Society, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Southwest New Mexico Audubon Society, Albuquerque, New Mexico
National Wildlife Federation, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Albuquerque Wildlife Federation
League of Woman Voters, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Central Clearing House, Santa Fe, New Mexico
New Mexico Ornithological Society, Albuquerque, New Mexico
*includes all parties to the Stipulation
xi
-------
National Audubon Society, New York, New York.
Environmental Defense Foundation, East Setauket, New York
Conservation Action League, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Council of Garden Clubs, Albuquerque, New Mexico
New Mexico Conservation Coordination Council, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Izaak Walton League of America, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Trout Unlimited - Rio Grande Chapter, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Bosque del Rio Grande Nature Preserve Society, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Southwest Valley Area Council, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Mountainview Community Improvement Association, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Natural Resource Defense Council, Washington, D.C.
Regional Environmental, Education, Research and Improvement Organization,
Las Cruces, New Mexico
New Mexico Public Interest Research Group, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Charles Hyder, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Don Bartholomey, Albuquerque, New Mexico
John Wainwright Evans, Jr., Sunspot, New Mexico
Gloria Noland, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Joseph Green, Sr., Albuquerque, New Mexico
Hazel E. Snyder, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Stanley and Betty Read, Albuquerque, New Mexico
G. Stanley Smith, Las Cruces, New Mexico
A1 Church, Albuquerque, New Mexico
H. Donald Sivinski, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Rick Stewart, Albuquerque, New Mexico
James Kunkel, Denver, Colorado
Sandra Simons, Bluewater, New Mexico
Other Organizations
Public Service Company of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Sandia Peak Tramway Company, Albuquerque, New Mexico
Hygea Septic Tank Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico
xii
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.0 BACKGROUND
Albuquerque lies along the Rio Grande Valley at the foot of the Sandia
Mountains in north-central New Mexico (Figures 1-1 and 1-2). For 200 centuries
or longer people have been attracted to the area by a healthful climate, by
striking scenery, and especially by the presence of a river which provided
ample water and which created an oasis of fertile green bottom land amid the
surrounding desert. Until late in the 1800's the population was small, agrarian
and dispersed in Indian and Spanish villages. Within the past century the urban
complex of Albuquerque began to develop, first as the transportation and commer-
cial hub of New Mexico, and more recently as the State's employment center,
reflecting Federal investments at defense establishments as well as expanded
manufacturing and trade activity. Rapid growth since 1950 has brought the
metropolitan population to about 375,000 in early 1976, making Albuquerque by
far the largest urban center in New Mexico, and one of the major cities of the
southwestern U.S. Although the rate of growth has slowed, forecasts suggest
that the population could increase by 50% or more in the next 20 years.
One major factor affecting environmental quality in the area is the manage-
ment of municipal wastewater - domestic and industrial sewage. The proper collec-
tion, treatment and ultimate disposal of these liquid wastes is essential for
reasons which include: 1) protection of ground water resources which provide the
regional supply of drinking water; 2) protection of the scarce supply of surface
water which supports extensive agricultural activity, water-based recreation, and
valuable wildlife habitat; 3) coordination of sewer system planning with overall
goals of comprehensive local and regional planning; 4) control of environmental
hazards and nuisances such as toxic substances and odors.
Clearly, part of any effort to enhance Albuquerque's environment will be a
plan to provide adequate wastewater management. Stimulus to prepare such a plan
has been provided by laws and decisions of the Federal government, as described
below.
1.1 THE FEDERAL ROLE
In 1972 Congress enacted Public Law 92-500, Amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, in order to establish a comprehensive set of laws which
would "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of
the Nation's waters". Because municipal sewage is one of the major sources of
water pollution in the U.S., Title II of the new law provided for an expanded
program of Federal assistance in the construction of sewage treatment facilities,
and gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to fund such activi-
ties provided that State and local governments supply 25% of the necessary
financial support. The EPA grants are normally given in three steps or phases:
1) initial planning; 2) detailed design; 3) actual construction. Under the law
-1-
-------
FIGURE 1-1. AERIAL VIEW OF ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO. This oblique photo was taken from directly above the Rio
Grande near the southern end of the planning area in June, 1976, and looks NNE. Treatment Plant #2 is in the
foreground; #1 is in the middle distance on the left. The fertile Valley is clearly seen, and includes down-
town Albuquerque just north of Plant //1. The Heights area occupies the Mesa lands to the east in the middle
distance, with the Sandia Mountains dominating the eastern skyline. The Jemez and Sangre de Cristo Mountains
are faintly seen on the western skyline; the volcanoes and west mesa areas are not shown in this photo.
-------
Colorado
-3-
USGS BASE MAP
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
LOCATION MAP
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
FIGURE 1-2
-------
the initial planning phase is emphasized, and must involve a long-range look
at the many options available to a city for collection, treatment, and ulti-
mate disposal or reuse of water-borne wastes.
The City of Albuquerque, New Mexico has received Federal Grant C-35-1020-01
(as amended), the purpose of which is to plan for an area-wide wastewater collec-
tion and treatment system. Such a plan could lead to decisions which would have
significant environmental effects. Whenever Federal funds are involved in a
proposed action which would have such an effect, the law requires that the funding
agency prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). As provided in Section
102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the statement must
consider:
a) the environmental impact of the proposed action;
b) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided
should the project be implemented;
c) alternatives to the proposed action;
d) the relationship between local short-term effects on man's
environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
productivity; and
e) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
which would be involved due to the implementation of the
proposed action.
In addition to providing jrant funds, has specified discharge standards to
be met by effluent from Albuquerque's facilities. These standards are discussed in
Section 2.4.1.
1.2 THE STIPULATION
This EIS has been written with special consideration given to fulfilling
obligations set forth in a legal document which is commonly known as
"the Stipulation". The Stipulation represents the settlement of a 197 3
lawsuit (Mt. View et al. vs. Fri et al.) in which several citizen groups
protested the use of Federal funds to support construction of wastewater
facilities in Albuquerque, on the basis that no environmental impact statement
was prepared prior to issuance of the construction grant monies. The
Stipulation, which was agreed to by the City, EPA and the New Mexico
Environmental Improvement Agency, mandates that a number of specific
steps be taken with regard to the City's wastewater management program.
These steps are referred to in appropriate sections of the EIS; for example,
the control of odors and heavy metals is discussed in Section 2.1.3.
The Stipulation also requires that this EIS must provide:
"An adequate analysis of alternative practical methods of utilizing,
as nutrients, phosphorus and/or nitrogen in the wastewater of the City,
including, but not necessarily limited to:
(1) cropland spray irrigation and other agricultural use of the
effluent of the wastewater plants; and
(2) aquacultural use of the effluent;
and an analysis of these and other alternatives to increasing the activated
sludge capacity (of existing treatment plants)."
-4-
-------
1.3 STANDARDS AND GOALS
A number of criteria are important for use in evaluating alternative
programs to manage Albuquerque's wastewater. These criteria include standards
and goals which relate to water quality, land use planning, air quality
and odor control, and other aspects of environmental quality. A compilation
of such criteria was prepared by Wilson (1976). Important standards and
goals are discussed in appropriate sections of this EIS, including:
- chemical and bacteriological standards which apply to wastewater
discharges (Section 2.4.1);
- chemical and bacteriological standards which apply to surface and
ground water in the Rio Grande Basin (Section 2.4.1);
- land use planning goals set forth in the Albuquerque/Bernalillo
County Comprehensive Plan (Section 2.6.2);
- odor control objectives (Section 2.2.4); and others.
General goals of wastewater management in the Albuquerque area are discussed
in Section 1.4.
In evaluating alternative actions the technique of cost-effective
analysis is used. The analysis involves comparing all alternatives in a
logical, objective and systematic manner in order to identify their merits
and deficiencies. Where practical the comparisons are made in a quanti-
tative way; ^n many cases they involve use of monetary values. The goal
of the analysis is to identify the most cost-effective alternative, which
is the option that:
achieves all the specified standards and goals, and
- does so with the minimum long-term cost to society, that is with
the least realistic combination of dollar expenditures, environ-
mental sacrifices and social burdens.
While quantitative and monetary terms are used in the analysis, cost-
effective evaluations do not require translation of all environmental values
and concerns into numbers. Qualitative and subjective judgements are invar-
iably involved. Consequently the results are neither absolute nor fixed.
1.4 SUMMARY OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES
In the public meetings held during the planning process, a number of
issues have been discussed. The major ones are summarized below.
i) Existing collection and treatment facilities are not adequate to
serve anticipated growth; new construction is therefore necessary. The
phasing of construction is important, in order to provide sufficient capacity
to handle projected waste loads without incurring unnecessary or premature
costs.
-5-
-------
ii) Effluent discharged by the City treatment works may potentially
harm water uses in the Rio Grande Basin and in Elephant Butte Reservoir.
It has been suggested that treatment may be needed to remove toxic metals,
nutrients, or other contaminants which might adversely affect fish, wild-
life, recreation or diversion of river water for irrigation. The need
for such treatment must be assessed, and alternate treatment programs
evaluated.
iii) Effluent reuse is considered very desirable in an arid region.
Reuse for agriculture is of special interest because it would provide for
beneficial use of nutrients in the municipal wastewater. Other reclamation
options such as ground water recharge should also be investigated. Management
of water rights must be considered in evaluating reuse alternatives.
iv) Odors from the treatment plants and portions of the sewer net-
work have provoked many public complaints. Selection of cost-effective
odor control alternatives is thus a major concern of the planning effort.
v) On-site waste disposal in semi-rural and semi-urban areas needs
to be improved, or replaced by public sewers. The Comprehensive Plan
stresses the need to extend sewers only where necessary, and to design
them in a manner which will minimize the potential for urbanization.
vi) Alternate sites for new treatment plants must be considered,
whether for major facilities or for satellite units which would operate
in conjunction with some or all of the existing system. Satellite plants
are of special interest where they would promote effluent reuse, reduce
odor problems, or minimize the need for sewer extensions.
vii) Projected increases in sludge production will require that
alternatives for sludge disposal or reuse be considered in detail.
viii) There is a growing public concern to minimize costs and
promote efficient use of resources. Alternatives which would minimize use
of energy or chemicals, or promote reuse of substances normally considered
waste will be of particular interest.
1.5 SCOPE OF THIS DOCUMENT
This EIS is the result of a joint effort between EPA and the City
of Albuquerque, and is intended to provide essential information regarding
the options available for collection, treatment and disposal/reuse of
Albuquerque's liquid wastes over the next 20 years. The focus is on
problems which can be solved through local changes in policies and
operations or through construction of new or modified facilities. This
focus is intended to permit citizens and government officials to make
an informed choice among the available alternates, so that the decisions
made will lead directly to actions which will enhance environmental
quality.
-6-
-------
Not every wastewater problem can be solved directly by construction
or through local policy changes. Some environmental concerns require
a regional or long-term solution. Many of these larger resource manage-
ment issues cannot be completely resolved until two other on-going research
programs are completed. One of these programs involves analysis of regional
water resource management issues in the greater Albuquerque area and is
being conducted by the District Office of the Army Corps of Engineers.
This study will consider water supply, flood control and water-based
recreation. The second program is being conducted by the New Mexico
Water Quality Control Commission and the New Mexico Environmental Improve-
ment Agency under Section 208 of P.L. 92-500. Section 208 is concerned
with areawide wastewater treatment needs and non-point sources of
pollution, such as storm runoff and agricultural return flows. The State
plan for implementing Section 208 has specified the Albuquerque Metropolitan
Area for intensive wastewater management planning (NMWQCC, 1976). The
208 program will include many work elements which will develop important
water quality data and interpretations for the Middle Rio Grande Basin
including: the impact of irrigated agriculture on water quality; the
characteristics of the nitrogen cycle; the biological availability of
nitrogen and phosphorus; nutrient inflows and outflows for Elephant Butte
Reservoir; and the significance of toxic substances.
The EIS contains, by reference, extensive technical information
which is available from other sources. Such sources are cited through-
out the EIS and include published reports, scientific journals and the
files of government agencies and private organizations. Two particular
documents have provided the greatest amount of information.
a) The Facility Plan contains the overall analysis of alternatives
which were studied as part of the City's wastewater management
plan. It is the primary source of economic and engineering
data on existing and possible future facilities. The document
is referenced as MMC (1977). Part C-l of the Facility Plan
contains a discussion of the standards, goals and selection
criteria which are outlined in Section 1.3 above.
b) The Technical Reference Document contains environmental data and
analyses compiled during preparation of the Environmental Impact
Statement. All pertinent information in the document has been
summarized in the EIS or Facility Plan, and thus the referenced
report is primarily for the use of those who have an interest
in the detailed technical documentation of environmental conditions
in the planning area. The document is cited as EPA (1977).
-7-
-------
2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Albuquerque is wholly within Bernalillo County and contains about 300,000
people within an extremely irregular corporate limit. Another 10,000 people
live in three small nearby incorporated villages: Ranchos de Albuquerque is
just north, Corrales is west of the Rio Grande in Sandoval County, and Tijeras
is in the mountains to the east. Most of the remaining population (about
65,000) lives in unincorporated areas which border the City, especially in the
area near the Rio Grande. The entire urban area is surrounded and confined on
the north, east and south by land in Federal, Indian and State ownership, in-
cluding Sandia Laboratories (Energy Research and Development Administration),
Kirtland Air Force Base, Cibola National Forest and the Sandia and Isleta
Pueblos. Scattered parcels of public land are found west of the City.
Figure 2-1 shows political boundaries and land ownership patterns near
Albuquerque. The figure also shows the boundary of the planning area
designated for detailed study as part of this Environmental Impact
Statement. The complex boundaries of the planning area reflect the political
jurisdictions noted above; most Federal, Indian and State land is excluded
even though it is an integral part of the Albuquerque environment. The
three incorporated villages have formally agreed to be included within
the planning area; Bernalillo County similarly agreed on behalf of the
unincorporated sectors.
For some purposes, especially water quality evaluations, it is necessary
to consider the environment of the entire Rio Grande drainage basin in New
Mexico; Figure 2-2 shows the boundaries and major features of this basin. The
area most directly affected by decisions made in Albuquerque is the reach of
the Rio Grande immediately downstream to the first major dam and reservoir
at Elephant Butte. As shown on the map, this reach contains many settlements,
extensive agricultural acreage, and major wildlife refuges.
2.0.1 Natural Regions
The landscape of the planning area can be divided into three distinctive
natural regions: mountain, mesa, and valley. Each region has its own char-
acteristic set of environmental resources and problems, and each can be divided
further into smaller units. The distribution of the regions and their units
is shown on Figure 2-3. Table 2-1 provides an extensive summary of the natural
and cultural features associated with the units. Because this table includes
much background material of interest to this study, it will be referred to
often in the sections which follow.
The Mountain region lies above 6000 feet elevation in the eastern part
of the planning area, and includes an upland unit—the Sandia Mountains—and
a lowland unit—Tijeras Canyon. The region is characterized by: a relatively
cool, moist climate; rugged terrain; thin rocky loam soils; small mountain
springs and streams which may flow year-round and which discharge considerable
runoff to the adjacent mesa; relatively scarce ground water resources; and
a forest or woodland vegetation which supports a diverse wildlife population
including many species of large mammals. The lowland unit contains many
-8-
-------
POLITICAL BOUNDARIES
AND
LAND OWNERSHIP
FIGURE 2-1
-------
-N-
DECLARED UNDERGROUND
WATER BASINS
4-HOT SPRINGS
• " ESTANCIA
13 ~ BLUEWATCR
14 - RIO GRANDE
IS" GILA- SAN FRANCISCO
12 " SANDIA
COLORADO
5553
DRAINAGE BASIN INDEX
teal* In milM
STATE CAPITAL
COUNTY SEAT
OTHER TOWNS
— STATE LINE
COUNTY LINE
—— DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
SUB-BASIN BOUNOARY
LANDS IRRIGATED FROM SURFACE-
WATER SOURCES
LANCS IRRIGATED FROM GROUNO"
K ^ WATER SOURCES
LANDS IRRIGATED FROM SURFACE WATER
COMBINED WITH GROUND WATER
DECLARED UNDERGROUND WATER BASINS
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
RIO GRANDE DRAINAGE
BASIN IN NEW MEXICO
-10-
FIGURE 2"2
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE 2-1. HATVRAL RZGIOWS OF TBI AUDqUElqDt AREA.TmjUHl
CLtMATR 1KD AIR CPALtTl; CZOLOC1) SOILS) BlPRULOCTt
TKCRATIOH; trtLULffRj AtCHEOUWtj LAM) 0SR,
Alluvial Fans Sand Plains Side* and TerraceJ
Extremely steep west-facing slopes,
averaging 2JX or more Varied relief,
locally exceeding 1000 feet Harked
by cliffs, pinnacles, canyons Gentle
east-facing •lope In not to planning
Rearly level, but oftea rugged canyon
1loors with steep aide* (to SOX alope),
Tijeraa Cutoq grades 8W at i—2Z and
locally broadens to an Inter-montane
basin.
Aligned amall volcanic conw surrounded Smooth but fairly steep slopca (to 10Z
by nearly levtl or eastward sloping lava and above) near mountain front, grading
flova which ccwaonly end abruptly In westward to a gently undulotlng surface
cltffa up to 100 feet high Surface with slopes of 3-5Z, and relief of tens
slope Is toward Rio Grande At 1X-15X of feet neat erroyoe
slightly concave surface* ModcTatsly tt> steeply eloping •«*
often enclosed by low, broad ridges
Local alopes Bay exceed 3X, regional
gradient la to S at It or lees.
grading froa Hess to Floodplaln
river Dppcr boundary marked by sharp
break In alope, local relief of SO feet
pins, and alopea often I0X Lower area*
gentler, smoother except below
Itm< flat vallay bottoa, grading
southward parallel to lio Grand* At about
O.IX. natural slopes do not exceed IX,
•door local relief between old terraces,
iva^i*. Man-made relief features
(streets, canals) are doailnant
CLIHATZ AHD Description Relatively moist, cool
us ruui in SiAhtEild climate Mean annual preclp-
nation In la Co jj ineh«a, aeon annual
air temperature **°F, froat-free aeaaon
60 to 100 &ayaa avatage ancwfall t>0 to
100 Inches
Coments. One of the highest Inci-
dences of thuaderatom in contiguous
0 S. Considerable frne*e-thaw effect,
rapid snownelts and rinoff oa west
faces.
Description Climate la transitional
from eubhi«ld to aeml-erld 12-18
lochea of precipitation per year,
mean annual air tesperature 4>-S5°F,
froat-trs* aeaaon 130 to 160 days.
Co—ent* Valley areas aubject to
cold alt drainage, heavy snow drifts
Pescrlpt ton Moderate seal-arid
climate, warn snd dry. Keen annual
precipitation tioa 7 to 10 laches,
mean annual air temperature 5fr-60°P,
day frost-free season
Cowaeats Snowfall less than 10
Inches per year, few relative extreme!
of any type, high Incidence of aolar
Insolation Best represented by mId
Albuquerque weather station
Description See above deocriptlon
of volcsnlc unit
Comments Like volcanic unit, except
that urbanized areas have major hydro-
csrboo, carbon Monoxide, and photo-
chemical oxidant air quality problem
Description See Volcanic Unit
doscript ion
Comments See Volcanic Unit foi
coeaeota
Peocrlptlon' Warm, dry, semi-arid Description Seal-arid bordering oa
diaate like that of mesa units, except arid climatic conditions Mean annual
that extremes are soaewhat greater praclpitaclon 7-0 laches, mean annual
Coepents Susceptible to erosion from air temperature SVSA°f, frost free
flaah flooding and wind. Air quality season 163-165 Jaya.
problem* in urbanised areas Co—rata Extreme temperature ranges,
greatest evapotraosplration rate, high
Incidence of cold sir drainage and
local Inversions. An air quality
problem area.
Cap of several hundred feet of Pcnnsyl- West face la nearly all grsnlts, south
van1an limestone layers alternating with alopes show various aetamorphics, eaat-
•hale Remaining malarial la • light
colored Precambrlan granite with gneiss,
quirttlte, greenstone and schist
Resources or hsiarde* Resources are
Halted and access reatrlcted Princi-
pal hazard la landslides
am lowlands covered with limestone,
•bale. Numerous llaastons outcrops.
Resources and hasarda limestone (for
a cement plant), shale (for a brick
company), gold, flourapar and galena
¦load Id paat Batards include laitd-
alldea «od flash flooding
Consists of lava and clodera extruded
fro* five distinct cones and eight
very small onea Activity was rela-
tively recent (Pleistocene) In tloe
and centered upon the vest aide of
tbe Rio Grande rift
Resourcea and hatsrds principle re-
source Is scoria for cinder blocks,
possible earthquake hasarda.
A series of coalescing alluvial fans
(Rajada) composed of sands snd gravela
and younger formations, deposited In a
down-dropped block (the Bio Crande
Tift)
Resourcea and hazards resourcea are
Halted to sand sod gravel, hasards
are flash flooding, eud flows, poten-
tial earth movements along fault
scarps, snd In places poor cco-
pact Ion.
See description of "alluvial fans".
Upper fill Is less well consolidated
and t«u«tfced by wind In utl«« snd
fossil dune*
Resources snd hazards* some potential
for deep gco-thermal wells, no other
significant resourcea or hazards known, a and and gravel,
as sloughing, slides,
Rivet-cut cliffs and valley sides la
older river-laid terraces Cut and
fill material Is composed of reworked
aanda and gravels of tha Santa te group
Resources and hazards" principal re-
source conalata of extensive deposits of
>n hasards sucb
and flaah
flooding la numerous arroyos
tha (op 75 feat of tbe flood plain
conalata of recant alluviual fill
fees tbe Rio Crande, below that
la much older fill of tha Santa Fa
group
Resourcea and haiarda principal
resources ara ground water, adobe
soil, and farmland Halo hazard
la flooding
Association- Rolab-Rock Outcrop
Description dsr*, well-drained
clay loaaa on ateep alopea, parent
material usually llMatone, sand-
stone or granite Rock outcrop
accounte for 30Z of association.
Wotable characteristics perme-
ability alow, slope severely lltaits
nearly all aaarelated activity,
useful for watershed, wildlife,
nature atudy
Parallel canyons (located along Jdlnta,
faults) cat In steep mountain front,
fed by short. Intermittent channels
Runoff from saowaelt, thunderstorms,
snd from springs fed by ground vate"
Cround water otherwise available In
small qusatltlea; quality generally
good Little watar use In area.
This is laportaot source of water used
elsewhere
Association1 Sels-Orthlds
Description' well drslaed stony
loams over clayey subsoil, forming
froa bedrock oa nearly Level to
steep alopea.
Rotable characteristics' severe
restriction* to engineering ac-
tivities doe to alope and bedrock
on ateeper alopes; moderate limi-
tation* where grade la leas than
1SX (Tbtse usually are eilstlng
alopes )
Structurally controlled trellla-dralaage
pattern! larger flat-bottomed canyons
fed by aLeep, parallel cauyona. In turn
fvd by asull coalescing gullies
StreAM carry saowaelt, spring-flow,
atorrS runoff; larger water eojraes such
as Tljerai Fiver are virtually perfnnlal
Host flow Infiltrates to streaa alluvi-
um or limestone aquifers Soma local
water use from shallow well*, water la
available In sufficient quantities for
doaeetlc purposes in most areas, but
la hatd and has high Iron content in
TIJeras stea
Association Alemeds-Akela
PesTlptlon' generally shallow,
well drained sandy loan, with
cinders, on moderately sloping,
lrrsgular basalt flows, 17X ex-
posed basalt
Rotable characteristics moderate
to severe limitations to overcome
for most engineering activities,
septic tanks, foundations, under-
ground utilities Basalt cobbles,
shallow bedrock and excess alopo
are problems
Irregular arroyos and snail depressions,
doreally dry, usually incised Into lavas
and grade parallel toward Rio Grande
All major flows are In direct response
to suner thuaderatorma Soma runoff
percolstas Into channel bottoms, the
rest flows to the river, loeslly
causing flood problems. Ground water
la found at considerable depth, little
information as to quantity, quality
available.
Association Tljeraa-Enbudo
IXset lotion deep, well drained
gravelly sandy loams of alluvial
faas, some clay In subsoil
Hotablc characteristics rapid
percolation rate and soderate shrlnk-
awell, otherwise faw engineering
problems, generally suitable for
urban development
Association- Hadurei-Ulnk
Pascilptlon wall drained fine sandy
loam over sandy clsy loam, formed from
unconsolidated alluvial material
Rotable characteristics moderate
sbrlnk-swoll. sloughing, and perMsbl-
llty; aay be highly corrosive, fair
sultsblllty for most activities If
used with care
Associations Bluapolnt-ICokaQ,
Haduraz-Ulnk
Description Haduret-Wink soils on
Isolated river-cut terraces, see Ssttd
Plalna for description and character-
istics Bluepolnt-Eokan soils are
excessively drained loamy and/or
gravelly sandy soils found as slopewmab
over terraces
Rotable characteristics locally sev-
ere water erosion, sedlaeotetlen,
sloughing, corroalvlty and slop* pro-
bleoo. Otherwise use potential la
moderate overall on alopea less than
15*
Mountain channels feed into many srroyoa
which spread out over the fan surface
Mountain runoff which renchos generally
pr-rcolatea Into the porous material,
this Is a oajor aource of recharge to
the teglonal ftround water supply
Sumner stoma here or In Kuntains aay
cause flash floods, nm partly controlled
by diversion ditches Ground water
found 300-1000 feet beneath the surface,
generally In considerable amounts in
sedlpeDtc of Santa Fe Ctoup, tuny munic-
ipal wells found here and obtnln water
of acceptable to good quality
Relatively snail number of broad
valleys and ponding areas, almost always
dry Some loeal .unoff following s«Mr
storms, most percolates into ground or
is lout by evsporstion Cround water
is found at consldersble depth (and
nalnly results from Inflow froa mountala
araas to the north) Uae limited at
preaent, local quality probleas, and
generally avollable in quantities
which are less than east of tha rivet,
due to lower treosmlssivlty
Upper sress hsvo closely spaced sub-
parallel gullies whLrt Join to form
arroyoa, In lower areas the arroyos
diffuse to broad, poorly defined
drainageways or sheet flow sress, snd
lean cause widespread shallow flooding
Flows occur In reppoase to aianer
atorma here or on mess Ground water
depth varies, aquifer la Santa Fa Croup
Quality la generally good, soaa wmlclpal
wells are in this unit
Association Clla-Vlnton-Braslto
Description, level to gently sloping,
V«ll-dralned loam* of the Rio Crande
floodplaln
Botable characterlatlca. principle
hasards ara shallow water table,
flooding, and dltcbback sloughing
Coed to azctlleat development po-
tential for all categories. 20X
la aallna or alkalis*
Rio Crand* la a braldad, allgbtly
meandering river which flow* at a
elevation above tbe flood plain Drain-
age is tha latter la largely Internal, or
by man-¦ aria ditches The river is fed
mainly by meltwater froa the northern
Hew Mexico mountains The flood plain
proper receives flow from local arroyoa,
flooding now being brought under control
by dlveralons snd holding poods la tbe
Valley eldes unit Cround water la very
aballow, fad by river aeepago eod percola-
tion of irrigation water, the latter Is
diverted in large wouaca froo tha Rio
Grand* River alluvlua form* an upper
aquifer up to 120 feet thick, watar la
bard and frequently rdiluted City walls
In tbe Santa Pa Croup below obtain
uod»nt water of good quality, numerous
domeatlc, cowrclal and Irrigation wells
also occur and local drawdown affects
are pronounced
-------
TABIE 2-), Cootlnued
KESA
Alluvial Tans
7ZCETATIM lone Upper Sonorsn foothills to
Canadian and Rudsonlan on peaks
Indicator species ponderosa pine,
vbite fit, Douglai-lir, Caabel oak,
Plnyon-Jimlper association below
8,000 feet
Productivity, sensitivity Opper
reaches serve aa good grazing and
cover areas for wildlife, so*c wood
catting, gathering of frulti and nuts
and recreation occur* is lowvr aria*
Vegetation la snaewhst sensitive to
over-brwsiitg and intrusloo by man.
lone Transition (plateau lands)
Indicator species soae pondeross
pine but mainly plncn pine. Juni-
per, tauntsin uhogsny, tuur, and
•Id and ahort grasses, also eholl*
and prickly pear cactus
Productivity. sensitivity Less
•olst than upland areas and there-
fore producLlvr la Hailed Soae
browsing, grazing, and fruit and
aut picking occuis, area la easily
disturbed and recovers •lowly
grasses
aa blai
winter
Prodi"-!
aargim
or bro-.
6r Lnti
cacti
IBltivl i
of I
ial productivity for grating
vslng aninals Sensitive
rgraalng, prolonged droupht
rusion by aea as collector
tl. shrubs
Zone Upper Sonoran
Indlcetnr species mostly old and
short grasses, aoae little soap-
weed (yucca), almost no native
species In urbanised mras
Productivity. eeniltlvltT mod-
erate grszlog capacity. most
disturbance, other than directly
man-related, results froa DTtr-
grazlng or drought Othervlae,
fans are not overly sensitive to
disburbance
tone Upper Sonoran
Indicator species mostly short
grasses including black (riu,
sand dropseed, Indian ricegrass,
soae sand sagebrush, snakeweed
and winter fat
ProductIvlty. eenslttvltr' Moderate
grating rapacity, good habitat for
seal-desert and grassland speciea
Vary sensitive to overrating
malin
*ed.
» and other species
Indicating distutbanca Inhabit
valley aldea, alonf with graaaea
Productivity. aensltlvlty only
marginslly productive except along
viter course*, whlrh are good wild-
life habitats Relotlvcly Insenal-
tlve to human activities because
already severely dlaturbed
Zone- Upper Sonoran grodlng slightly
Into Lower Sonorsn; Basque along water
Indicator Species alkali aacaton.
Inland saltgraaa, four-wing aolt bush,
tree* Include cottcnwoods, Russian olive,
and salt cedar
Productivity¦ sensitivity Cood natural
and agricultural productivity, average
alfalfa yield, the win crop, la 4 7
tons per acra Highest natural produc-
tivity occurs In woodlands and urahea
Indicator Species bighorn sheep,
¦ountein lino, aule deer, turkey,
bobcat, Stsllar's Jay, broad-tailed
ht^lngbird, ground aqnlrrel,
Value Breeding area* for blghoro
sheep, mount a lo lloo and otber large
an I as 1*.
Ifldlsam-Spsslw «.!¦ deer, rork
squirrel, plnyon Bouse, ployoo Jay,
skunks, rattlesnakes, fence lltsarda
9al»*e i laportant wintering area for
¦ale deer and eountaln birds, pro-
vides food and cover for aoae prairie
•BlBElS.
antelope,
lulrrel, coyote, skunk, asoy lltii
takes and predatory birds
ilu* Excellent habitat far seal-
sert speclea, goad cover for
irrowlng animals, great variety
ovldes homo for relatively nrt
ht grsilng of cattle One section
loeeted east of the river is used as ao
airport Sort* land held for speculation
Problcpq Easily daaaged by overgrnclng
or other sctlvltlrs which disturb surfsce
Few proble*s presently because of little
development pressure
» la highly varied
Hlacellanenus uses Include dusplng snd
lsndflll sttes, Off-Road Vehicle (0RV)
trices, sand and gravel works, snd new
subdivisions
Problems Cullylng snd wind erosion
in moderate to ateeply eloping areas
can be eauasd by 0RV use, housing
developments, dirt roads, dusplng
Description Raa passed froa aarahy to
agricultural to urban setting In many
areas Kaln uses at preaent are for
central office district, dense urban,
coamerclal-lnduatrlal development, and
semi-rural areas River edge* preserved
ss bosquc SevereL fecdlots and dairies
Problem Hajor conflict rslates to
use of prime agrlcultursl Isnd for
urbanltatlon Many unaewered areas
feedlota and the like contribute to
ground water pollution Almost entire
floodplaln Is or wss potential flood
hszsrd ares See alio section on
Environmental Quality
-------
archeological sites, is generally rural but has been settled in places to
near its capacity, and is the site of one large cement plant. The upland
unit is prime recreation land.
The Mesa region lies on either side of the Rio Grande Valley and is a
dry, relatively flat desert upland between 5200 and 6000 feet elevation. It
includes three units: Alluvial Fan, Sand Plains, and Volcanic. Most of the
area east of the river is in the Alluvial Fan unit and is characterized as
follows: smooth, steeper slopes at the mountain front; gentler, but more
dissected slopes near the valley; deep, well-drained sandy loam soils which,
except along the flood-prone arroyos, are well-suited for most types of
development; abundant good quality ground water at depth; the potential to
support a stable grassland and desert wildlife; and a history of progressive
urbanization which at present dominates the area, and which has led to some
environmental problems such as traffic-generated air pollution.
A small part of the eastern mesa and most of the mesa west of the Rio
Grande is in the Sand Plains unit, which can be characterized as follows: a
relatively flat surface marked by sandy soils, some closed basins, and many
stabilized dunes; diverse wildlife habitat on a moderate to good quality
grassland; abundant open space (mostly grazing land) with a fair potential
for urban land uses when care is taken to avoid problems such as erosion.
The Volcanic unit is an area of volcano hills and adjacent lava flows which
end in steep cliffs. Shallow, rocky soils severely limit development, but
the area is suited for desert wildlife and for uses such as low intensity
grazing or recreation. The area also contains valued archeologic resources
in the form of rock art (petroglyphs). Throughout the Mesa region the arroyos
are the key to environmental patterns, providing much of the scenic and bio-
logical diversity as well as presenting flood hazards and providing ground
water recharge.
The Valley region lies along the Rio Grande between the mesas; it in-
cludes a rather flat Flood Plain unit near the river, at elevation 5000 feet
and below, as well as an adjacent steeper unit known as the Valley Sides and
Terraces, which locally rises to above 5500 feet. This latter unit is transi-
tional between the adjacent mesa uplands and the main river valley. It
generally has a steep upper slope, sometimes with a badland character; lower
slopes are gentler, though locally broken by one or more level terraces
bounded by steep bluffs. The unit has sand and gravel resources and a diver-
sity of archeological sites. Soils are somewhat fragile, and arroyo flood
hazards are widespread. Uses include both urban development and open space;
the former is somewhat limited by the erosion-prone soils, the latter by the
low-quality of the existing grassland.
The Flood Plain unit is the nearly level bottom land adjacent to and
including the river. It has been extensively modified by agricultural and
urban development. These factors along with the generally fertile loamy
soils have made this the major greenbelt area in the city landscape, even
though the area includes the central business district. Ground water is
-15-
-------
abundant near the surface, but deep wells often are needed to obtain water
which is free from contamination problems. Air pollution is a major concern,
caused in part by the micro-climate associated with a valley location. Along
the river a narrow bosque (woodland) provides important habitat for wildlife,
especially migratory birds. The area's rich archeological heritage is large-
ly destroyed but important historic sites remain, and cultural diversity is
more pronounced than elsewhere in Albuquerque.
The basic natural patterns noted above—mountain, mesa, valley—are re-
peated down the Rio Grande basin to Elephant Butte. Descriptions of specific
environmental resources and constraints are presented elsewhere in this docu-
ment. However, for general planning purposes it is the composite of features
in each unit which is of interest, not the individual environmental components.
For example, the overall character of the alluvial fan unit makes it more
easily developed for urban purposes than other units—wastewater planning
actions which support development there are less likely to have adverse im-
pacts than those taken in a more sensitive area such as the mountain lowland.
The unit with the most complex environmental conditions is the valley flood
plain. Wastewater management systems in this unit must be planned with
special care to ensure that they solve the existing problems without leading
to new ones.
2.0.2 Urban Features
Figure 2-4 shows the location of major urban features in and near Albu-
querque. It indicates the common names used to refer to different areas,
and shows the relationship of neighborhoods to one another, as well as in-
dicating the sites of regionally important facilities such as the two univ-
ersities, several large shopping centers, major industrial parks, fairgrounds,
and the two sewage treatment plants.
2.1 EXISTING WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Background information regarding wastewater management in the Albuquerque
area is presented in the Technical Reference Document (EP.A, 1977, Part A).
There are four major categories of wastewater in the area, as listed below and
described in the sections which follow.
a. Within the City limits most domestic and industrial wastes are
discharged to the municipal sanitary sewers, treated at a central plant, and
then discharged to the Rio Grande. This discharge is the largest munici-
pal point source affecting water quality in the State of New Mexico and
is a major focus of the analysis presented here. (See Sections 2.1.1
2.1.2 and 2.1.3 below).
b. Wastewater from some industries, animal confinement facilities,
subdivisions and other point sources is treated and discharged separately,
in accordance with Federal controls set forth in NPDES permits. Compared'
to the City discharge these sources are probably minor. (Section 2.1.4).
c. Nearly 20% of the population in the planning area utilizes in-
dividual on-site disposal systems such as septic tanks. These are con-
-16-
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
centrated in the unincorporated sections of the Valley Floodplain
unit, and serve commercial establishments as well as households. The systems
are under limited government control and have been associated locally with
ground water contamination problems. They represent the non-point source of
pollution which is of most concern to this study. A recently approved sewer
construction project will reduce the number of on-site systems somewhat, and
will increase the amount of sewage treated at the City's central facilities.
(Section 2.1.5).
d. Other possible non-point sources of pollution occur in the area,
including storm water runoff and return flows in irrigation drains. There
is very little information concerning these sources, and they are now
uncontrolled. (Section 2.1.6).
2.1.1 Municipal Sanitary Sewers
Albuquerque's sanitary sewerage system has several components: small collection
lines which serve homes, businesses, and industry; larger mains and interceptor
sewers to which the small lines discharge; lift stations which are located where
pumping is needed to maintain or replace gravity flow; and chlorination stations
which are used to control odors. Figure 2-5 is a map showing the location of
the lift and chlorination stations; it also shows which parts of the planning
area have sewer service, and which rely on septic tanks or other household
units. Further information is provided in the Technical Reference Document
(EPA, 1977, Part A-l).
In recent years system expansion has been guided by a master plan (Turney,
1963), with service being extended as needed to developing areas within the
City limits. In contrast the unincorporated portions of the planning
area are not served, including most of the North and South Valleys, and the
mountain area to the east. Figure 2-5 identifies a part of the South Valley
which will receive sewers following completion of construction projects
which are scheduled to begin in July, 1977. Additional extensions are
expected to take place as provided for in the Facility Plan. As of May, 1977,
the City had advanced plans to implement some construction of interceptors
prior to the approval of the Facility Plan by EPA and EIA, and without
assurance of Federal or State funding. This construction is intended
primarily to serve rapidly growing areas of the City, such as the Northeast
Heights.
The collection lines and interceptors appear to function properly, although
relatively minor local problems occur with regard to odors, backups and
overloading. According to the Facility Plan, overloading will be of increasing
concern in the next 5-25 years in areas where population growth leads to
flows which exceed system capacity.
Lift and chlorination station problems are significant. Desired preven-
tative maintenance is neither scheduled nor performed to the extent necessary,
and maintenance records are lacking. Some safety hazards identified in a 1974
survey have not yet been corrected; in a few cases these hazards can prevent
complete cleaning and repair of equipment. Other problems include station
security (especially at some chlorination units), the need for standby power,
and the need for an effective monitoring and alarm system. To a considerable
extent these deficiencies persist because of budget restrictions and result-
ing staff limitations.
-19-
-------
2.1.2 Municipal Treatment Plants
Albuquerque operates wastewater treatment facilities at two sites, both
located near the Rio Grande south of the City center (see Figure 2-5).
Technical data on these facilities are provided in Part A-2 of EPA (1977),
and in the Facility Plan (MMC, 1977). The treatment system involves a
combination of physical and biological processes plus chlorination. These
processes are designed to remove most of the organic and solid material
present in raw sewage and to eliminate almost all the disease-causing
bacteria. Three distinct treatment facilities exist. Two use trickling
filters and are referred to here as Plant it 1 and Plant it 2k. Plant //I can
handle 22 million gallons of wastewater per day (22 mgd), which is L'ne
approximate load generated by a population of 200,000. The facilities at
//I are old, in poor condition, and comparatively expensive to operate.
Plant //2A can also handle 22 mgd, giving the City a total of 44 mgd capacity
through the trickling filter process. Plant //2A is newer, in fair condition,
and provides better treatment than Plant It1. However, even with renovations,
neither of the trickling filter facilities can meet the treatment standards
imposed by Public Law 92-500. Both plants are affected adversely by operation
and maintenance problems (see discussion later in this section).
In response to the law the City has built a third facility to obtain
secondary treatment. This facility uses the activated sludge process.
It occupies the same site as it2A but is physically separate, and is referred
to here as Plant it2B. The activated sludge units are brand-new and have
a capacity of about 39 mgd, slightly less than the trickling filter capacity;
they are adequate to serve about 355,000 persons. New and improved
chlorination facilities have also been constructed. As explained subsequently,
treatment units at Plant #2 are not operating effectively.
Prior to construction of Plant it2B all trickling filter effluent was
discharged directly to the Rio Grande. During the dry summer of 1972 waste-
water was also discharged to the Riverside Drain at the request of the Middle
Rio Grande Conservancy District. The activated sludge units of Plant it2B
were completed in early 1976, although minor aspects of the plant remain
unfinished in early 1977. As of March 31, 1976, Plant it2B was put into full
operation, and since that date the facility has been used to provide for
additional treatment of trickling filter effluent, as well as to provide
treatment of some raw sewage. Approximate flows as of April 1976 were:
The discharge to the Rio Grande of 36 million gallons per day equals about
40,350 acre-feet per year. Because of operational problems the flow pattern
noted above is not typical of 1977 conditions (refer to the discussion of
operation and maintenance on pages 23-24 for further details).
In 1977 construction will begin at Plant it2B to increase the treatment
capacity to 47 mgd. The construction is known as "Phase IA" and represents
completion of the plant as it was originally designed. Phase IA, which is
scheduled for completion in late 1979 or early 1980, is considered as being
already in existence for purposes of evaluations in the Facility Plan and EIS.
Treated at Plant itl
Treated at Plant #2A
Total trickling filter effluent
Raw sewage to Plant it2B
Total wastewater flow, Plant it2B
18 mgd
15 mgd
33 mgd
3 mgd
36 mgd
-20-
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
The sludge produced in the treatment process is digested, dried, ground and
then used as fertilizer on City parks. Most of the sludge digester gas is burned
on-site to power electric generators which supply some of the energy needs at
the plants. Coarse solids such as grit are disposed of by landfill. An impor-
tant support facility is the laboratory at Plant //2, which provides an exten-
sive capability to monitor the performance of the treatment works.
The combined treatment and collection facilities cost about $1.5 million
to operate in fiscal year 1976, an amount which is distributed rather evenly into
five categories: Plant #1; Plant //2A; Plant //2B; collection lines; and the
remainder for the lift and chlorination stations and the lab. Wages account
for more than half the expenditure, and utility charges (mostly electricity)
are responsible for nearly one-quarter of the costs. As with the collection
system, staffing and budget at the treatment plants are not adequate for perfor-
mance of needed preventative maintenance and repairs; system operation suffers
as a result. Staffing at the lab is also inadequate to perform necessary duties.
Performance Problems at Plant //2. Prior to detailing operation and
maintenance problems in the treatment system it is necessary to review the
present performance characteristics of Plant //2. Funding limitations during
the period when Plant //2B was planned and designed led to the facility being
smaller and less complete than originally intended. In particular, thickener
units for handling waste-activated sludge were postponed because of cost
considerations, and have not yet been built. The lack of adequate sludge-
handling facilities has led to critical operating conditions throughout Plant
//2. The facility is now overloaded with dilute, highly organic solids which
interfere with the treatment and digestion processes, give rise to severe
odors, and leaH to discharge of effluent of substandard quality. The plant
does not and cannot function as intended without provision of the necessary
thickening facilities, or an equivalent action.
CDM (1977, 1977a) described the sludge-handling problems in detail. They
also identified a performance problem related to relative inefficiencies in
the new aeration system at Plant //2B. An insufficient air supply has been
observed in the aeration basins, due to causes which may include leaks in the
air supply manifold, use of an inefficient diffusion system or insufficient
blower capacity.
Operation and Maintenance Problems. The fundamental physical conditions
which contribute to operation and maintenance problems in Albuquerque include
the lack of adequate sludge-handling facilities at Plant #2B and the great age of
most facilities at Plant if 1. These problems preclude effective operation of the
plants without extensive construction projects. However additional operational
problems occur and in some cases make a significant contribution to the observed
poor quality of effluent and the significant plant odors. Many of these operational
difficulties are aggravated by the physical conditions noted above. The following
list of operation and maintenance problems reflects discussions in CDM (1977a)
and the results of the most recent annual inspection of the facilities by the
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency (file record dated April 7, 1977).
Except as noted the problems apply to both Plant //I and Plant //2; in almost
all cases they are more severe at Plant #1.
-23-
-------
- Sludge digestors have not been cleaned, are in poor repair and suffer
from inadequate mixing, temperature problems and (in the case of
Plant if]) excess acidity.
- Preventative maintenance actions are not performed routinely, and
housekeeping (cleanliness has had a low priority.
- Many facilities are in a state of disrepair, especially at Plant //1;
gas recycling units are prominent in this respect.
- Many minor sources of odors are poorly controlled; for example
screenings are often exposed, boxes and pits are uncovered, pumps
valves and pipes lead to leakage or spraying of sewage or sludge.
- Record keeping, parts inventories, and reporting activities are not
always adequate.
- Despite excellent laboratory facilities, and good data on effluent
quality, data pertinent to process control and plant operation have not
been adequately developed.
Directly causing many of these conditions is the historical lack of adequate
budget and manpower resources. Staffing deficiencies also reflect difficulties
in attracting and retaining good personnel; over 10% of the authorized positions
are now vacant. In 1976 the City management of liquid waste facilities was
reorganized. As noted in the next paragraph, since that reorganization many
steps have been taken to overcome the performance and operational problems.
However, CDM (1977a) notes that the organization of liquid waste management
remains inefficient, especially at lower levels.
One consequence of the performance and operational problems is that EIA's
1977 inspection rating of Plant f/1 was "conditionally acceptable", while Plant
//2 was "unacceptable", and was characterized as "quite sick".
Recent Operational Changes. The fundamental performance deficiencies of
Plant //2 led to severe odor problems in 1976 (and continuing); the City has
responded by instituting a number of new procedures to improve plant operation.
The two most important changes have been implemented on an emergency basis:
- to prevent the build-up of solids caused by the lack of adequate
sludge-handling facilities liquid sludge is now hauled from the plant
at a rate normally exceeding 50,000 gallons/day, and disposed of at
a sanitary landfill;
- during critical operational periods when excess hydraulic and organic
loadings have occured at Plant //2B, the trickling filter effluent from
Plant //2A has been discharged directly to the Rio Grande, as it was
prior to 1976.
A number of other emergency measures have been implemented or considered. For
example temporary sludge drying beds have been added to provide additional sludge
holding capacity, one secondary clarifier has been used unsuccessfully to try to
thicken waste-activated sludge, and expensive polymer chemicals have been added
on an experimental hasis to improve sludge settling and drying. Some modifi-
cations to the operational processes within the plant have also been made, such as
changing the rates at which different processes or actions take place; these
are discussed in CDM (1977a).
-23A-
-------
These emergency measures have had a positive effect in stabilizing plant
operation and preventing critical upsets. For example, EIA revisited Plant //2
on June 6, 1977, as a followup to the April annual inspection, and found
performance much improved, although still characterized by substantial problems
and deficiencies. Continued improvement has occured since that date, primarily
due to the handling of liquid sludge which in effect substitutes for the
missing thickener equipment.
On an emergency or high priority basis the City has begun to undertake
measures of the type which would normally be considered routine. These include:
- embarking on a program to clean and repair digesters;
- increasing the number of staff positions;
- replacement of chlorinators;
- increased operator training;
- rehabilitation measures, especially at Plant //l.
These and other actions are described further in Exhibit Number 1 which was
presented at the Public Hearing held on the Draft Environmental Statement;
the hearing transcript and exhibit can be found in Appendix B of this document.
Emergency Construction. As originally defined, the already approved Phase IA
expansion of Plant //2 did not include mechanical thickeners. Because such
facilities are essential to the proper operation of the Plant, the City decided
to contract for the design and construction of a dissolved air flotation thickening
unit on a prepayment basis, that is using City funds without a grant commitment from
EPA. The thickener units are expected to be completed by late spring, 1978.
2.1.3 Environmental Effects of the Treatment System
Albuquerque's wastewater treatment system impacts the environment through
discharge of effluent, disposal of sludge, emission of offensive odors,
emissions from sludge gas burning, consumption of energy and chemicals, noise,
and production of non-recycled solid wastes. Data on the amount and character
of these impacts are provided in EPA (1977), Part A-3.
Influent Character. The quality of raw sewage received by the treatment
plants has a direct influence on the quality of discharge. Available data
on influent quality are given in Table 2-2 and indicate that the sewage is
not substantially different from that found in other non-industrialized
U. S. cities. A number of sources have been identified which discharge
substantial quantities of heavy metals to the sewerage system. These include
industries or institutions concerned with:
- metal finishing and plating (nickel, chromium, cadmium, lead, mercury)
- manufacture of electronics equipment or jewelry (lead, boron, copper)
- laboratory research and medical care (copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum,
silver).
These industries and institutions account for between 10% and 40% cf the
different metals found in the influent. Many of the sources discharge one
or more metals in an amount which exceeds levels permitted by the City's
Liquid Waste Ordinance. It is possible that a more detailed industrial survey
would show additional industrial contributions, but it also appears that a
substantial portion of the influent metals comes from residential and commercial
neighborhoods. The leaching of plumbing fixtures and the discharge of cleaning
-23B-
-------
TABLE 2—2. CHARACTERISTICS OP INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT. All values in Mg/1 unless otherwise Indicated.
Treatment Plant
Treatment Plant 01 TreacmenL Plant tl2A ff2B
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
Effluent
Ave rage
LcO
High
Average
Average
Low
High Average
Average
bod5
218
35
148
86
194
23
140
62
17
COD
471
81
318
211
466
95
261
180
57
Settleable Solids
6.2
0
1.0
<0.05
7.0
<0
05
0.20
<0.12
<0.05
Suspended Solids
184
28
106
56
183
27
88
56
13.7
Fecal Coltforms/100 ml
-
<100 >50,000
-
<100
>50
,000
-
pH (units)
7.5
7.0
7.8
7.4
7 45
7.
,15
7 9
7.6
7. 75
Chlorine Residual
-
0
>2.0
<0.81
-
0
0.50
0.22
-
Nitrate (as No^)
0.01
0
0.04
<0.01
<0 01
0
<0 01
<0.01
0.124
Ammonia-Nitrogen (as N)
17.9
11.0
28.0
19.9
20.0
19
8
31.0
24.0
17.3
Organic-Nitrogen (as N)
12.5
6.3
12.8
7.9
11.7
1.
8
12.8
7.3
3.8
Total KJeldahl Nitrogen
30.7
17.0
35.0
27.5
31.8
17.
.0
38.5
30.9
21.1
Ortho-Phosphorus (as P)
7.3
5.9
14.3
9.7
8.2
4.
,6
15 0
9.0
7.4
Total Phosphorus (as P)
11.9
6.7
17.4
11.6
11.2
7.
5
14.6
10.8
8.3
Aluminum, A1
0.38
0.02
0.55
0.26
0 42
0
06
0.38
0.21
0.06
Antimony, Sb
A
<0.05
<0. 25
A
A
<0
05
<0.25
A
A
Arsenic, As
*
<0.01
<0.03
A
A
<0.
01
<0.03
A
<0.01
Barium, Ba
0.29
0.16
0. 37
0.26
0.22
0
11
0.31
0.21
0.09
Beryllium, Be
A
<0.005
<0.01
*
A
<0.
005
<0.01
A
<0.002
Boron, B
0.51
0.08
0.81
0. 54
0.57
0
11
0.88
0.62
0.6
Cadmium, Cd
0.006
<0.001
0.17
0.005
0.004
<0
001
0.50
0.003
<0.002
Chromium, Cr
0 049
<0.01
0.09
0.03
0.07
<0
01
2.00
0.047
0.01
Cobalt, Co
*
<0.01
<0.02
A
A
<0.
.01
<0.02
A
<0.01
Copper, Cu
0.175
0 03
0 75
0.10
0.22
0
03
0.90
0.139
023
Iron, Pe
1.0
0.21
0 81
0.53
0.93
0.
.2
0.62
0.46
.126
Lead, Pb
0.096
<0.02
0.15
0.064
0.08
0.
,01
0.50
0.049
023
Manganese, Hn
0.057
0.02
0.12
0.045
0 05
0
02
0.11
0.04 3
.024
Mercury, Hg
0.003
<0.001
0.004 0-001
0.003
<0.
.001
0.005
0.001
<0.001
Molybdenum, Mo
a
<0.005
0.02
A
A
<0
005
0 02
A
<0.01
Nickel. Ni
0 043
<0.01
0.24
0.032
0.045
<0
01
0 19
0.036
.031
Silver, Ag
0.01
<0.001
0.10
0.01
0.009
<0
002
0.10
0.008
< .005
Selenium, Se
a
<0.001
0.05
A
A
-0
001
<0.005
A
<0.005
Silicon, SI
29
23
35
29
25
17
32
25
34
Tellurium, Te
*
<0.02
<0.1
*
A
<0
02
<0.1
*
*
Thallium, T1
*
<0.015
<0.10
A
A
<0
015
<0.10
A
< .002
Vanadium, v
*
<0.05
<0.10
*
A
<0
05
<0.10
A
<0.05
Zinc, Zn
0.249
0.03
1.3
0.15
0.22
0
03
2.90
0.152
09L
Dissolved Oxygen
0.32
0. 15
3. 72
1.46
1.90
0
30
4.80
2.40
* Nearly all values reported as "less
than" the
detection limit,
so that a vjlid u
ivuruge uannot
be caJc
iljteJ.
-------
chemicals, cosmetics, medicines and other substances are presumed to be
significant metals sources in these areas. Because of the relative importance
of non-industrial metals sources the Facility Plan concluded that strict
enforcement of the Liquid Waste Ordinance would have only a marginal effect
on the discharge of metals from the treatment works.
It should be noted that past enforcement of the ordinance by the City
has not been all encompassing. Data provided by the City indicate the
following.
At least 25 sources exist which have violated ordinance standards
(although some violations are very minor).
The City has corresponded with about half of the sources in order
to move toward compliance.
In many cases the problems have not been resolved, although a few
complete successes are on record, and some sources have accomplished
some (but not all) of the ordinance requirements.
The lack of enforcement appears to reflect the organizational and staffing
problems noted in the discussion of operation and maintenance (2.1.2).
Effluent Character. Table 2-2 provides data on the quality of effluent
discharged from the two trickling plants and the new activated facility. The
trickling filter data represent normal conditions and show that the effluent is of
fair to poor quality with regard to organic and solid contaminants and contains a
large nutrient load. The effluent sometimes has contained levels of metals such as
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc, which were excessive
when measured against standards set forth in the Stipulation (see Table 2-8). The
effluent from Plant If 1 is of poorer quality than that from //2A; neither facility
achieves secondary treatment standards of 30 mg/1 BOD and 30 mg/1 suspended solids.
The data for Plant //2B represents relatively rare conditions of normal
operation and proper performance which occured prior to the build-up of
sludge to critical levels. These data show that the activated sludge process is
capable of producing effluent of good to excellent quality, with contaminants
reduced to below permitted levels. The data further indicate that the combined
effect of activated sludge and trickling filter treatment can be to remove more
than 90% of the influent organic and solid load, between 35% and 50% of the
influent nitrogen and as much as 25% of the influent phosphorus. Substantial
quantities of metals can be removed, sufficient to product effluent which
meets all standards in the Stipulation.
Data for Plant #2B for periods of poor performance give quite different
results which, presumably, reflect short-term conditions caused by inadequate
facilities. The poor performance is reflected by an organic load slightly above,
and a solids load well above, permitted levels; nitrogen and phosphorus contents
are higher than indicated in the last column of Table 2-2. Because the chlori-
nation contact tank is not operational, levels of coliform bacteria are also
excessive. A compliance monitoring survey performed by the New Mexico Environ-
mental Improvement Agency on May 3-5, 1977, also indicated that effluent quality
did not meet Stipulation standards for several metals. The survey was performed
during the period of worst performance of the plant, prior to initiation of the
most effective emergency measures described previously. Even so the results of
the survey conflict with data collected by the City Wastewater Laboratory. The
-25_
-------
only metal which certainly occurs in excess amounts in the poor-quality
activated sludge effluent is copper. For most other metals EIA data show
higher levels than indicated by the City lab, and a conclusion regarding
actual discharge amounts is difficult to reach.
It will be impossible to project the long-term impact of activated sludge
treatment on effluent quality until Plant #2B is operating as designed. How-
ever, the data so far available suggest that the total mass discharge of pollu-
tants by Albuquerque may be less in the near future than in the recent past, once
Plant #2B is operating as intended. Moreover the improvement in effluent quality
will at least partly offset projected increases in total wastewater flow. For
example, in 1975 the discharge of 36 mgd of trickling filter effluent, containing
30 mg/l nitrogen, was responsible for the release of 1645 tons/year of nitrogen to
the Rio Grande. If activated sludge is effective in achieving 50X removal of
nitrogen, then the N-discharge in 1985 would only be 1165 tons/year, even though
the effluent would have increased to 51 mgd.
Pilot studies predicted that activated sludge effluent would contain as
much as 5 mg/l of nitrogen in the bioavailable nitrate form. In practice
nitrate levels in the effluent averaged only about 0.1 mg/l, according to
the data of Table 2-2. The high rate of nitrogen removal by the plant, and
the absence of nitrate in the effluent, indicates that both nitrification and
denitrification are occurring in the aeration basins of Plant //2B. It should
be noted that data obtained by EIA during the compliance monitoring show much
higher nitrate levels than indicated by Table 2-2. However some of the EIA
data are not consistent internally, and they conflict with measurements made
by the City laboratory. In any case, until Plant //2B achieves a sustained period
of normal operation it will be difficult to confidently project the long-term
reliability of N-removal processes, and the probable level of effluent nitrate.
Sludge Disposal. Sludge production from the two trickling filter plants
has averaged more than 4400 tons/year in the recent past, and is expected to
double as the result of adding activated sludge to the treatment process.
In the past a substantial portion of the sludge has been ground and spread
on City parks, where it has served as a fertilizer and soil conditioner.
However, the increased rate of sludge production could exceed the demand
for parks usage and require alternative means for sludge reuse or disposal.
Sludge contains a significant quantity cf heavy metals. When the weight
of metals in sludge is compared to that in effluent on an annual basis for the
past years, the two sources are roughly equal in importance. Since data of
Table 2-2 indicate that activated sludge treatment will lead to a decrease of
metals levels in effluent, it is reasonable to expect that the removed metals
will show up in sludge deposits. Thus it is likely that in the future it will
be sludge, not effluent, which contains most of the mass of metals discharged to
the environment from the treatment works.
Odors. Odor problems have received more adverse public comment than any
other aspect of wastewater management in Albuquerque (see Section 2.2.4). The
Stipulation set forth as the basic goal of odor control the use of "Best
Practicable Control Technology". To date this goal has not been met. A number
of chronic odor sources have been responsible for most of the past problems at
both treatment plants. Some of the problems have been corrected through actions
taken in response to the Stipulation, while others remain unabated. Figure 2-5
shows the location of odor sources In the wastewater system; Figure 2-6 shows the
regional extent of odor problems.
-26-
-------
In 1976 a severe new odor problem developed with the completion and
initial operation of Plant //2B. This problem was caused by the operating
difficulties noted previously.. The emergency operating and construction
measures described above have been implemented in large part to try to reduce
the odor problems. They have been successful on a relative basis, though
severe problems remain. The Phase 1A expansion of Plant If2 is expected to
provide some further odor control, primarily by increasing treatment capacity
and by providing more solids-handling facilities. However odor control will
not conform to the standard of Best Practicable Control Technology set by
the Stipulation, and thus such control is to be evaluated by the Facility
Plan and this EIS. Based on CDM (1977a) additional control measures should
address the use of sludge drying beds at both plants, and the disrepair of
treatment of units at Plant //l.
A further discussion of the proposed odor control actions is given in the
Technical Reference Document (EPA, 1977, Section A-3, part g).
Other Effects. In addition to sludge, about 6 cubic yards per day of
coarse solid waste are produced at the two plants, and disposed of by hauling
to the County landfill. Noise levels within each plant can exceed 70 dBA near
some equipment, with extremes of 90 dBA and above; noise within the new acti-
vated sludge lift station has been measured at above 115 dBA. Noise levels
at the plant property lines are commonly 45 dBA or less but approach 60 dBA
at some locations.
The annual production of sludge digester gas from all facilities exceeds
200 million cubic feet. Much of this is burned to generate electricity for
use within the plants, and the rest is disposed of by burning a flare at Plant
#2. Gas combustion may produce up to 100 tons of air pollutants per year, 75%
of which consists of nitrogen oxides. About 25 million cubic feet of gas is
purchased yearly to provide for heating of digesters. The electricity generated
by gas combustion amounts to 7800 kilowatt hours per day, or more than 40% of
the need. Purchases of electricity average 10,500 kwh/day, but at times Plant
//1 produces an excess supply, and sells a small amount of power back to the
electric company. Chlorine usage averages about 2750 pounds per day, divided
about equally into thirds for use at Plant #1, Plant #2 and collection system
chlorination stations.
2.1.A Other Point Sources
Treatment Plant #2 is the only major point source of wascewater discharge
in the Albuquerque area. Other sources are of four types: municipal,
industrial, agricultural, and collected storm runoff. The municipal
and industrial sources within and adjacent to the planning area discharge
no more than 1 mgd of good quality effluent. Another 3 mgd of poorly
treated municipal effluent is discharged from other towns in the Middle
Rio Grande Basin - such as Bernalillo, Los Lunas, Belen and Socorro.
Agricultural sources Include at least 25 dairies and feedlots within the
planning area. Limited information on these sources suggest they probably
affect ground water more than surface water, and may be associated with
organic and nutrient-rich wastewaters containing a high content of bacteria.
Six points of storm runoff collection have been identified, but no data are
available which permit these to be evaluated. Refer to Part A-4 of the
Technical Reference Document (EPA, 1977) for more information.
-27-
-------
2.1.5 On-Site Systems
Individual liquid waste disposal systems are the major non-point source
of water pollution in the Albuquerque area and are discussed in detail in
Part A-5 of the Technical Reference Document. As many as 20,000 such systems
exist, about half in the South Valley, one-third in the North Valley, and the
remainder in Corrales, the Sandia foothills, the Tijeras-Cedar Crest area,
and on the lower West Mesa. The distribution of the systems tends to correlate
positively with the existence of below-average income levels. About five
million gallons per day of residential wastewater is discharged to the soil from
the on-site units of the area, and another one mgd is discharged from larger
systems which serve trailer parks, schools, business and industry. This
total discharge of 6 mgd is one-sixth of the City's treatment plant discharge.
Population and increased per capita water use (following extension of City
water lines) would be expected to increase this wasteload in the future, but
this growth should be balanced by already approved sewer construction into
the near South Valley. Thus 6 mgd is a reasonable estimate of future on-site
effluent discharge unless additional sewers are constructed.
Three reliable disposal methods are generally used for on-site systems, in
addition to the extra-legal use of cesspools and seepage pits.
- Septic tanks (with one or two chambers) and buried drainfields are the
dominant method of on-site disposal because of low initial costs.
These units provide limited wastewater treatment when compared to a
central plant, and are especially limited by conditions such as slow
soil percolation, shallow bedrock or water table, or small lot size.
- Aerated tanks and drainfields are used in approximately 5% of all new
installations in the planning area, primarily to overcome poor soil or
drainage problems. Effluent quality is better than for septic systems,
but the units are initially expensive, have a significant energy
demand, and require better than average maintenance in order to
function properly.
- Septic tanks with plastic-lined evapotranspiration fields are in
limited use to date. These units discharge no effluent tc the soil
and so cause no water contamination; they are also relatively main-
tenance-free. Disadvantages include high cost, complete consumption
of the wastewater resource, and possible risks of liner failure and/
or flooding.
The installation of new on-site systems is subject to regulations which
specify matters such as setbacks (e.g. a minimum distance of 100 feet between
wells and drainfields) and lot sizes (larger lots for sites with impaired soil
or drainage conditions). Despite these regulations, the majority of already
constructed systems occur in valley locations adversely affected by a shallow
water table; poor soil permeability and/or small lot sizes are also common.
Many of the existing systems do not meet modern sanitation and lot size
standards; the regulations do not affect such systems retroactively.
Even when properly designed, installed and maintained, common on-site
systems such as septic tanks and drainfields can cause water pollution
problems. The effluent from these units is normally rich in organic load,
nutrients, metals and bacteria. Normally the effluent does not meet the
secondary standards which are enforced at central treatment plants. Under
ideal conditions most of the pollutant load is treated as the wastewater
-28-
-------
passes through the soil. However, nitrate removal in the soil is limited, and
ample evidence exists in the technical literature that nitrate contamination
of ground water is common where septic tanks or cesspools are numerous. Section
2.4.4 discusses nitrate problems in the planning area, in relation to the
possible contributions of on-site liquid waste disposal.
2.1.6 Other Non-Point Sources
The Middle Rio Grande Basin Plan (NMWQCC, 1976a) recognizes several non-
point sources of water pollution in addition to on-site systems, including
sediment, irrigation return flows, runoff from animal confinement facilities,
and salinity sources such as salt-water intrusions. To this list should be
added storm water runoff from urban streets, storm sewers and flood control
ditches. There is little information on the effects of these sources on
water quality in the Rio Grande; studies being undertaken pursuant to
Section 208 of P.L. 92-500 are expected to clarify the significance of such
sources. Until these studies have been concluded, it will be difficult to
fully determine the benefits of point source controls, especially as "in
New Mexico, non-point sources are responsible for a greater amount of water
quality degradation than are point sources when sediment and salinity
problems...are included in water quality assessments"(NMWQCC, 1975, p.8).
2.2 THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
2.2.1 Terrain
Albuquerque lies within a basin and mountain landscape which is typical
of the desert Southwest. Each of the natural regions identified in Section
2.0.1 has a distinctive terrain, as described in Table 2-1. The following
features occur:
- the Sandia and Manzano Mountains east of the City which form a rugged
area with elevations locally above 10,000 feet;
a broad flat-bottomed valley along the Rio Grande at an elevation
of about 5,000 feet;
- broad upland surfaces on either side of the valley which generally
slope toward the river; the eastern upland is a dissected alluvial
fan while the west is marked by a large area of relatively young
volcanoes and lava cliffs and by a relatively flat surface capped
by stabilized sand dunes.
The City's landscape is a major asset, offering attractive diversity and
a bold eastern skyline. In some areas steep slopes present a serious limita-
tion to urbanization, especially in the mountain uplands and in parts of the
volcanic unit, valley sides, and mountain lowland. Elsewhere the terrain is
gentle and comparatively featureless—with a man-made landscape predominating.
In the floodplain almost all the relief consists of man-made features such
as levees, irrigation canals and drains, and streets.
-29-
-------
2.2.2 Climate
Because Albuquerque is located in desert country, far from any oceanic
source of moisture, its climate is arid and continental. The weather is
usually dry and sunny, with an average temperature of about 57°F (14°C) and an
average precipitation of less than 8 inches C20tam) per year. Cool winters with
occasional snow are invariably followed by windy, dusty, dry springs. Early
summer may be hot, but this is moderated by frequent thunderstorms from July
through September, which supply most of the annual rainfall. Autumn is warm
and pleasant, and is typical of a climate which is one of Albuquerque's
outstanding assets, benefiting outdoor recreational and economic activities.
Detailed information on the Albuquerque climate is provided in EPA (1977),
Section C-l, and includes weather data, information on the local water budget,
and a narrative analysis of climatic variables. Factors which could have a
direct bearing on wastewater management planning are listed below.
i) The overall aridity means that there is a high demand for water,
especially for purposes such as agriculture, landscaping and recreation. In
the absence of irrigation or watering, the natural vegetation tends to be
sparse and the soil is very vulnerable to erosion.
ii) The erosion potential is made more severe by the high intensity of
frequent summer rainstorms, and by the numerous windstorms in spring.
iii) Atmospheric temperature inversions caused by winter air masses and by
cold air drainage into the valleys have a potentially serious effect on the
dispersion of air pollutants.
iv) The frost-free season lasts about six months in the valleys and
slightly longer on the mesas; valley locations may be adversely affected by
the cold air drainage noted above. The climate tends to favor crops such
as native hay, alfalfa, chile, corn and to a lesser extent, orchard fruits.
v) Solar radiation is abundantly available, and is used as an alternative
energy source for many purposes.
Each of the natural regions recognized in Section 2.0.1 of this report
has its own micro-climate. The mountains tend to be cooler and wetter than
the rest of the area. The valley receives the least precipitation, and in
effect is a desert oasis with water supplied by the Rio Grande. Variations
in temperature and humidity are marked, and inversions are common. The mesas
have the mildest climate overall, and receive the greatest influx of solar
radiation. For further information, refer to Table 2-1.
2.2.3 Air Quality
Albuquerque experiences significant air pollution problems which have
worsened in recent years due to population growth and an associated rise in
vehicle traffic and emissions. Six pollutants have been the focus of
regulatory efforts to date: total suspended particulates (TSP), photochemical
-30-
-------
oxidants (0X), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (N0X)
and sulfur dioxide (SC^). Table 2-3 lists the standards for these pollutants
and summarizes data from monitoring stations in the area.
The Albuquerque Air Quality Control Region has been designated Priority
I by the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency for reduction of TSP, 0X
and CO because the air quality standards for these pollutants are frequently
violated under present conditions. Studies indicate that motor vehicles are
the major source of CO and 0V emissions in Albuquerque (TRW, 1973), and that
natural erosion along with fugitive dust from unpaved roads are important
particulate sources (Wils<_>n, 1974). The area has been designated Priority III
for HC, N0X and SO2, indicating that no violation of standards occurs at present.
A discussion of the observed patterns in the pollutants is given below.
Figure 2-6 illustrates the location of air pollution problems in the area.
O
Total Suspended Particulates. TSP readings averaged 80 ug/m in 1969-
1973 when data from all area stations were combined; this exceeded both the
Federal and State standards. In a typical year about fifty 24-hour observations
exceed the State standard; about 5 exceed the Federal standard. The highest
readings are observed in spring time and are associated with natural duststorms.
High readings also occur in winter, especially in the Valley area, and may
reflect dust from unpaved roads. The trend in TSP data is stable; no increases
over time have been observed. The strategy to control particulates includes
paving of dirt roads and restrictions on open burning (ABC, 1975). However,
due to the significance of natural sources, it may not be possible to
consistently meet the standards, especially during periods when soil erosion
is significant (Wilson, 1974).
Photochemical Oxidants. Natural background levels of ozone are high,
generally about 0.05 ppm. Only rather minor contributions from sources such
as vehicle exhaust are needed to cause standards to be violated, especially
as abundant sunlight is available to drive photochemical reactions. Thus
violations are common, especially in summer; readings greater than 0.1 ppm
are frequently recorded. The highest concentrations have been observed
at sites with a high traffic count but problems are observed throughout
the area. The trend in 0X readings is markedly upward, as reflected by an
increase in smog conditions in Albuquerque. The proposed control strategy
involves improvements in vehicle exhaust.controls, less reliance on automobiles
for travel, and improved traffic flows. Other possible control actions include
regular vehicle inspections and retrofit of pollution control devices.
Carbon Monoxide. CO pollution is probably Albuquerque's most significant
air quality problem. A marked upward trend in CO readings has been observed
in the 1970's, with the worst problems being observed in areas of high traffic
density such as the Winrock-Coronado shopping center, where the 8-hour standard
was violated nearly 100 times in 1975. Violations of this standard occurred
5-20 times at many other Northeast Heights and Downtown stations in 1975.
The highest readings occur in winter, due primarily to the poor air circulation
problems which exist during that season. The upward trend in CO data has lead
-31-
-------
TABLE 2-3 A IS QUALITY 1H THE ALBUQCZIQIE AREA
A IB QUALITT STANDARDS.
Pollutnnt
Total euapended
particulate*
Photocbeslcal
oil dan La (otoot)
Cartoon oonoxide
og/a^ ¦ aicrogr^a/cubic neter ppa - parts per Billion
Rational Prlaarr Standard*
75 ug/e' annual re a—trie me.
260 ug/a^ 24-hr arlcb.
0.080 ppa 1-hoox
35.0 ppa 1-hour average
9 0 ppa 8-hour average
Mew Hetlco Standard*
60 ug/a^ annual geoaetrlc a
150 ug/a^ au 24-hr. Arlth
0 060 ppa 1-hour average
13 1 ppm 1-hour average
8.7 ppa 6-hour average
AIR OPAL ITT DATA. ALBPQOTIQPB. TO MKXIC0
S ECO ID
SITB
YR
POLUJTAJTT
HIGH1
BICH
KEAfl2
320040002E01
75
TSP
(24-hr)
250
230
•78
400 Marquette Ave. V It.
76
TSP
(24-hi)
132
125
56
75
CO
(8-hr)
*23.2
*21.4
3 9
76
CO
(8-hr)
HOT AVAILABLE
75
CO
(1-hr)
*40.0
*35.0
5.0
76
CO
(1-hr)
27.0
25.0
¦/A
75
S02
(24-hr)
0.001
0.001
76
S02
(24-hr)
0.011
0.011
76
H02
(24-hr)
0.055
0.023
320040003801
75
TSP
(24-hr)
•333
209
*97
Candelarla Rd. 4 Bdlth B.E.
76
TSP
(24-hr)
•560
•379
•142
(Water Tank)
75
SOj
(24-hr)
0 001
0.001
B/A
76
SO2
(24-h»)
0.016
0.012
0.005
76
BO2
(24-hr)
0 044
0.037
0.018
320040004B01
75
TSP
(24-hr)
•425
154
¦/A
Chlco Rd. 4 Dallas St. B.E
76
TSP
(24-hr)
197
169
*80
(Pire Station)
76
TO2
(24-hr)
0.029
0.024
320040005H01
75
TSP
(24-hr)
133
133
68
400 San Jo*e 8.E.
76
TSP
(24-hr)
215
207
74
(City Water Tank)
320040007H01
75
TSP
(24-hr)
172
123
49
(International Airport)
76
TSP
(24-hr)
188
142
67
320040008H02
75
TSP
(24-hr)
194
176
•86
5501 Pino B.B.
76
TSP
(24-br)
190
196
•103
(City Tarda)
75
Otona
*0 087
*0.080
76
Otona
*0.115
•0.110
320040009H01
75
TSP
(24-hr)
*434
219
*124
75
CO
(8-hr)
*30.0
•27 0
10 0
75
CO
(1-hr)
*45.0
*45 0
11.0
76
CO
(1-hr)
*52 0
*44.0
320040006B01
75
TSP
(24-hr)
254
198
40
II of Encantado Rd H-E.
76
TSP
(24-hr)
90
89
45
and Monte Alto
(Water Tank)
Pollutant
Ration*! Prlniry Standards
Hew Heelco Standard*
Hydrocarbon*
Bltroges oxide*
Sulfur dioxide
0 24 ppa >-hour average
0 OS ppa tanual erlth. e
0.03 ppa aanual arlth. Mean
0 14 ppa aax. 24-hr. average
0.19 ppa 3-hour average
0.05 ppa annual erlth. mean
0.10 ppa b&x. 24-hour average
0.02 ppa annual arlth. aean
0 10 ppa aax. 24-hour average
SECOSDl
SITB
TH
POLLtTTAITT
Hical
BICB
MEAS2
320040015B02
75
CO
(8-hr)
*25 3
*19.4
4 9
Mootgoner? 4 San Kateo H.E.
(Volandla #4 Water Ptsap
75
CO
(1-hr)
33.0
28.0
Station)
76
CO
(1-hr)
12
10
320040016B01
75
CO
(8-hr)
*21.2
*19 5
8.1
University I Central Ave.
(TOM, Rodgln Hall)
75
CO
(1-hr)
33 0
26.0
9.0
76
CO
(X-hr)
21.0
19.0
320040017H01
76
Ozone
*0.105
*0.100
Montgooery 6 Juan Tabo
(Ponderosa Pwp Station)
320040018B01
76
CO
U-hr)
34.0
32.0
1700 Pennsylvania H.E.
(Inei Elea. Sch.)
320040001P01(H01)
75
TSP
(24-hr)
85
70
N/A
Broadvay 6 Grand H E.
76
TSP
(24-hr)
231
220
•111
(HAS1 Site)
75
tO 2
(24-hr)
0.027
0.026
76
ho2
(24-hr)
0.072
0.047
75
SO2
(24-hr)
0.002
0 001
76
*>2
(24-hr)
0.014
0.011
^2014000lfiOl
75
TSP
(24-br)
*434
*423
701 Atrlaco Dr 4 Eucarls
76
TSP
(24-hr)
228
209
•97
(Water Tank}
320140002H01
75
TSP
(24-hr)
*375
255
*98
Rayaae 6 August S.W.
76
TSP
(24-hr)
*463
*267
•96
(Polk Jr High Sch.)
75
S02
(24-hr)
0 001
0 001
320140011B01
75
TSP
(24-hr)
222
220
•96
St. Prancl* 6 4th St 8k
76
TSP
(24-hr)
*273
244
•114
(Aleaeda Cntj Fire Boune)
320140031B03
75
TSP
(24-hr)
• 443
122
(Ueat Mesa Radar Station)
76
TSP
(24-hr)
238
236
37
NOTES*
1 All unite are ppa. T SPT for TSP vaLuea which are given In alerograw per
:ublc oeter (ug/e-v
2. H Indicates Annual Cecwetrlc Mean for TSP
Annual Arithaedc Mean for S02 and UOj
90th p«jrc» tile for CO
* indicates that v*1l£ oxcierfa National Prlaary Standard
-------
-------
to an increased frequency of pollution alerts in recent years; more
violations of standards occurred in 1975 than in che previous two years
combined. The control strategy for CO is similar to that for 0X. In extreme
cases, streets in congested areas will be closed. One obstacle to CO
control is the inherent operational inefficiency of internal combjstion
engines at high altitude.
Hydrocarbons. Limited data regarding hydrocarbon levels do not indicate
that any problems occur in the Albuquerque area, although an upward trend in
HC is evident. A major program to control HC emissions has been implemented
by requiring vapor recovery systems at gas stations and gasoline tank farms.
Nitrogen Oxides. Nitrogen oxides in the Albuquerque area seldom
exceed 0.05 ppm. The maximum values are normally recorded in winter, near
traffic centers and power plants, both of which are significant N0X sources.
An upward trend in concentrations has been observed, indicating that
potential problems may occur in the future. It is expected that the
vehicle control strategies being implemented to reduce 0X and CO pollution
will also affect N0X readings. Further reductions should occur as local
power plants shift away from use of natural gas.
Sulfur Dioxide. This pollutant is observed in trace amounts in the area,
normally about 0.001 ppm. The recent decision to permit coal-burning at
the Ideal Cement Plant in Tijeras Canyon could cause standards to be ex-
ceeded in that area.
Air pollution problems in Albuquerque are aggravated by adverse
natural conditions including:
- air drainage patterns which tend to concentrate pollutants into the
Valley area;
- frequent low-level temperature inversions which tend to trap pollutants
near the ground, especially in winter, leading to a build-up of
contaminants to hazardous levels;
- infrequent precipitation capable of cleansing the atmosphere.
Partly offsetting these conditions is the high frequency of winds which are
capable of dispersing pollutants.
The most serious pollution episodes occur in winter, when a dome of
brownish-yellow smog often hangs over the Valley during the cool-season
months. The smog is held at a low level by temperature inversions, which
are intensified by the night time air drainage when cool air flows into
low spots. As the thin air has little capacity to absorb pollutants,
hazardous levels are quickly reached and relief must await windy conditions.
All analyses of this problem forecast continued pollution which at best
will be slowly abated by control programs.
-34-
-------
2.2.4 Odors
Odors are a special air quality problem which represent one of the most
serious environmental concerns in the planning area. The bulk of public
input to the wastewater facility plan has dealt with the need for truly
effective odor control, especially at Plant No. 2. The controversial
nature of debate on this issue makes it of special importance in the
evaluation of treatment alternatives.
Within the planning area some odor problems are localized, others are
widespread. Sources of odors include: open burning, food processing,
paint and other industries, roofing and paving, horse pens and corrals,
truck terminals and sewage. Sewage odors are both local and regional in
extent. Local odor problems may reflect: flat collection lines, unsatis-
factory conditions at a lift station, sludge applications to City parks,
seepage from cesspools and septic tank drainfields.
Regional odor problems are concentrated along the valley - especially
the South Valley - and result from two major sources: wastewater treatment
plants and animal confinement/meat processing facilities. Although some
observers can distinguish between the two sources, the odors are somewhat
similar and often occur together. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate the
separate significance of the two sources. However, it is certain that treat-
ment plant odors have had a significant long-term impact on immediate neighbor-
hoods and areas downwind, and that on occasions when the treatment process has
turned septic, odor pollution has become a gross problem with widespread public
impact (See Figure 2-6).
Information on the nature of odor sources at the treatment plants was
presented in 2.1.3 and in Part A-4 of the Technical Reference Document.
The most severe problems have occurred at Plant #2. In 1964 fourteen South
Valley residents brought suit against the City to obtain compensation for
odor damages from Plant //2. In 1966, it was ruled that compensation was
proper, and the "odor rights" of the individuals were purchased by the City.
In 1973 odor was a major cause for the lawsuit and stipulation discussed in
1.2. In 1976, the plant suffered a severe odorous upset, resulting in a
petition of protest signed by more than 120 persons.
Testimony at public hearings conducted during preparation of the Facility
Plan indicate the scope of the odor problem. Impacts attributed to odors
include: interference with sleep; upsetting of appetites; restraint of
outdoor activity, especially for children and the elderly; interference with
summer cooling by use of air conditioners or open-window ventilation;
decreased property values; and, by implication, mental depression.
Discussions with City personnel and members of a special odor committee
indicate that the most serious problems occur from May to August, especially
in June and July. Winds vary during this period, exposing persons in all
quadrants to the odors. The Mountainview community is especially impacted
because of the year-round occurrence of winds from the north-northwest.
However, impacts over an area of many square miles have been reported. The
odors tend to be worse, or reportedly most noticed, in the evening.
-35-
-------
At the public meetings considerable dissatisfaction has surfaced regarding
the rate at which odor control is being accomplished by the City. While this
attitude partly reflects nearly 15 years of problems at Plant #2, it is more
particularly a response to the fact that legal action in 1973, which required
the City to use Best Practicable Odor Control Technology to achieve
reasonably odor-free operations, has not actually led to an improvement in
the quality of life for those who reside near the Plant.
As indicated in 2.1.3, the City has taken or will begin a number of
measures to reduce odor problems from Plant if2. These steps, which will take
place independent of actions set forth in the Facility Plan, are expected to
reduce critical odor problems in 1977 and to eliminate them by 1978. Relatively
odor-free operation is expected by about 1980. However, complete implementation
of Best Practicable Odor Control Technology, and an operation which is free
from odors except under extremely unusual conditions, remains an objective
to be accomplished by the Facility Plan.
Plant #1 appears to cause fewer odor problems than It2, perhaps because
much of the surrounding land is in industrial/commercial use. However, the
Plant is certainly a significant odor source and causes frequent discomfort
among those who work or live in the area. These odors were a factor in the
decision to redevelop part of the residential South Barelas neighborhood
into an industrial park. Some odor control measures at Plant #1 have been
proposed by the City (see Part A-3 of EPA, 1977). Elimination of significant
odors is an objective to be accomplished by the alternatives evaluated in
Facility Plan.
One special problem related to odors is that no standards exist concerning
odor polution, and citizen recourse is limited. However, under the terms of
the Stipulation a committee will be formed to determine if the City is properly
in compliance with wastewater-related odor control requirements. This committee,
which will gain authority upon completion of the Phase I construction at Plant
#2, can determine if violations occur from the Plants. The City is obligated
to investigate and remedy odor problems which occur. When odors at the treatment
plants are controlled, problems would still occur in the South Valley due to the
feedlots, stockyards and packing/rendering plants of the area. Many of the animal-
confinement and processing facilities occur in immediate proximity to populated
areas and have occasioned frequent citizen complaints.
To summarize, the treatment plants have been and remain major sources of
odor, particularly during the hot summer months. With construction and imple-
mentation of proper facilities, the City proposes that the odor will be greatly
reduced. However, even should the treatment plants become 100% odor-free, the
South Valley would not be totally relieved of nuisance odors due to the existence
of animal confinement/meat processing operations in that area.
-36-
-------
2.2.5 Noise
As indicated in technical references (EPA, 1971; EPA, 1974) average
noise levels in typical urban settings should not exceed 50-55 dBA in order
to minimize psychological stress and interference with speech and sleep;
noise levels below 50 dBA are especially desirable at night. Noise
above 80-90 dBA can lead to hearing and other health problems if experienced
over prolonged periods. There are no data which permit a comprehensive
evaluation of noise problems in the Albuquerque area, but information which
is available indicates that ranges reported as typical of most communities
(EPA, 1971a) are also typical of Albuquerque.
residential areas - 40-60 dBA daytime; 30-50 dBA night
commercial areas - 5-15 dBA higher than residential
near highways - 60-80 dBA; peak to 90 dBA or above
near airports - 90 dBA or higher peaks in flight paths.
Based on EHD records, complaints regarding community noise problems focus on
localized sources: loud music, motorcycles, specific commercial/industrial
locations.
Noise levels within the two treatment plants generally do not exceed
45 dBA at property lines except near generator and lift station facilities,
where they may approach 60 dBA. Table 2-4 provides noise data for the
neighborhoods near the plants. The data indicate that there is an increase
in noise because of the treatment facilities, and that this increase may be
as much as 7 dBA above the nighttime background noise level. Peaks above
50 dBA have been recorded near Plant //I and also near Plant if2 prior to
recent construction of a noise barrier. Technically the plants are not
violating the City noise ordinance; however, as noted by a memo in the City
files, the situation is approaching the borderline of violating the ordinance
(Caraveo, 1976). Although the noise barrier at if2 has reduced the impact on
surrounding residences, complaints regarding noise from the facility have
been voiced during the public hearing process.
Noise levels near one typical lift station are also presented in Table 2-4.
These indicate that a lift station may violate the City ordinance. No data
are available which would indicate that actual problems exist in the City;
no complaints about lift station noise are on file with the City.
A particular noise problem associated with wastewater facilities is that
of construction equipment. Levels of 85-90 dBA are commonly experienced during
excavation and other stages of sewer construction (EPA, 1971). The impact
of the noise is reduced substantially away from the source, decreasing 6 dBA
for each doubling of distance. Where hilly terrain or extensive vegetation
exists, a greater decrease with distance is observed. Thus, the major impact
of construction is within several hundred feet of the source. The principal
concern regarding this noise is its effect on those who are asleep or ill;
thus, the most severe problems occur at night or near hospitals.
Actual measurements of sewer construction noise in Albuquerque, made as
part of this EIS, indicate that typical levels are less than those indicated
above. In general activities such as trenching, scraping and filling produce
noise levels of only 65-75 dBA, measured at a distance of 50 feet from the
-37-
-------
TA3LE 2-4. \OISE LElTI 5 03SERVED IN \£IGK30RK00D OF kASTEr'\TER
FACILITIES. ALBLOUEROUE, N dBA = decibels (A-scaJe)
Except as noted, all cata uere obtained bv Lee U'llson &
Associates, Inc
Survev infi—\ition Arrbienc levels Levels near
(background noise) facil:
Treatment: Plant 1 «5-^8 dBA 52-55 dBA
August 26, 1976 (recorded near Sarelas (recorded in S Barelas
11 00-11 30 ? - Bridge* traffic noise) alons kathr/n,
~otor "oises/punps)
Treatment °lant 2
August 26, 1?76
11 30-nidni£;-it
/-0-42 dSA
(several locations
crickets)
46-50 dBA*
(hi^^esL ne?r 3arr
Canal i ?ros"»erit',
¦rotor rur^Dlins:
pump uhine)
Lift Station (Four ''ills) 35--0 dBA (children 50 d3\ (pu:az>)
April 16, 197 3 olavmg.
10 00 a n
Subdivision «?evor ia"i-g
Cif View Acres
Aueusl 26, 1976
10 30 a t..
36-^0 dBA (traffic
noise)
5^-77 dBA (oackhoa,
construction sho\eL.
concrete trjck,
strall plow)
5eo-ic tank msCallarim
3905 Rio Gra^ae
August 25, 1976
l-« o m
35-^0 dSA (traffic
noise, children
pla.ins)
¦jq-"S d3A (oackhce,
du.rolr.g sravcl,
..'s:alLation vemc.a)
- ?a:a obcmea d; Cit\ EtU) Jmuarv 27, 1Q76, l-.dicate value
as Mch as 5-* c3\ were -leasurcd reflecting sere; -susid noise, tms
-•as Drior to construction rf a noise barrier ber-n near c^e du^o
rouse: deca reported ?bo\e post-date barrier construction
-38-
-------
construction equipment; peaks to 80 dBA can be expected. Many of the observed
noises are extremely annoying - grinding, squeaking or hissing in character.
Noise measurements made during the installation of a septic tank system
indicate similar levels occur, though obviously on a more localized scale.
The measured levels were mostly between 62-70 dBA with peaks to 78 dBA.
2.2.6 Geology
Most of the planning area lies within the Rio Grande Depression, a series
of structural basins which have a north-south alignment and which lie between
uplifted fault blocks on either side. Figure 2-7 is a three-dimensional
diagram showing the major geologic features of the area. Descriptions of the
stratigraphy and structures associated with each of the natural regions
previously identified are provided in Table 2-1. A geologic map and
stratigiaphic column for the Albuquerque area are presented in Part C-3
of the Technical Reference Document.
Two major types of rock are found near Albuquerque. Relatively hard
rocks (Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Mesozoic crystalline and sedimentary units)
are found to the east in the Sandia-Manzano Mountains and to the west in the
Rio Puerco region. These occur within upfaulted blocks which began to develop
more than 20 million years ago, and reflect a long and varied geologic history
extending back hundreds of millions of years (see Kelley, 1974). Between the
blocks lies a basin filled with debris which has been eroded from higher areas
to the east, north and west. This basin fill is a one to two mile thick se-
quence of sand, gravel, silt and clay and is locally interbedded with lava and
other volcanic rocks; the Mesozoic and older rocks underlie the fill at depth.
This fill is known to geologists as the Santa Fe Group, and is extremely
variable in composition from place to place.
Overlying the Santa Fe Group in most locations is a thin cover of younger
sediments, including: valley alluvium up to 100-200 feet thick along the Rio
Grande; terrace material along the valley sides; alluvial fan sands and gravels
along the mountain front; sand dune deposits on the west mesa; and thin valley
alluvium in Tijeras Canyon and its tributary arroyos. For many practical
purposes, these sediments can be grouped with the Santa Fi
2 2.1 Geologic Resources
An extensive discussion of mineral resources in the planning area is
given in Elston (1967) and is summarized for each natural unit in Table 2-1;
that table also includes more recent information regarding energy resources,
(e.g. from Foster and Grant, 1974). The geologic map in EPA (1977) indicates
the location of major mineral deposits.
Sand and gravels used for construction materials represent the most
important local resource; they are obtained from pits in terrace deposits
near the Rio Grande, and from scattered deposits elsewhere. Limestones and
shales in the mountains are valued for cement-making purposes, and support
the largest single mineral processing operation in the area, the Ideal Ceivpnt
Plant near Tijeras. Minor deposits of gypsum, brick-clay, volanic scoria,
and building stone have been identified, and small metal deposits (lead,
-39-
-------
0
1
OUNTAINS
Mostly unconsolidated gravel,
send, ellt, and clay. Yields
large quantities of water to
veils.
Mostly shale and sandstone.
Yield small quantities
of water to wells
Granitic and oetanorphlc rocks. undivided
Yield snail quantities of
water to wells
ic
|B
is
Santa Fe group
Mostly unconsolidated to loosely
consolidated gravel, sand, silt,
and clay, vltti some lnterbedded
volcanic rocks. Includes bajada
deposits of Pecent age. Ylolds
large quantities of water to
veils
Sedimentary rocks, undivided
Mostly limestone, sandstone,
and shale. Yield small
quantities of water to
wells
FIGURE 2-7. BLOCK DIAGRAM OF ALBUQUERQUE AREA (from Bjorklund and Maxwell, 1961). The diagram clearly shows
the structural trough along the Rio Grande, filled with sediments of the Santa Fe Group, and bordered by
upfaulted older rocks on either side. This trough extends at least 450 miles from southern Colorado to the
El Paso, Texas area and averages 25-30 miles wide; it is thus a major crustal feature of the western U.S.
Total structural displacement near Albuquerque is at least four vertical miles. Diagram does not show the
limestone cap of the Sandia Mountains (although it is suggested by the drawing), nor the complex folded and
faulted sequence of Paleozoic and Mesozoic sandstones and shales near Tijeras.
-------
silver, gold and copper) have been mined near Tijeras; none of these are con-
sidered to have a significant potential for future development, given deposit
quality and/or present economic conditions.
There is growing interest in energy resources near Albuquerque. Coal
reserves of bituminous and sub-bituminous rank are found near Tijeras and
in the far northwestern part of the area. Oil and gas exploration is presently
occurring in scattered locations north, west and south of the area, and the
region is not far from zones of uranium and geothermal resources.
Collecting sites for mineral and fossil prospectors occur in the area
(see for example, Northrop, 1961); however, no individual sites of more than
routine interest have been identified in this study.
2.2.8 Geologic Hazards
Small earthquakes are not uncommon in the Albuquerque area; they occur
up and down the Rio Grande Valley, and especially south toward Socorro. San-
ford and others (1974) have provided the most detailed analysis of seismic
risk in the area, based on historical quakes, instrument recordings and analy-
sis of relatively young faults. They conservatively estimate that the largest
shock which would be expected to occur in the area during a 100-year period
would be about 5 to 6 on the Modified Mercalli Scale. Such a seismic event
would be widely felt, but cause slight damage. More recently Algermissen and
Perkins (1976) have estimated that the maximum level of shaking of solid ground
which would occur during a 50-year period would be 8% of the force of gravity;
this is a small value compared to more active areas such as Southern California
or even Socorro.
The Albuquerque area is marked by many volcanic eruption centers; one of
the world's largest explosion craters occurs to the north in the Jemez Mountains.
However, most of the major volcanic activity in the area occurred more than
one million years ago; the nearby Albuquerque volcanoes were formed about 190,000
years ago. Eruption hazards are thus remote.
Because the underlying geologic material of the Albuquerque area is
normally coarse sediment or fairly massive hard rock, mass movements such as
landslides are comparatively minor in the area, especially in settled sectors.
However, flash flooding is common and can produce considerable erosion as
well as mudflows, especially when originating in the canyons draining the
Sandia Mountains. Further information on flood hazards is presented in Section
2.3.3. Erosion is probably one of the more prevalent problems near Albuquerque.
The Valley Sides natural unit and dissected portions of the Alluvial Fan are
major sediment sources, contributing in excess of 1 acre-foot of material each
year per square mile of area (SCS, 1973). Elsewhere erosion rates are low be-
cause of hard bedrock (Mountains, Volcanoes), coarse sediments (Alluvial Fan
unit), or gentle slopes (Flood Plain and Sand Plains).
Subsidence because of water table lowering is probably not a major hazard
because; a) the rate of regional water table lowering is small; b) the sed-
iments being dewatered are coarse and unlikely to undergo major compaction or
settling (see Beckel, 1970).
-41-
-------
2.2.9 Soils
Three references provide extensive information on the soils of the Albu-
querque area:
a) A map of general soil associations for Bernalillo County has been
prepared by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS, 1973) and shows
that the distribution of major soil units is very similar to the
distribution of the natural regions mapped in Figure 2-3.
b) Maps of detailed soil units related to the associations are presently
being prepared by SCS; while the maps are not yet available, specific
descriptions of all the soil units are available in an unpublished
manuscript (SCS, undated).
c) Prior to this most recent mapping effort, which is part of a State-
wide program to provide uniform detailed soils data, SCS and the
Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments (MRGCOG) had gathered, mapped
and interpreted soils data for the Albuquerque area, with particular
reference to the effects of soils characteristics on land use
planning (MRGCOG, 1974).
The appropriate soil association identifications have been included on
the natural regions map (Figure 2-3), which thus also serves as the soils map
for this EIS. The more detailed MRGCOG maps have been utilized where site-
specific soils information was needed for the purposes of wastewater management
planning, but have not been reproduced in this Statement. The essential
data on soil characteristics - physical properties, limitations, and potential
uses - have been compliled in Table 2-5 and are summarized as part of Table 2-1.
Generally the soils of the planning area can be classified into three
groups.
a) Rocky, comparatively shallow soils occur in the mountains and on the
volcanic basalt flows. These are generally formed in place from
weathered bedrock; forest litter is important in the mountains,
where the soils are often dark and loamy.
b) Coarse soils occur on the mesas and valley sides and are developed on
sands and gravels eroded from nearby highlands. These soils are
commonly deep and well-drained.
c) Highly variable soils occur in the valley flood plain; these include
fine clays, loams, silts and sands developed on deposits laid down
by the Rio Grande. Frequently the surface soil is underlain by a
deep sand horizon; the water table commonly is within 5-10 feet of the
ground surface.
Soil interpretations regarding urban and agricultural land uses are useful
inputs to wastewater management planning. The soils of the Alluvial Fan natural
unit are the best suited for urban development in the area; appropriately,
newer Albuquerque is built on these soils. In contrast, the rocky soils of
the mountain upland and volcanic units can be developed only at great cost, if
-42-
-------
TANK 1- S SOUS OF THF NA1URAI UNITS, A1 BlN M
(Source SIS 1971, MRU DC. 1974, Mf m mI >4 » d >
I ( ncr 11 so 11 de^cr IpAL0!1
_Englno_cr ing^ chiracter13t Icq
llmlfiflons'' for sept ii I.inks
and dra I nf1eIds, low building
f onnd 11 I ons , and und e r R round
Ut I 1 It les
Potent ia1 use
Mount 11 n _ up Iniuls 'in L t
Kolah-Rork Outcrop issoc I ir Ion well
drained stony in very ^tony dirk clay
loims, or rock outcrops Parent nit-
erlal i «¦ often limestone hut may he
<5 irvlst one, prnnlte, gneiss, or schist
Soil1" form oil mode r.ite I y steep to
very st»jep slopes from lr>2 to fl02 Soil
depths ire up to C>0 Inches, hut rock
outcrop inonnts for )fl2 of association
Unified <1 ((II hejov 13 inches)
SurFaio permeability slow
AWIir J -ft 111«¦ hps
Problems slope rreites severe
difficulties for anv engineering
iff I v it l«-s
Septic C iuk.s s»-verp , thi** to
dpptli L*" bedrock iniJ "low
pc rf o 1 »r I on rti I <_•
Foundations snvrre due l«>
« lope , small Mtorto'*
Utilities mode rite in pi'vt ro
due to shrink sw 1 I pot nn ( I 11 ,
rorroslvltv micnitt'l T
Utilities rooder ite to severe
due to slope and high cnrrosl-
vlty of uncoated steel
Spptic finks severe, doe to
depth to bedrock
Foundations severe, where
bedrock none surface
Utilities severe where bedrmk
near surface, otherwise mod-
erote
Recreation generally unsuitable
due to slope, hire rotk , h^it
only moderatp llniltaijon^ In
level areas for camps, picnic
prounds, trails, and piths
Agriculture extremely limited,
levele^t areis miy he suitable
for Rnrdpnlnp., rilsing trees
Oiher wildlife hnbltit, water-
shed , r.inRe, litrestone quarrys
Recreation few limits to any
tvpe of r*»cren l ion, except Jn
irpai of small stones and ex-
posed or verv shallow basalt
Agriculture practictlly no
poteni I'll due to slope, shallow-
ness, «tones and low AW1K
other watershed, wildlife habi-
tat, ranRe, comnnmltv develop-
ment, sotuce of basalt md cjmler
Hcea
a 11uvIn 1 fans unit
T I Je Embudo assoc I 11 i on we 1 I
drained, pravpllv anndv Inam Tormpd
f rem dfi ompospd gnnil fr all uv I um on
very deep, old alluvlif fnns,
some clay In subsoil Slopes
are from 0 Lo 92
Unified SM. Hi -CI . (CI. below 19
1nrhop)
"Jnrf ire pr t mr>ih i 1 I L v nnnlpntf
A^H ¦) n lo 6 5 Inches
Problems ^everp 1Imltit Inns in
sewage Mb,'-»oii«5 and ^anltirv land-
fills due to rtpld perinlitlon
ritp, modrratr shrink swell poten-
tial In TIJeras sprle^ Othprwlse
few rngi neer I iir problems
Sopi |c f*nks s 1 I c,ht
Frmnd«* lon« ' «H®ht to nn»>»r«tP
dtir in chrlnk '.well md
sullditlon upon loifllitf;
Utilities sliphf to miulTite
due to obrink swell
Rrrreif Ion snitiblc Tor nu^sl
ulnn* t
motlernte p«>t«,nllal for dust
Agriculture rcn^ri 11 v ui'su I f -
able for Inlenslvp u-*e dtie lo
ripld pertojotIon rile and Iow
n»gnnIc rnnlent
Other les«ieiilnn poi^ntl^l for
range, watershed, and wlldliTp
hnbltit due to extensive com-
munltv devrlopneni
p»ee next pi^c for footnote*-
-------
TABLE Z- 5 (Continued)
General soil description
Engineering characteristics
Limitations for septic tanks
and dralnflelds, low building
foundations, and underground
utilities
Potential use
Mesa* sand plains unit
Hadurez-Vlrik association, veil
drained fine sandy loam over sandy
clay loam subsoil. Conned on gently
sloping, slightly convex mesas,
from old unconsolidated alluvial
material. Material may be modi-
fled by wind; some dime sand;
weakly cemented caliche at 3 to 5
feet in places. Slopes are 1Z to
71
Valley sides and terraces unit
Bluepolnt-Kokan association* some-
what excessively to excessively
drained loamv sandy (Bluepolnt)
and gravelly sandy (Kokan) soils
on Jlessctad tarracai, formed froo
materials of the Santa Fe formation.
Slopes are from 1Z to 65Z» with
Kokan soils on the steepest slopes.
Madurez-Wlnk association: as des-
cribed under sand plains unit,
these soils are formed on the
more level, less dissected
terraces.
Unified1: SC-SM, SC, CL, SH, SM
belov 2 to 3 feet
Surface permeability?- moderate to
rapid
AtfHC^ 6 to 9 inches
Problems' moderate shrink swell
potential and cave-in of cut-
banks, high potential for cor-
rosion of untreated steel. 'Mod-
erate limitations to sewage lagoons
and sanitary landfills where per-
colation rate Is rapid.
Unified SP-SM, SH (Bluepolnt CP,
GP-CM, GH (Kokan)
Surface Permeability rapid to very
rapid
AVHC; 2 0 to 5.5 Inches
Problems severe vster erosion and
sedimentation problems; severe
limitations to sewage lagoons due
Co rapid perc rate, sloughing
and corroslvlty (Kokan) potential
high Otherwise moderate to
slight limitations where slope
is <15*
Septic tanks' slight
Foundations slight to moder-
ate shrink swell
Utilities moderate to high
due to cutbank cave-ins,
shrink swell, and corroslvlty
Septic tanks slight where
slopes <0Z, severe If slopes
greater than 15Z
Foundations. same
Utilities' severe due to cut-
bank cave-ins, small stones,
corroslvlty of Kokan soils
Recreation good except in
areas of excess sand or slope
Agriculture best in sandy loam
areas but generally unsuitable
for intensive agriculture due
to rapid permeability and low
organic content
Other. range, watershed, wild-
life habitat, community devel-
opment; has been used for cut
and fill operations and is fair
material for road fill
Recreation fair to poor poten-
tial due to slope, dust and
sand
Agriculture poor due to sand,
small stones, slops, limited
topsoil
Other: range, wildlife habitat,
where not used for community
development. Also used for cut
and fill and for a source of
sand and gravel; some Indian
artifacts
lley: floodplaln unit
vila-Vlnton Brazito association:
rfell drained but shallow loams,
clay loaas, and sandy loams over
a very deep substratum of fine to
coarse sand Slopes from 0 to 32.
Soils formed from alluvial materials
deposited by the Rio Grande
Unified: SH, ML, CL-KL, CL at
surface; SM, SP-SH, SP for sub-
surface sands
Surface permeability* moderate to
rapid
AWHC: 1.5 to 8.5 inches
Problems: shallow to very shallow
water table; flood hazards from
both the river and mesa runoff;
easily erodable materials; severe
sloughing hazard; moderate shrink
swell and corroslvlty in places
nearest the river. Severe limi-
tations to sewage lagoons and sani-
tary landfills where percolation
rate la rapid.
Septic tanks: moderate to
severe due to flooding poten-
tial, high water table, or slow
percolation rate
Foundations* slight
Utilities: moderate to severe
because of sloughing, corro-
sion, shrfnv-swell, and shallow
water table
Recreation* excellent except in
areas prone to flooding or
excessive dust, sand or clay
Agriculture' very good, except
where limited by sand or rapid
percolation
Other: pasture, wildlife habi-
tat, community development;
good source for roadflll and
fair for sand except where
fines excessive
'Unified: a visual soil classification, based on texture and plasticity,
used for embankment, foundation, and roadway construction.
^AWHC: abbreviation for available water holding capacity:
GV-well graded gravels
GP-poorly graded gravels
GM-silty gravels
GC-clayey gravels
SW-well graded sands
SP-poorly graded sands
"Surface oerzeab:11:* -Ijsses
slow, 0 2-0 6. ^ocerace. 0
SM-silty sands
SC-clayey sands
KL-sllts of low plasticity
HH-sllts of high plasticity
CL-clays of low plasticity
CH-clays of high plasticity
*»d asaroxiaate ra
-- 0, raoiJ, 2 0-
AtfHC
very low
low
moderate
high
Inches In 5 feet
<3 3/4
3 3/4-5
5 - 7.5
>7.5
e= f irenes/nuur)
0 /er1 rapid, over h 0
Limitations slight, moderate, severe Expressed in terms
of difficulty (time, expense) In overcoming natural limita-
tions of soils for specific uses.
-------
at all. The other units have some limitations to urbanization, but can be
utilized in many places if care is taken.
Irrigation, whether by river water, ground water, or treated sewage, is
physically practical on the soils of the Flood Plain unit. Elsewhere it is
generally impractical, although the Sand Plains unit can be farmed if enough
water and fertilizer are available to overcome the naturally rapid permeability
and low organic content of the soil.
A special problem associated with area soils is that many are poorly
suited for use of septic tanks and drainfields. The Mountain Upland and
Volcanic soils are too shallow to be suitable for such disposal systems,
while in the Flood Plain the soils are locally either too fine (low permeability)
or too coarse (high permeability with shallow water table) for conventional on-
site disposal to function adequately. Conditions are more varied along the
Valley Sides and in the Mountain Lowland; locally soils are deep enough and
of adequate permeability to permit on-site disposal for low-density develop-
ment. Elsewhere problems such as slope and shallow bedrock make such disposal
undesirable. Conditions are best in the Alluvial Fan and Sand Plains units,
where soil conditions are favorable almost everywhere to low-density develop-
ment using on-site waste disposal.
2.2.10 Present Impact of Sludge Reuse and Disposal
The present practice of using ground, dried sludge as a fertilizer-dressing
on City parks provides a positive reuse of the nutrients in Albuquerque
sludge, and a method of sludge disposal which generally follows official guide-
lines (e.g. as published in the Federal Register, 41 CRF 108). A major benefit
of this program is that the need for commercial inorganic fertilizers is reduced*
although potassium supplements may be needed (Dean & Smith, 1973). Based on a
sludge production rate of 4900 dry tons/year; nitrogen and phosphorus contents
in the 2-3% range; and a value of 20c per pound nitrogen or phosphorus;
the dollar value of the sludge fertilizer is approximately $100,000/year under
present conditions. An advantage of sludge over commercial fertilizer is that
a high percentage of the nitrogen is in the organic form and is released slowly
by mineralization over the year, thus providing a steady nutrient supply.
Another benefit of sludge application to park soils is that the overall
condition of these soils should be improved (e.g. Epstein, 1973; Miller, 1973).
For example, sludge applications generally increase soil properties such as
humus and organic content, fertility, water-holding capacity, cation exchange
capacity and soil aggregation (hence resistance to erosion).
There could also be adverse impacts from sludge application on City
parks, related primarily to water pollution by nitrogen and/or metals. An
additional problem, pathogens, is probably minimized by the long storage of
sludge prior to application and the action of soil processes to filter
out disease-causing organisms. However, survival of some organisms is
likely (Fair and Geyer, 1965). The present rate of nitrogen-loading at a
park where sludge is used can be calculated to be between 200 and 400 pounds/acre/
year. The lower estimate (representing a one-eighth inch application each
year) is probably close to the .value which can be taken up by park grasses;
it would be acceptable under the proposed State ground water quality regulations.
The upper value would undoubtedly exceed plant uptakes, especially considering
-45-
-------
that grass clippings are not removed from parks, but allowed to decay, so
that nutrients are returned to the soil. Where the loading rate substantially
exceeds 200 tons/acre/year, the prospect exists that some nitrate is leached
to ground water. The amount of nitrate which is leached probably is small,
since evidence exists that processes of nitrogen loss (nitrification-denitrification,
ammonia volatilization) are extremely important in sludge-treated soils
(Larson et al., 1975).
While metals in sludge may be useful as plant micronutrients, they may
also accumulate in the soil or build up in the food chain to potentially toxic
levels. Chaney (1973) identified boron, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper,
mercury, nickel, lead and zinc as metals which present "the long term environ-
mental hazard in land application" of sludges and effluents. Based on his data,
Albuquerque sludge contains higher levels of copper, nickel, and zinc
than would be advisable for use on agricultural lands. These metals present
no direct health hazard on park soils which are not used for crop cultivation;
however, their presence provides a source of metals which might ultimately be
leached out and cause water pollution.
The best available information suggests that the potential for metals
leaching is small. Dean and Smith (1973) observe that the organics in sludge
will normally complex out most metals and make them unavailable. Similarly,
the Federal guidelines (41 CFR 108) state that "maintaining (soil-sludge)
pH above 6.5 will prevent solubilization and migration of most metal ions".
Soils in the Albuquerque area commonly have a pH of 7 or above.
In order to determine if metals in Albuquerque sludge remain in park
soils, samples were taken at three park sites and a control site, and tested
for copper, zinc, cadmium, chromium, lead and arsenic. The results are given
in Table 2-6. As indicated in the table, the results are consistent with the
hypothesis that virtually all metals introduced to the soil by sludge have remained
in the soil, and have not been leached to ground water or lost to erosion. Since
there are no firm data for the total length of sludge application at each park,
nor the metals content in sludge in past years, it is not possible to state with
certainty that an absolute metals balance exists. Nonetheless, the data do not
suggest any problems exist.
2.3 HYDROLOGIC ENVIRONMENT
Good quality water is one of Albuquerque's most valued resources. Extensive
information related to this resource has been compiled in EPA (1977) as follows:
D-l provides background information on the physical characteristics of the
drainage system and history of water management; D-2 presents data on surface
water hydrology of the Rio Grande, and the comparative significance of
Albuquerque's wastewater discharges; D-3 presents data on ground water hydro-
logy; D-4 provides information on matters such as flooding and water rights,
2.3.1 General Setting
Albuquerque is located in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, 158 miles above
-46-
-------
TABLE J-f,.
HEAVY METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN ALBUQUERQUE SOILS TREATED WITH DIGESTED SLUDGE. Samples taken
by Lee Ullson & Associates, Inc , Santa Fe, from upper 18 Inches of soli (mixed; and analyzed
by State Scientific Laboratory, Albuquerque. All values as ug/g or parts per million
Site
So 1 Is
Rio Orande Kirk
Loam
Other Conditions Shallow wuter t.ible
Sludge History More than 16
ye irs «.ippLicdt Ion
Los Altos Golf Course
Sandy Joam
(ovi*r caliche)
Freeway nearby
Irregular and rattier
mJnimaL use
Metals (all
values ug/g)
Hathet>on Park
Sandy loam
(over caliche)
Arroyo area
12 years
appl Ication
Menaul High School
Loam
Freeway and main
artery nearby
Fertilizer and manure
only: no sludge
(20 years +)
Copper
46.7
14.7
26.7
10 6
Zinc
59.7
29.9
32.4
30.6
Cadmium
1.7
0.1
0. 7
0 2
Chromium
L3.6
6. 1
8.2
4.6
Lead
52.3
7 9
15.7
26.8
Arsen Ic
6.0
3.2
4.5
3.3
Metals balance. Sludge applied at 1/8 inch/year Is applied at the rate of 7260 pounds/acre/year If copper
is 900 ppm of sludge, and all copper accumulates In the upper foot of soil, then the Increase in copper levels
would be 1.3 ug/g where sludge is applied. Similar estimates can be made for zinc (1200 ppm), cadmium (30 ppm),
chromium (300 ppm), lead (1000 ppm), and arsenLc (100 ppm). If sludge were applied at Rio Grande Park for
40 years, the predicted metals concentration would be Cu-48 ug/g, Zn-64 ug/g, Cd-1.6 ug/g, Cr-16 ug/g; Pb-53
ug/g. As 5-ug/g. These values are almost Identical to those observed, this does not mean that all the above
assumptions are correct, but does Indicate that the observed data are internally consistent, and in accordance
with a hypothesis that metal buildups are a function of sludge disposal, with no major effect from leaching or
erosion
-------
Elephant Butre Dam and downstream of a 14,500 square mile drainage area (Figure 2-8) . The
Middle Rio Grande flows through a series of sub-basins, divided by natural
narrows at San Felipe, Isleta, San Acacia and San Marcial. Between the narrows
each sub-basin has the same general characteristics as described for the
Albuquerque area in Section 2.0.1. The river itself occupies a wide sandy
meandering channel and has a grade of 4-5 feet/mile. Because of aggradation,
the channel is often several feet above the adjacent, wide flood plain.
Tributaries are few, and in this desert region invariably ephemeral. The
most significant are the Jemez River north of Albuquerque, and the Rio Puerco
and Rio Salado to the south. Tijeras Arroyo is the largest tributary within
the planning region, but is too snail to have significant effect on regional
hydrologic patterns.
More than most rivers, the character of the Rio Grande reflects historic
patterns of water use and intensive man-made modifications aimed at providing
a controlled hydrologic regime. Major elements in this history can be sum-
marized as follows:
i) Prior to 1850 the Middle Basin river flows vere used for irrigation of
Indian and Spanish colonial lands totalling 125,000 acres.
ii) From about 1850 to about 1900, the effects of upstream irrigation
development and overgrazing combined with climate change to create
severe sedimentation problems and extreme water shortages, reducing
irrigated acreage in the Middle Basin to about 50,000 acres, just
less than the present amount.
iii) From the late 1800's to about 1940 many actions were taken to solve
the sediment and water supply problems and to reduce flooding hazards.
For example, Elephant Butte Dam was constructed downstream, and State
control was exercised over appropriation of surface and ground water.
For Albuquerque the most significant action was formation of the
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD), which consolidated and
improved the network of irrigation dams and canals, and which constructed
irrigation drains to lower the water table.
iv) More recently the Federal government has implemented a number of
major public works programs which have resulted in construction of
flood and sediment control reservoirs upstream, construction of a
major project for transferring Colorado River water into the Basin,
straightening and channelization of the Rio Grande, and construction
of flood control structures on tributary arroyos. In addition the
MRGCD canals and drains have been rehabilitated, and efforts have been
undertaken to salvage water by clearing of phreatophytes.
Within the past decade or so the emphasis has begun to change from concern over
irrigation water supplies to concern for municipal water supplies and water
for recreation purposes. One consequence is that the value of the Rio Grande
is no longer measured only in terms of agricultural use; the worth of river
water in supporting fish, wildlife and boating is of comparable importance in
the public view. Another consequence is that ground water, the source of
municipal supplies, is receiving increasing attention.
-48-
-------
-------
What emerges from the above summary is that there is severe competition
for a limited surface water supply. One recent study concluded that "the
problems of the Rio Grande ... are as severe and complicated as any in the
entire West" (USDI, 1975, p. 71). Increasingly, ground water is being used as
an alternate supply, but its use is restricted by water rights considerations
(see Section 2.3.4). Water quality as such has only recently become an issue
in the area.
The historical summary also highlights the variety of projects and pro-
grams which influence decisions regarding water resource management in the
Albuquerque area. Major projects and programs are listed in Table 2-7. Of
these the irrigation and drainage works of the MRGCD most directly interact
with wastewater management in the planning area. For example, while most city
wastewater is discharged directly to the Rio Grande, the Riverside Drain which
passes Plant //2 has on occasion received treated wastewater; the Drain returns
to the River about six miles downstream. About seven miles downstream is a
diversion dam at Isleta Pueblo. This structure diverts almost all of the Rio
Grande flow during most months of the irrigation season, March-October. The
diverted water supplies farms in the Peralta-Belen area, and in effect is a
mixture of normal river water and the effluent discharged by the City. Also in-
cluded in this water supply is return flow from MRGCD drains which serve irri-
gated areas throughout the South and North Valleys. These drains intercept
shallow ground water which is affected by discharges from cesspools and septic
tanks.
2.3.2 Surface Water
Flow Patterns. Snowmelt from northern New Mexico mountains contributes
a sizeable flow to the Rio Grande in most years, creating a perennial water
source for Albuquerque despite the aridity of the local climate. Figure 2-9
illustrates flow data for the river as measured at the Central Avenue Bridge.
The average discharge shown for the period 1955-1974 was 819,000 acre-feet/year,
of which 87% occurred in the river channel and the remainder was bypass flow
distributed in adjacent MRGCD irrigation canals and the Riverside Drain.
About half the annual discharge occurred during the meltwater season (March-
June) ; conversely very low flows were observed late in the irrigation season
(July-October).
Great variability exists in the flow regime from year to year. While
in some years more than two million acre-feet of flow have been recorded,
more commonly the river is drier than indicated by the average values
illustrated in Figure 2-9. An analysis of median flow conditions provides
data representative of "normal" hydrologic patterns. Median discharge
in the past few decades has been about 550,000 acre-feet/year, of which 79%
was in the river channel and 21% was bypass. The median river flow has been
about 600 cubic feet per second since 1943. With an average wastewater discharge
of just under 60 cfs (in 1976), the mean dilution ratio of river to wastewater
is about 10:1 for present circumstances.
By definition, flows less than the median occur half the time so that
the river normally has a comparatively small discharge. In recent years
it has become increasingly common for the river at Central Avenue Bridge to
-50-
-------
TABLE 2-7. PROJECTS AFFECTING WATER RESOURCES IN THE MIDDLE RIO GRAND F. BASIN
C0E=Corpsof Engineers. BOR=Bureau of Reclamation. MRGCD=MiddLe
Rio Grande Conservancy District.
Upstream Flood and sediment control dams and reservoirs (COE)- Abiquiu
from (Rio Chains); Cochiti (Rio Grande); Galisteo (Rio Galisteo);
Albuquerque Jemez Canyon (Jeme2 River).
Water supply storage reservoirs: El Vado (MRGCD, on Rio Chana);
Heron (BOR, on Willow Creek).
Interbasin diversion works (BOR): San Juan-Chaoia Project to import
110,000 acre-feet/year from Upper Colorado Basin, for municipal
and irrigation use in Rio Grande of New Mexico.
Downstream Elephant Butte Dam and Reservoir, 40-raile long lake used for
from Irrigation storage, hvdroelectric power, and recreation (fish-
Albuquerque ery, boating). Storage capacity = 2.1 million acre-feet, but
storage is normally 300,000-700,000 AF
Caballo Reservoir, used fur flow regulation and other purposes.
Phreatophyte clearing (BOR): eradication of salt cedar and
other riparian vegetation which consume water for "non-beneficial
purposes." Controversies have arisen over effectiveness of
project, impact on wildlife.
Middle Channelization, straightening of Rio Crande (BOR)- includes
Rio Grande development of confined, partly cleared floodway (bordered
Basin by levees, Jetty fields), and In some reaches construction
(general) of low-flow conveyance channels to carry most river flows.
Irrigation works (MRGCD): includes small diversion dams on
river, network of large and small canals for delivery of
irrigation supply to farms, network of drains to intercept
seepage water from river, canals, farms, and thus maintain
water table at an acceptable depth below ground surface.
Albuquerque Irrigation works (MRGCD)- as above, described in detail for
Area planning area in. Table D 3 of EPA (1977).
Tributary flaod control projects, including dams, diversion
channels (COE, others).
-51-
-------
Figure 2-9
SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF RlO GRANDE FLOWS
AT ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, 1955-1974
Month
-52-
-------
contain no discharge for several days to several weeks at a time, although
the bypass flow has remained substantial. Thus, during the late irrigation
season the City's wastewater may be discharged to a dry riverbed, and no
dilution takes place. In hydrologic terms, the week-long flow expected
in a ten-year interval is zero cubic feet per second. One consequence of
flow variability, and frequent low flows, is that water levels at Elephant
Butte Reservoir tend to be low, and tend to widely fluctuate from year to year
and month to month, resulting in impaired value for recreation and fishery
purposes.
Fate of Wastewater. As noted previously, wastewater discharged by the City
to the Rio Grande can be diverted at Isleta Dam to the canals of the Belen
Division, MRGCD. Section D-2 of EPA (1977) contains an extensive analysis to
determine how much effluent is diverted at Isleta and how much may actually be
used for farm irrigation in the Belen region. Many factors must be considered
in evaluating the effect of City wastewater on the river and on MRGCD irrigation.
For example, flows at Central Avenue Bridge are probably greater than those
reaching Isleta Dam because some of the bypass at the Bridge does not return
to the river, and because City well pumpage causes river seepage to occur in
the Central Avenue-Isleta reach. Another factor is that during winter months
no flow is diverted at Isleta; in spring a portion of the flow is diverted,
but an excess exists and passes over the dam; in the late irrigation season in
most years all the river flow at Isleta is diverted. Thus the seasonal pattern
of river discharge as compared to effluent discharge must be evaluated to
determine just how much wastewater is diverted to irrigated lands. Finally,
it is necessary to analyze water use patterns in the Belen Division, since much
of the diverted flow does not reach farm land, but instead is lost as direct
return flow or as canal seepage.
When all the variables are considered, it appears that under present
conditions 14,900 acre-feet of wastewater are diverted at Isleta Dam each
year, and that 6,600 acre-feet of this wastewater are delivered to farms in
the Belen Division and used for irrigation purposes. Of the total irrigation
water supply in the Division, 8% is effluent on the average. During spring
months the effluent may be only 3% of the supply, whereas by late in the irrigation
season it is 16% of the supply. Of course, during dry years the percentage
values would probably be much higher. For the year as a whole, the average
acre of irrigated land in the Belen Division receives 2.4 inches of wastewater.
Under present conditions, one-third of all Albuquerque's wastewater is diverted
at Isleta Dam, and one-sixth is utilized on the farms of Valencia County.
Wastewater not used in the Peralta—Belen area may be consumed further
downstream in the Socorro Division of the MRGCD or in areas of wetland and
phreatophyte vegetation. Simplified water budget calculations indicate that
about one-third of all Albuquerque's wastewater is consumed above Elephant
Butte Reservoir. The remaining two-thirds would be expected eventually
to reach the Reservoir, and to be consumed there or used by irrigation further
downstream.
-53-
-------
Flood Hazards. In the Albuquerque area floods arise from two sources:
overflow of the Rio Grande,most often during spring or early summer; and flash
floods from local arroyos in response to intense, localized summer thunderstorms.
The combined effect of upstream flood control dams and riverside levees
has greatly reduced the hazard of Rio Grande floods in the Albuquerque area. At
present most of the valley is not subject to a 100-year flood; this includes
the area of the two treatment plants. However, in some locations the levees
are low or in poor repair, and a severe flood hazard exists. Such a situation
occurs in the area from the University of Albuquerque north to Corrales, and
in the Southeast and Southwest Valleys, south of Tijeras Arroyo.
Arroyo floods affect not only their channel and adjacent terrace areas,
but also the Rio Grande flood plain, because most arroyos empty to the poorly
drained valley and lead to widespread shallow ponding of the flood waters. This
flooding has caused health problems in the past, as it has caused flushing of
liquid wastes from cesspools and septic tank drainfields. Section D-4 of
EPA (1977) contains a map indicating where the greatest hazards exist.
Some local flooding has been controlled by construction of the North and
South Diversion Channels, and some is soon to be managed by new structures
being built by the Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo and Flood Control Authority.
Although these measures limit the potential for major flood damage in the area,
the prospect of localized flooding on the valley floor remains, caused by
runoff of the remaining uncontrolled arroyos and/or by intense localized
precipitation. Thus, for purposes of evaluating on-site systems, all of the
poorly drained valley area can be considered as vulnerable to flooding.
2.3.3 Ground Water
The basin fill sediments of the Rio Grande trough provide a thick,
relatively permeable aquifer which stores a large supply of good quality
ground water. Properly developed wells should reliably produce yields of
several hundred gallons per minute or greater from this aquifer or the closely
related overlying alluvium of the Rio Grande flood plain. West and Broadhurst
(1976) indicated that the total recoverable water stored in the Albuquerque
basin averages about 460,000 acre-feet per square mile, or 2.3 billion acre-
feet beneath a 5,000 square mile area. This is equivalent to the median
Rio Grande flow for about 4,000 years.
The ground water supply is much less favorable in the Sandia Mountain area,
where geologic conditions are variable. Some geologic units yield little
water while others locally provide an adequate supply for limited development.
According to Titus (1974) limitations on the availability of ground water
represent a major obstacle to development in the East Mountain area.
In most of the planning area the water table slopes west and south, toward
and along the Rio Grande (Figure 2-10). However, the lowest point in the water table
occurs beneath the West Mesa, several miles from Albuquerque. The area of
greatest interest with regard to ground water is the river valley
where the water table normally lies within 20 feet of the ground surface,
and often occurs within five feet. This level is fairly stable because of
the regular or controlled patterns of recharge and discharge. Recharge
occurs through river seepage, canal seepage, percolation from irrigated
-54-
-------
-------
fields, and effluent from on-site systems. Discharge occurs to the MRGCD
drains, and to City and private wells. Prior to construction of the drains,
most valley soils were waterlogged. After the drains were built the water
table lowered an average of three feet throughout the area.
Because the valley ground water is shallow, and because the alluvium
is highly permeable, the flood plain aquifer is very vulnerable to pollution.
The aquifer is also interconnected with the underlying Santa Fe Group and
with surface flows in the Rio Grande, so that locally contaminated ground
water has the potential of causing regional problems.
At present a large volume of ground water is pumped each year in the
Albuquerque area—probably about 120,000 AF/year. The large amount of
inflow from the north (coupled with local recharge) has offset most of
the pumpage, and drawdown of the water table is limited to comparatively
small cones of depression near major well fields, and a larger cone near
downtown.
2.3.4 Water Rights
Ground and surface water in the Albuquerque area is publicly owned
and cah be used only by those holding a legal water right. The use of such
rights is governed by the regulations of the New Mexico State Engineer, whose
policies are designed to protect and stabilize flows in the Rio Grande.
The City of Albuquerque holds water rights in the amount of approximately
65,000 acre-feet/year; it can deplete the flows of the river by this amount,
provided it does so without impairing senior water rights. The City's
holdings include about 18,672 acre-feet of vested well rights, and an allocation
of San Juan-Chama Project water in the amount of 46,300 acre-feet (after
delivery losses). The City has an active policy of acquiring additional rights.
For example households with private wells are required to turn over a portion
of their domestic water right in return for hookup to the City water system.
The City's present use of water rights is calculated following
complex procedures of the State Engineer. Presently nearly 80,000 acre-feet
of ground water are pumped from municipal wells each year. However, a
portion of this (.more than one-fourth) is calculated to come from ground
water storage, or to come from wells far from the river. Water rights are
not required to offset this supply because there is no present effect on
river flows. For the water in storage there will never be such an effect.
The remaining pumpage is calculated to reduce stream discharge by
nearly 50,000 acre-feet/year. However, the State Engineer credits
the City for the wastewater which is returned to the river, since that water
replenishes stream flow. The credit is calculated as equal to 50% of the
water pumped; in practice, wastewater discharge is slightly greater than half
the pumpage. The net result of this credit, which currently is nearly 40,000
acre-feet per year, is that the City is charged with depleting river flows
by less than 10,000 acre-feet per year under present conditions. The water
right requirement is thus less than 25% of the total holding. As the City
grows and uses more and more ground water, the water right requirement
will increase, even though the 50% credit for wastewater return would remain
a major factor keeping that requirement to a minimum.
-56-
-------
The vested well rights will be fully used within the next 5-6 years,
after which the City's San Juan-Chama allocation is to be utilized to provide
water rights in support of future growth. The allocation will be fully
committed for municipal and industrial purposes early in the next century.
In the meantime, the City must pay an annual charge for the allocation, a
charge which will eventually exceed $1.5 million per year. The City has
explored many interim uses for the allocation, especially related to creation
of recreational water bodies in or near the metropolitan area. No such local
use has been found feasible so far. The City is actively exploring the possibility
of storing some water for recreational and other purposes in Abiquiu Reservoir,
north of Espanola.
2.4 WATER QUALITY
Data on water quality in the Middle Rio Grande Basin are not yet adequate
to permit a thorough evaluation of present or possible future pollution problems.
On-going monitoring and research programs are expected to improve the data base
in the next several years. Pending such improvements it is practicable only to
discuss preliminary and general conclusions which appear valid given existing
information. A detailed discussion of water quality in the Basin, and the effect
of wastewater management in Albuquerque is presented in Section D-5 of the Techni-
cal Reference Document (EPA, 1977). Section D-5 includes: extensive data summaries
and references to the literature; evaluation of all major parameters of concern
in protection of surface and ground water; detailed review of available information
regarding the effects of wastewater nutrients on Elephant Butte Reservoir. Addi-
tional analyses which relate wastewater management in Albuquerque to water quality
in the Middle Rio Grande Basin include: Clayton (1966); Patterson (1970);
Anderson (1972); NMWQCC (1976a); EIA (1976).
2.4.1 Water Quality Goals and Standards
The pollution control program established by P.L. 92-500 includes Federal
standards for industrial and municipal waste treatment and provisions for
Federal enforcement; a permit and license system entitled National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which governs the discharge of pollutants
into navigable waters; and a massive grant-in-aid program for the construction
of publicly owned treatment works. The basic objective of the law is to
eliminate the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States by 1985.
The feasibility or environmental acceptability of meeting the "zero discharge" goal
by 1985 has not been established by EPA. However, the less sLringent interim
goals for discharges from municipal sewage treatment plants will be enforced.
By 1977 discharges from facilities such as Plant //2B are to meet a
standard associated with "secondary" treatment technology, as follows:
- BOD5 removal shall be at least 85% of that found in the influent
wastewater, and effluent shall not average more than 30 mg/1 BOD^
over a 30 day period nor more than 45 mg/1 over a 7-day period;
- the standard for suspended solids reads the same as for BOD^;
- effluent pH shall be in the range 6.0-9.0.
-57-
-------
These standards have been incorporated into the City's NPDES permit
along with a requirement regarding fecal coliform levels (Table 2-8). By
1983 the standards would be based on the "Best Practicable Control Technology",
which is defined as the average of the best performance at well-operated
plants. The 1983 effluent standards have not yet been established but it is
expected that they will relate to the control of toxic substances and
nutrients. It is possible that adequately sized activated sludge treatment
would meet such standards.
The State of New Mexico has specified discharge requirements to be
included in the City's NPDES permit, including more stringent limits for
BOD5 and pH, and standards for COD and settleable solids (Table 2-8). The
State has also designated beneficial water uses in the Middle Rio Grande Basin
and Elephant Butte Reservoir which must be protected by wastewater management
actions. The Middle Rio Grande is designated for irrigation use, limited
warmwater fishery, livestock and wildlife watering, and secondary contact
recreation. Elephant Butte and/or Caballo Reservoir are designated for the
same uses plus primary contact recreation, fish culture and marginal cold-
water fishery. The ground water which is recharged by the Rio Grande is also
designated for use as a drinking water source. To protect the surface and
ground waters of the Basin, the State has set specific stream standards and
ground water quality standards (Table 2-8). As will be described in 2.4.2,
the stream standard for fecal coliform bacteria is frequently violated within
the Basin. In accordance with P.L. 92-500 the stream therefore is classified
as "water quality limited", which means that water quality standards are not
now met, nor are they expected to be met after application of the above-cited
effluent standards.
The New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission has identified two water
quality issues of prime importance in areawide planning for Albuquerque
(NMWQCC, 1976, page 13):
"The determination of the movement or potential for movement through the
aquatic and terrestrial ecosystem of those toxic substances associated
with the municipal/industrial complex's discharges into the river system"
and "the determination of the relative importance of nutrient loadings
(nitrogen and phosphorus) to Elephant Butte Reservoir from municipal,
agricultural and storm water discharges."
In the Basin Plan, the Commission has provided a specific mandate to the
Facility Plan and this EIS (NMWQCC, 1976, p. 1-5):
"Alternatives to the production of highly oxidized nitrogenous effluent
from the Albuquerque sewage treatment plant shall be realistically
evaluated in the Section 201 Facilities Plan and where cost-effective,
such an alternative shall be implemented".
In addition to Federal and State criteria, the City is obligated to meet
standards set forth in the Stipulation regarding the discharge of 14 heavy
metals.
-58-
-------
TABLE 2-6. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND CRITERIA PERTINENT TO MANAGEMENT OF CIH OF ALBUQUERQUE WASTEWATER
Source of Standard, Criteria
1. NPDES Permit 4NM02250 as
proposed May 1, 1976. An
asterisk (*) indicates
standards set by State
of New Mexico, others
are Federal
2 Stream standards set by
New Mexico Water Quality
Control Commission for Rio
Grande between Angostura
Diversion (N. of Albuquerque)
to headwaters of Elephant
Butte Reservoir
3 Ground water standards as
adopted by New Mexico Water
Quality Control Cosaaission,
January 11, 1977 An asterisk
(*) denotes a standard which
applies to aesthetic conditions,
or to irrigation water, all
others are health standards
for drinking water.
4 Heavy metal standards
set forth in Stipulation.
All are maxima and apply to
effluent when natural
backgrounds are not high.
Other standards may
applv to Industrial
discharges and to effluent
when backgrounds are high
(see Wilson, 1976).
Parameter & Measurement Period
BOD5 (30-day average)
BOD5 ( 7-day average)
*B0D5 (2 consecutive samples, and
10Z of all samples)
Suspended solids (30-day average)
Suspended solids ( 7-day average)
pK (acceptable range at all tides)
*pH(2 consecutive samples and 10?
of all sampled, acceptable limits)
*C0D (not to be exceeded more than
once per month)
Fecal coliform (30-dav average)
Fecal coliform (7-dav average)
*Fecal coliform (2 consecutive samples,
102 all samples)
*Settleable solids (2 consecutive
samples, iOZ of all samples)
Floating solids
Dissolved oxygen (any sample)
pH (acceptable range, anv sample)
Temperature (any sample)
Fecal coltfona (monthly logarithmic
mean)
Fecal coliform (10Z all samples)
Total dissolved solids (monthly
average when flows exceed 100 cfs)
Chloride (sane as above)
Sulfate (same as above)
*Alunlnum
Arsenic
Barium
*Boron
Cadmium
•Chloride
Chromium
Cobalt
*Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
*Iron
Lead
^Manganese
Mercury (total)
^Molybdenum
*Nickel
Nitrate (NO3 as N)
*Phenols
Selenium
Silver
^Sulfate
*Total dissolved solids
Uranium
*Zinc
Radioactivity conbined Radium 226
and Radium 228
pH
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Maximum Acceptable Value
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
30 mg/1
30 mg/1
45 mg/1
6 0-9.0
6.6-8,6
80 mg/1
200 organlstos/100 ml
400 organisms/100 ml
500 organisms/100 ml
0.1 mg/1
none
Must exceed 4 0 mg/1
6 0-9 0
32.2 °C
1000 organisms/LQO ral
2000 organisms/100 ml
1500 mg/1
250 mg/1
500 mg/1
5 0 mg/1
0 1 mg/1
1 0 mg/1
0,75 mg/1
0 01 mg/1
250. og/1
0 05 mg/l
0.05 mg/1
1 0 mg/1
0.2 ng/1
1.6 mg/1
1 0 og/1
0 05 mg/1
0 2 mg/1
0 002mg/l
1 0 mg/1
0 2 sig/1
10 0 mg/1
0 00Stag/I
0 05 mg/1
0 05 mg/1
600. mg/1
1000 mg/1
5 0 mg/1
10 0 mg/1
30 0 picocurles/1
between 6 and 9
0 05
1.0
0 75
0.01
0 01
0.1
0 05
0 1
0.001
0 01
0 1
0 01
0 05
0 5
-59-
-------
It is the objective of the City of Albuquerque to participate in the Federal
pollution control program to achieve current and future water quality goals and
to provide for anticipated growth in a manner which prevents future violations
of water quality standards. To this end the treatment of wastewater to the
levels listed in Table 2-8 represents a minimum standard to be achieved by any
acceptable alternative, unless data are available to indicate that other effluent
criteria are more appropriate.
2.4.2 Surface Water: the Rio Grande
Data regarding water quality in the Middle Rio Grande Basin are provided
in EPA (1977, Table D.20 et seq.) and summarized here in Table 2-9. The major
parameters of interest are: salinity and major salts; sediment and turbidity;
temperature, pH, hardness and alkalinity; organic load and dissolved oxygen;
pathogens such as coliform bacteria; metals. Information on nutrients is
presented in Section 2.4.3. Except as noted the evaluations of water quality
given here reflect data collected prior to operation of activated sludge facilities
at Plant #2B.
Salinity. Total dissolved solids, especially salts such as sodium
chloride and calcium sulfate, are of concern because they may interfere with
the use of river water for irrigation. The available data demonstrate a
considerable increase in dissolved solids in a downstream direction as the
Rio Grande passes through New Mexico. This increase in salinity is due pri-
marily to the addition of salts from natural weathering processes and to the
normal concentrating effects of beneficial water use. Stream standards for
total dissolved solids, sulfate and chloride are not violated along the main
stem of the Rio Grande in the Middle Basin except during low flow conditions;
the standards specifically exempt such conditions. Nonetheless in the reaches
below Elephant Butte Reservoir salinity reaches a high enough level to present
problems in irrigation use during some periods.
Under 1976 conditions Albuquerque's effluent contributes approximately
6% of the total dissolved solids measured at the San Marcial gaging station.
At Albuquerque the effluent contains more dissolved solids than river water,
although detailed data on effluent salinity are limited and were not included
in Table 2-2. The effluent would be expected to increase the salt concentration
In the river at Albuquerque by less than 10%, This effect is shown in Table 2-9
by the increase in conductivity (a measure of dissolved solids) between the
Barelas and Isleta measuring points. Despite this increase, Patterson (1970)
noted that under some conditions the mixing of effluent and river water may
result in chemical reactions which actually result in an observed decrease
in dissolved solids downstream from the effluent outfall.
Chlorination of wastewater is not considered to have a significant effect
on salinity (NMWQCC, 1976a).
-60-
-------
TABLE 2-V. WATER QUALITY OF THl RIO GRANDL BASIN. All data represent long-terra averages for varyine record
lengths, as given in EPA (1977), SecLlon D-5, and are expressed in me/1 except: pH (pH units);
conductivity (micromhos/cm), fecal coliform level (colonies/100 ml), and turbidity (Jackson Turbidity
Units) Dashes (—) indicate that less than 10 data points are available for a particular parameter
at a particular sampling point, too few to summarize here. Data sources: Otowi Bridge and San
Marcial Conveyance Channel - USCS, Barelas Bridee and Isleta Dam - EIA (non-metals), and City of
Albuquerque (metals), San Acacia Conveyance Channel - EIA The City treatment plant outfall is
between Barelas Bridge and Tsluta Dam.
Parameter Otowj Bridge barelas Bridftc l^l<-ta Dam San Acacia CC San Marcial CC
Dissolved oxygen
9 2
8.7
7.7
7 4
8.6
Pii
7.9
7 9
7.9
8.1
7.8
Total alkalinity
112
183
169
—
167
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
0.58
1 .38
1.54
1 07
2.39
Nitrate nitrogen
0 20
0 20
0.23
0.46
0.48
Total phosphorus
0.20
0.56
1.41
1.68
1.03
Sulfate
77
76
78
143
183
Fecal coliform
871
2,135
11,228
1,585
4,801
Conductivity
397
381
411
734
907
Turbidity
62
215
189
369
2,454
Cadmium
0.009
0 002
0 002
—
—
Chromium
0.008
0.017
0.016
—
—
Copper
0.014
0.022
0.025
—
—
1 ead
0.010
0.030
0 033
—
0.080
Manganese
0.263
0.558
0.529
—
—
Nickel
—
0 023
0.022
—
—
Silver
—
0.004
0 003
—
—
Zinc
O.OjJ
0.075
0 069
-------
Sediment. Sediment is the most abundant pollutant in the Middle Rio
Grande Basin and causes the river to be highly turbid. As shown in Table 2-9
turbidity is especially great in the downstream reaches of the Middle Basin,
below the confluence with the Rio Puerco and Rio Salado. The sediment load of
the river causes numerous problems, especially siltation of irrigation works
and interference with aquatic ecosystems. The combination of high turbidity
and variable flows is responsible for the virtual absence of a productive
ecosystem within the river itself; the same combination is a major factor
reducing the productivity of Elephant Butte Reservoir. The observed sediment
problems are largely natural in origin and not readily subject to human control.
The direct effect of wastewater discharges is to reduce stream turbidity,
since effluent contains much less solids than natural stream flows. A more
significant relationship is that pollutants contained in the wastewater may
interact with sediment; for example the sediment may serve to adsorb and
transport nutrients and metals downstream. The role of sediment in water
quality dynamics in the Middle Rio Grande Basin is demonstrably significant,
but very poorly defined. Until this role is known in detail it will be very
difficult to trace the specific effects of Albuquerque's wastewater discharge
and relate it to particular downstream water quality problems.
Temperature, pH, Hardness, Alkalinity. Water in the Middle Rio Grande
tends to have a high pH and to be warm, moderately hard and alkaline.
Occasional violations of stream standards for temperature and pH have been
reported, but variations in these parameters appear to relate to natural
causes; pollution is not indicated by the violations. The direct effect of
Albuquerque's wastewater on river water quality is small; for example river
water temperatures may increase by 1°C or so below the treatment plant outfall.
The chemical reaction which occurs when effluent and river water mix results
in a small increase in river pH and a decrease in alkalinity; this was taken
by Patterson (1970) to indicate that the reaction involved precipitation of
a substance such as calcium carbonate.
The main significance of temperature with regard to wastewater management
is that the naturally warm waters inhibit many forms of aquatic life, limiting
the potential for ecologic benefits associated with improved effluent quality.
Factors such as pH, hardness and alkalinity are important because they markedly
affect the impact of pollutants on aquatic life. For example, heavy metals of
the type found in Albuquerque's effluent would be expected to have less biologic
impact in the Middle Rio Grande than would occur if the discharge were to a
stream with a lower hardness and alkalinity. On the other hand, the relatively
high pH increases the potential for problems such as ammonia toxicity.
Organic Load; Dissolved Oxygen. Organic pollutants and depletion of
dissolved oxygen are among the most typical problems which occur when in-
adequately treated wastewater is discharged to a stream. These problems
are not major in the Middle Rio Grande, primarily because the wide, shallow
nature of river flows promotes extensive aeration of the water and rapid
degradation of the organic load.
The discharge of wastewater from Albuquerque's two trickling filter plants
has in the past caused some depletion of dissolved oxygen in the Rio Grande.
-62-
-------
The stream standard for dissolved oxygen was violated at Isleta in 3% of all
measurements taken from 1970 through 1975. The data are not taken to indicate
a significant problem because: a) the aquatic ecosystem in the impacted area is
essentially nonexistent; b) it is expected that the small percentage of violations
will be eliminated by operation of the new activated sludge facilities at Treatment
Plant //2.
Pathogens. Fecal coliform bacteria are widely used as an indicator of
the presence of pathogens or disease-causing organisms. The available data
show that fecal coliform levels increase in the Rio Grande as the river passes
through Albuquerque and that the stream standards are exceeded throughout most
of the Middle Basin. The highest levels have been observed at Isleta Dam
and clearly relate at least in part to the City's wastewater discharge. How-
ever in recent years a decline in coliform levels has been reported in the
Albuquerque area, especially at Isleta; this improvement may reflect better
chlorination practices at the treatment plants. No data are available to
reflect the eventual operation of the brand-new chlorination contact tank at
Plant //2B; presumably this facility should further reduce the bacteria impact of
City effluent.
The pervasive nature of bacteria problems indicates that non-point
sources are significant. Such sources are also suggested by high readings
upstream of the treatment plants and by the fact that the greatest contamination
occurs in summer when urban and feedlot runoff would be important. It is
likely that on-site systems are also a significant bacteria source. According
to the Basin Plan, coliform contamination Is the major water quality problem
in the Middle Rio Grande, but because of the importance of non-point sources
"the fecal coliform (stream) standard is not expected to be met even after
point sources meet applicable secondary treatment requirements of effluent
regulations" (NMWQCC, 1976a, p. 1-2).
Information on other pathogens, such as viruses, is generally insufficient
to permit an evaluation of existing or potential problems.
Metals. No stream standards for metals exist, but when concentrations
in the Rio Grande are compared to those set forth in criteria documents (e.g.
EPA, 1973) it is apparent that constituents such as lead, cadmium, chromium,
copper, mercury, molybdenum and zinc may be present in elevated amounts, and
that aesthetically undesirable metals such as manganese and iron are definitely
present at excessive levels. There is no information to indicate that the
heavy metals have toxic effects on aquatic ecosystems, or other adverse impacts.
The lack of any reported effects may be due to: a) the high hardness and
alkalinity of Rio Grande water, which tends to diminish metal toxicity; b) the
fact that much of the metal contamination occurs in the particulate form, and
thus the metals are not readily bioavailable. Algal assay experiments made
using Albuquerque's effluent indicated that City wastewater is not toxic to
aquatic life in a laboratory environment (EPA, 1977).
The observed high concentrations of metals in the Rio Grande do not relate
to City wastewater discharges or to any other identified point source. No
more than 10% of most metals measured at Isleta in recent years can be attributed
to the City effluent; the remainder were already in the river above the treat-
ment plant outfalls. The data in Table 2-9 demonstrate the small impact of
-63-
-------
City wastewater by showing that there is little difference in metals levels
between Barelas Bridge and Isleta Dam. Since the new activated sludge units
at Plant //2B appear to be effective in removing metals from effluent, even
smaller impacts would be expected in the immediate future.
There is little information available to pinpoint the source of metals
in the Middle Rio Grande Basin. The most comprehensive data base has been
collected by the City. Analysis of the City data (EPA, 1977) indicates that
urban storm runoff is likely to be a significant metals source, especially
for substances such as lead. The very high levels of iron and manganese may
reflect contributions from ground water, as described in Section 2.4.4.
On-going studies under the 208 program are expected to improve the
understanding of metals pollution in the Albuquerque area and downstream.
An important factor in such an understanding is the role of sediment in
absorbing, transporting and re-releasing metals, especially during storm
runoff events. The importance of this factor was highlighted in a study by
Dauchy (1976) who found that the elements zinc, lead, manganese, chromium,
barium, molybdenum and copper are found in the Middle Rio Grande at much
higher levels in sediment than in dissolved form.
Other Toxic Substances. The limited data Dase aoes not demonstrate
any elevated levels of toxic substances such as pesticides or polychlorinated
biphenyls (EPA, 1977). Chlorine residuals in wastewater discharged by the
City may have exceeded recommended levels in the past. No problems have
been reported to result from such discharges, probably because of the lack
of an aquatic ecosystem in the discharge area. With recent construction of
a chlorine contact tank the high effluent residuals should cease.
2.4.3 Surface Water: Nutrients; Elephant Butte Reservoir
A major public concern regarding Albuquerque wastewater is that nutrient
discharges may lead to overfertilization of Elephant Butte Reservoir and loss
of fishery and recreation resources. This potential problem has been evaluated
in a number of studies, most recently EIA (1976) and EPA (1977, D-5, parts ji and
j_). Table 2-10 indicates variations in nitrogen and phosphorus levels along
the Rio Grande, as determined by the EIA study. A number of observations can
be made based on these data, and on other information cited in the Technical
Reference Document.
- City wastewater discharges have caused increased levels of ammonia-
nitrogen, organic-nitrogen, ortho-phosphate and total phosphorus
to be measured at Isleta, compared to upstream points. However,
elevated levels of nutrients, especially organic-nitrogen, are
observed throughout the Albuquerque reach of the Rio Grande, in-
dicating sources other than City wastewater are also significant.
- Below Isleta nutrient levels have shown a tendency to decrease
downstream. In particular, the relatively high ammonia concen-
trations observed at Isleta virtually disappear and there has been
a marked reduction in organic and total-nitrogen as well as in
orthophosphate and total phosphorus. However, most data sets show
that nitrate-nitrogen tends to remain rather steady throughout the
reaches south of Albuquerque.
-64-
-------
TABLE 2-10. FLOW-WEIGHTED MEAN CONCENTRATIONS OF MAJOR
PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN FORMS IN THE MIDDLE
RIO GRANDE (EIA, 1976).
Station PO.-P Total NO„-N
4 P 3
Alameda
0.06 0.09 0.09
Bridge Ave. 0.15 0.33 0.08
Isleta 0.58 0.83 0.28
Bernardo 0.21 0.34 0.25
San Acacia 0.35 0.56 0.36
San Antonio 0.33 0.46 0.32
San Marcial 0.23 0.64 0.31
ELEPHANT BUTTE
RESERVOIR
Kjel NH -N
N
0.41 0.06
1.34 0.29
1.80 0.86
0.70 0.08
0.65 0.07
0.60 0.09
1.23 0.08
-65-
-------
- Nutrient levels observed at San Marcial, above the headwaters of
Elephant Butte Reservoir, are often greater than observed at stations
which are above the tributary inflows of the Rio Puerco and Rio Salado.
Organic-nitrogen concentrations at San Marcial average higher than
at Isleta.
- Overall, the data indicate that nutrient concentrations at Isleta
vary inversely with river flows, being highest during low flow
conditions. This relationship would be expected if the nutrient
concentrations reflect a steady point source discharge (City waste-
water) mixing with varied river flows.
- Nutrient concentrations at San Marcial tend to vary proportionally
with river flows, being highest during storm runoff events. This
relationship would be expected if runoff-related non-point sources
are responsible for the observed nutrient loads.
The technical literature (see EPA, 1977) indicates that the entire subject
of nutrient cycling and impact in any water body is complex and not well under-
stood. The observations summarized above demonstrate the complexity of nutrient
water quality in the Middle Rio Grande. Clearly, only tentative evaluations
of euti^ophication problems can be made until more nutrient data are available,
and the Basin nutrient cycle is better understood.
Simplified mass balance studies and modeling can be performed to develop a
gross nutrient budget for the Middle Rio Grande Basin. For 1976 conditions,
and assuming considerable nutrient-removal by activated sludge treatment,
Albuquerque's effluent can be identified as accounting for approximately 50%
of all the nitrogen and phosphorus introduced to the Basin each year, and one-
third of all the nutrients measured at San Marcial, above the headwaters of
Elephant Butte Reservoir.
Many studies, including algal assays made as part of this EIS, identify
nitrogen as the critical nutrient limiting aquatic productivity in the Basin
under most circumstances. Phosphorus is far more abundant in the Rio Grande
than in most river systems, and the nitrogen-phosphorus ratio is unusually
low, about 2:1. This is one reason why EIA (1976) indicated that wastewater
treatment to remove phosphorus from Albuquerque effluent would have little if
any beneficial effect on Elephant Butte water quality.
The mass balance and algal assay data indicate that nitrogen discharges
from Albuquerque's treatment plants should be an important factor in determining
the nutrient status of Elephant Butte Reservoir. However, it is difficult to
trace nitrogen discharges from the City treatment works and relate them to
changes in water quality at San Marcial or in the reservoir. Processes such
as nitrification-denitrification, ammonia volatilization, sediment sorption,
and biological uptake (by crops, phreatophytes) appear to be active within the
river system, and probably account for a considerable removal of nitrogen from
river water. High nitrogen concentrations observed at San Marcial appear to
relate in part to movement of sediment-borne organic-N during flood cycles;
the ultimate source of this organic-N could be Albuquerque wastewater, agri-
cultural return flow or tributary inflow from the Rio Puerco and Rio Salado.
-66-
-------
Regardless of uncertainties as to the origin and fate of nutrients in
the Middle Rio Grande Basin, there appears to be a consensus among investi-
gators that Elephant Butte Reservoir does not now exhibit serious nutrient-
related water quality problems such as blooms of blue-green algae or fish
kills related to turnover of oxygen depleted water. In short, the lake is
not eutrophic. It appears that factors such as turbidity (which blocks
sunlight and reduces photosynthesis) and fluctuations in lake level (which
interfere with spawning) limit aquatic productivity despite the presence of
relatively abundant nutrients. Other factors of possible importance include:
the role of sediment as a nutrient sink; the influence of parameters such as
alkalinity, manganese and trace metals, which may inhibit algal productivity;
and the relative scarcity of nutrients in readily bioavailable forms.
It is uncertain if increased nutrient supplies to the reservoir would
benefit or harm the value of the lake for recreation purposes. Jester (1971)
indicated that more nutrients could be beneficial, and would improve the
fishery potential of the water body. Certainly the control of nutrients
in the reservoir would not overcome fundamental problems which already
determine recreation values, such as the natural high turbidity of lake water,
the variability of water levels, and the frequent occurence of undesirably
low water levels.
Reflecting all the factors noted above, the State has established the
policy that "the need to remove algal nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus
from municipal wastewaters in order to protect reservoirs in lower stream
reaches has not been established" (NMWQCC, 1975, p. 5). This statement was
reaffirmed by the 1976 study of Elephant Butte (EIA, 1976, p. 55). The
specific reasoning stated was as follows:
- phosphorus removal is not justified because it is unlikely
that the reservoir can be made phosphorus-limited;
- biologically available nitrogen from Albuquerque's wastewater
is being effectively removed by natural processes in the river,
such that increased N-loadings from the City will not necessarily
result in increased nitrogen reaching the reservoir headwaters;
- increased nutrients in the reservoir may not lead to increased
productivity, especially if light is the principle factor limiting
algal production in the turbid lake water;
- undesirable water quality trends are not detectable at Elephant Butte;
- even if remedial action (e.g. nutrient removal at Albuquerque) were
undertaken only after the onset of nuisance algal conditions, the
characteristics of the reservoir are such that recovery time would
be short.
2.4.A Ground Water Quality in the Albuquerque Area
Ground water in the planning area is generally of quality suitable for use
as a drinking water supply. Relatively poor quality water occurs in three
locations, as shown on Figure 2-11: the far West Mesa; Tijeras; and the Valley.
Table 2-11 provides representative data for City drinking water and for samples
taken in the Tijeras and Valley areas.
West Mesa. Deeper portions of the Santa Fe Group aquifer, including areas
beneath the far West Mesa, have been known to yield naturally mineralized
ground water and possibly to contain excess heavy metals. At present this water
-67-
-------
TABLE 2-11 REPRESENTATIVE RANGES OF DATA ON GROUND WATER QUALITY IN THE ALBUQUERQUE AREA.
All data given as mg/1 ND = No Data.
Parameter City wells (EIA, 1974) Domestic wells, valley Tijeras Canyon area
Represents water quality area (Clayton, 1966) (Caprlo, 1960) ^
of deeper wells.
Total Dissolved 160 - 480 213 - 1852 204 - 594
Solids
Hardness as CaCO^
18 -
273
187 -
1380
ND
Alkalinity as CaCo^
97 -
181
ND
112 -
310
Sulfate
17 -
180
35 -
959
18 -
221
Nitrate (NO^)
0 -
8.
.0
0.9 -
125 52
0 -
91
Iron
0 -
0.
,77
0 -
2.2
0 -
7
Manganese
0 -
0.
50
0 -
4.0
ND
^ Data from Coyote and Embudo Canyon Springs not included.
^ Data from survey oerforaea by Lee Wilson & Associates, 1976 (see EPA, 1977).
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
is not used and causes no significant problems. However, the remote potential
exists that overdevelopment of fresh ground water in the shallower part of the
aquifer could lead to upward migration of the saline water, contaminating the
regional water supply.
Tijeras. Ground water in the Tijeras Canyon area contains nitrate-nitrogen
in excess amounts, with many wells tapping water which is unsuitable for domestic
use. As shown on Figure 2-11, the contamination extends down Tijeras Arroyo to
the Mountainview area. Titus (1974) concluded that the nitrate levels result
from sewage discharges from septic tanks and cesspools. However, the available
data demonstrate that such discharges are far too small and localized to account
for such a large problem, especially since the contamination predates much of
the development of the area (see discussion in EPA, 1977, Section D-5, part p).
It is conceivable that the contamination could be largely of natural origin,
since studies in other areas have determined that nitrate pollution can occur
naturally in areas of limestone and evaporite deposits of the type underlying
the Sandia-Manzano Mountains. It is also possible that an as yet unidentified
man-made problem is the source of the pollution.
Valley. The third problem, and the one of greatest significance to waste-
water management, is that alluvial ground water at shallow depths beneath the
Rio Grande flood plain is consistently of much poorer quality than water found
at greater depths in the same aquifer (Clayton, 1966). The contaminated shallow
water, which extends to a depth of 50 to 100 feet, differs from the deeper water
in the following ways: more dissolved solids; more sulfate; greater hardness;
nitrates are present in small but significant amounts; bacterial contamination
occurs locally; iron and manganese are often found at levels far above the
drinking water standards; and some problems occur of bad odor, color, and taste,
as well as laxative effects.
At least three sources can be identified to account for the observed
contamination: a) percolation of excess irrigation water, which is generally
more saline than the receiving ground water; b) animal wastes, fertilizers,
soil amendments and other pollutant sources associated with agricultural
activity; and c) domestic, commercial and industrial sewage and other wastes
discharged by the approximately 18,000 on-site systems which occur in the
valley area. These sources cumulatively would be expected to cause the
observed mineralization (dissolved solids, sulfates, hardness). The specific
causes of the other problems require more discussion.
With two exceptions, nitrates in the valley are found at comparatively
low concentrations, usually less than 1 mg/1 (as N). However, this low-level
contamination is widespread, occurring throughout the area where the water
table is shallow. It appears that the nitrates represent a chronic, low-level
degradation of ground water related to sources such as domestic sewage and
animal wastes. Indeed, such sources are sufficiently large that higher
nitrate levels than those observed might be expected. Two explanations could
account for the relatively modest amount of pollution. First, the nitrate
may be quickly flushed through the relatively permeable aquifer to irrigation
drains and then to the Rio Grande, preventing any marked build-up in concen-
trations. This would also explain the observed increase in nitrates in the
Rio Grande which occurs as the river passes through Albuquerque. Second, most
sewage and animal waste discharges occur as ammonia and organic nitrogen, that
is in forms which may be temporarily stored in the soil. Conversion of these
-71-
-------
forms to nitrate, through nitrification, could be inhibited by the high water
table and general prevalence of anaerobic conditions in the soil. If this is
true, the possibility exists that much nitrate may be released to ground water
as the water table is lowered in the future by increased pumping for municipal
water supplies.
The two exceptions noted above occur where nitrates are present at levels
much above the low-level degradation found elsewhere (see Figure 2-11). In
the case of Mountainview the nitrates appear to be derived from the Tijeras
Canyon area, discussed previously, although local sources cannot be completely
ruled out. The other problem area, Paiarito, occurs in an area which is
hydrologically down-gradient from the large concentration of septic tanks and
cesspools found in the Atrisco and Armijo neighborhoods. Highly permeable
deposits in a prehistoric channel of the Rio Grande may play a role in trans-
mitting sewage-related pollution from those neighborhoods to the Pajarito area.
Again, local sources cannot be completely eliminated as a contributory cause
of the problem.
The data on bacterial contamination are extremely limited. However, as
discussed in EPA (1977), there appears to be no question that problems can and
do occur in areas where on-site water supply and waste disposal systems do not
meet sanitary standards. Most cases of drinking water contamination recorded
in the North and South Valleys seem to relate to site-specific sanitation con-
ditions. The data do not demonstrate that a regional pollution problem exists,
since many wells obtain a bacteria-free water supply. The only evidence suggest-
ing such a regional problem is the observed increase of bacteria levels in the
Rio Grande as the river passes through the planning area. Studies made elsewhere
(e.g. Socorro) indicate that discharges from on-site systems can lead to increased
bacteria levels In nearby surface waters. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that
on-site disposal of domestic and commercial sewage to the shallow water table
beneath the Rio Grande Valley can and probably does lead to some degree of
bacterial pollution throughout the valley area. However, this does not necessarily
mean that regional health problems result. Moreover, other sources such as
animal confinement facilities and urban storm runoff also are presumably
responsible for a portion of the surface water problem.
Most public complaints about the shallow alluvial ground water center
on the problem of iron and manganese pollution which results in a supply
which is extremely undesirable for household use because of odor, color and
taste. Youngblood (1974) indicates that the problem relates to the large
amount of organic material which moves through the soil to the ground water
as the result of agricultural practices (animal wastes, fertilizer) and
sewage discharges (on-site systems). This results in a high oxygen demand
and anaerobic conditions in the soil and 2round water. The oxyeen-depleted
water is readily able to move iron and manganese from the soil into solution.
The above discussion clearly indicates that ground water pollution is a
major problem alone the Rio Grande Valley in the Albuquerque area, and that
sewage disposal by on-site systems plays a significant role in creating the
problem. As will be discussed in Section 2.4.5, it is not certain if this
pollution is associated with regional health problems; however, local unsanitary
conditions and a regional impairment of the aesthetic quality of drinking water
both occur.
-72-
-------
It should be rioted that elimination or upgrading of on-site waste dis-
posal systems in the valley area would not guarantee an immediate improvement
in water quality. This is true because other sources (agriculture, percolating
flood waters from urban runoff) are also significant, and because at best
ground water recovers from pollution only over a period of many years. One
implication is that over the short-term, problems of drinking water contamination
in the valley area would require solutions such as deep wells, hookup to a
public water supply of good quality, use of treatment units, or water hauling.
2.4.5 On-Site Liquid Waste Disposal and Water-Borne Diseases
The primary goal of regulations which govern the use of on-site systems
(OSS) is to prevent sewage contamination of water supplies, or seepage of
sewage to the ground surface, and thus eliminate one major source for trans-
mission of diseases. To determine if the 20,000 or so existing septic tanks
and cesspools in the area cause public health problems it is appropriate to
determine if the existing systems conform to the regulations, and if disease
patterns exist which may be attributed to on-site liquid waste disposal.
Suitability of OSS. For common soil and water table conditions in the
Albuquerque area current regulations require that OSS be used only on lots
of 1.25 acres or larger, in order to allow for adequate separation of a
drainfield from a household well. Where public water supplies are available
the lot size may be somewhat smaller, and where soil conditions are particularly
favorable it may be possible to install a conventional septic tank and drain-
field on a lot as small as (J.5 acres. Conventional OSS are not permitted
where the water table or bedrock is within four feet of the surface, where soil
percolation rates are very slow, where flooding occurs at least once per
25 years, or where slopes exceed 25%.
Figure 2-12 is a map displaying the environmental conditions appropriate
for determining if existing OSS conform to the above regulations. The map
indicates areas where:
- lot sizes are generally less than 0.5 acres (OSS not suitable);
- lot sizes are generally from 0.5 to 1.25 acres (OSS suitable unless
soils are adverse);
- soil limitations are so severe that the use of conventional OSS are
not generally acceptable;
- the water table is within 12 feet of the surface (OSS permitted
only on lots 1.25 acres or larger under normal circumstances).
The map does not show areas where the slope exceeds 25% or where flooding
occurs at least once per 25 years; in general all such areas are characterized
by soils which have severe limitations to OSS use.
OSS can be considered to be well suited for waste disposal only where
soil conditions are favorable, flood and water table problems are absent, and
lots are large. As shown on Figure 2-12, such conditions occur throughout
those parts of the West and East Mesas where development is incomplete or open
(except the Volcanoes).
-73-
-------
All other locations have some limitations to OSS, due either to soil
conditions or lot sizes. Soils are acceptable but lots are often smaller
than allowed in the following areas: East North Valley below Homeland Road,
Mountainview, and Alameda. Soils are unacceptable in the Southeast Valley
area, but densities are extremely low to the point that no major problems
would be expected. East Mountain area soils are generally limited due to
slope, shallow soils over fractured bedrock, and/or a few high density
situations; many localized exceptions occur though.
There are also locations where densities consist of clusters mixed with
open space, such as the Arenal district of the Southwest Valley, the
Southwest Valley below Gun Club Road, Corrales, Los Ranchos de Albuquerque,
and Los Duranes. High water table in some of these locations creates a
potentially serious OSS problem.
As indicated by the map and the above discussion, the greatest health
dangers should occur in the Valley natural unit, which is generally unsuited
for use of conventional OSS because of problems such as high water table,
fine-grained soils and/or flood hazards. Densities range from urban to
completely rural, and problems exhibit the same range—that is complaints
about water quality are more frequent in the more densely populated areas.
It is readily evident from the map that if existing regulations had been
in force over the past 50 years, development in the Valley would have been
much less extensive than has actually occurred. In effect the regulations
protect the OSS in the valley because no retroactive provisions apply. If
the grandfather clause protection were removed it is likely that most of
the valley OSS would have to be replaced.
To summarize: there is a mismatch between actual waste disposal
practices and environmental conditions adverse to such practices, primarily
occurring in the unincorporated portions of the North and South Valley. The
most evident result of this situation was discussed in 2.4.4 and is the
wide-spread occurrence of ground water contamination in the shallow valley
aquifer. This contamination is evidenced by excess iron and manganese levels,
high dissolved solids and hardness, frequent odor problems, and widesoread
low-level degradation by nitrates. Another result is discussed in 2.6.3
and relates to the reduced land values where OSS are used, and the problems
citizens experience in obtaining Federal loans to buy or improve homes in
areas where OSS do not meet the standards.
Health Effects. Available information is conflicting regarding health
problems which might be associated with unsanitarv liquid waste disposal
practices in the planning area. Data on enteric diseases indicate that
Shigella, Salmonella and infectious hepatitis are reported to occur more
frequently in areas such as the South Valley, where OSS are the rule, than
elsewhere in the Albuquerque region (Table 2-12). Since these diseases may
be water-borne, the data suggest that the existing waste disposal practices
could be responsible for a public health problem. Further, John Zonski of
the City Environmental Health Department reports having obtained positive
tests for coliform bacteria in the large majority of private water systems
he has sampled (see letter, Section D-6 of EPA (1977)).
-74-
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE 2-12 INFORMATION RELATED TO WATER-BORNE DISEASES
National
28
10
0
Source BCHD (undated) Sherman (197 ^)
I
2. Southwest Vallev Shigella Cases,
1972, bv Data Analysis Zone
PAZ '/Cases Pod Rate/100,000
553
0
184
0
540
0
1,214
0
543
I
199
500
550
2
516
390
551"*
0
3,580
0
552
0
2,029
0
553
3
2,832
106
560*
9
2,716
330
561*
6
4,341
138
562*
4
5,027
80
563*
9
10,356
87
564*
3
3,011
100
57 L
0
669
0
Unkn.
0
Total
40
36,674
109
Source Sherman (1973)
1. Enteric Disease Rates (per 100,000 population)
South Bernalillo
Va 11ey County State
Hepatitis - 1971* 262 89 59
1972. 112 72
Shigella - 1971 282 72 25
1972. 109 73
Salmonella- 1971 2U 20 9
1972. 35 31
*DAZ's comprising Southwest Valley.
Age and Sex of 1972 South-
wesC Vallev Shigella Cases.
Age Male Female
0-4
11
9
5-9
2
5
10-14
2
2
15-19
2
1
20-24
0
2
25-29
I
0
30-34
0
2
Source Sherman (1973).
Southwest Vallev *Jell Survey,
3-7-73*
Coliform Colonies Number
per 100 ML of Wells
0 33
I-10 7
II-20 5
21-100 3
over 100 8
*Taken during a period of local
£ lood mg
Source Albuauerque Environmental
Health Deoartment riles.
-------
However, a number of factors must be considered in interpreting the
available information.
- Contamination of raw drinking water is just one pathway for
transmission of enteric diseases; personal hygiene is equally
if not more important.
- Reporting procedures for enteric diseases are better from public
hospitals than from private doctors, so that disease rates from
comparatively affluent neighborhoods are probably underestimated.
- Many of the private water systems in unsewered areas do not meet
modern standards for construction, and may be contaminated because
of site-specific unsanitary conditions rather than because of a
regional problem related to on-site waste disposal. For example,
a specific survey of 56 OSS in the Arenal area in 1973 indicated
that 95% of the systems substantially violated sanitary standards
(Matotan, 1975).
It is also worth noting that the data in Table 2-12 reflect conditions
in 1972. Data from 1973-1975 show a gradual reduction in enteric diseases
in Bernalillo County. In 1975 the County, which contains nearly 40% of the
State population,reported only 29% of the State's Shigella cases. Salmonella
rates declined by nearly half from 1972 to 1975. Infectious hepatitis
(Type A) declined slightly, though viral hepatitis increased statewide.
Moreover, the fact that enteric disease rates drop off markedly with increased
age suggests that poor hygiene practices among children is a significant
factor accounting for the occurrence of enteric diseases.
Certainly, numerous unsanitary waste disposal and water systems exist
in the area. These represent a source of site-specific health problems
worthy of immediate attention. However, it appears from the data that public
health problems in areas which utilize OSS relate to a number of causes, all of
which must be corrected if community health is to be brought up to modern
standards. Beyond individual cases, the disease statistics do not provide
conclusive evidence of health problems resulting from improper on-site waste
disposal. Given the variations in data associated with reporting procedures,
it is unlikely that any correlation will be found between regional health problems
and ground water contamination resulting from liquid waste disposal. Rather
the problems which do relate to OSS will occur mostly where the site-specific
problems occur.
The high incidence of diseases which may be partly water-borne can be
expected to continue as long as some citizens receive any part of their water
supply from shallow and poorly constructed wells, and as long as septic sytems
malfunction so that effluent reaches the surface and has potential contact with
children, domestic animals, garden vegetables or other environmental receptors.
With disease comes missed school and work days, reduced educational and employment
opportunity, and continued deficits in local income. This in turn means a
continued inability to maintain proper wells and septic systems, and thereby a
continued unnecessary exposure to disease. Thus, water pollution is part of an
unfortunate cycle in which social inequities persist unbroken. Good hygiene alone
cannot correct these problems if unsanitary waste disposal practices continue.
-78-
-------
Summary. Albuquerque suffers from an abundance of on-site liquid waste
disposal systems, most of which occur in areas of bad soils and/or on small
lots. Disposal relies on dilution of wastes by ground water, and not on
adequate treatment. Regional health problems cannot be attributed with
certainty to the disposal practices, but some widespread low-level degradation
of water quality has occurred and site-specific sanitation problems are not
uncommon. Increasingly stringent regulation of OSS will probably keep the
problem from getting much worse, but unless existing inadequate systems are
replaced, conditions will not improve.
L.k.b Summary of Water Quality Conditions
The following conclusions regarding water quality in the Middle Rio Grande
Basin are based on relatively poor data, but appear valid as to basic findings.
- Historically water scarcity has been considered a greater problem
than water quality in the Basin.
- Natural and non-point sources are responsible for a greater total
amount of water quality degradation in the Basin than are point
sources.
- No pollution problems exist which interfere with the beneficial
use of water and which are directly attributable to wastewater
management practices.
- The most significant surface water quality problem in the Basin
which mav relate partly to wastewater management is the frequent
violation of bacteria standards at numerous locations. According
to the Basin Plan (NMWQCC, 1976a) non-point sources are a significant
cause of the observed problem, such that control of point sources
would not lead to standards being met.
- The most significant ground water quality problem in the Basin which
may be attributed to wastewater management is the degradation of
drinking water supplies in the shallow aquifer beneath the Rio
Grande flood plain in the Valley region. Wastewater discharges from
septic tanks and cesspools are only a partial cause of the problem,
and do not cause a regional health hazard, although they may
cause local health problems.
- Public concerns have been expressed regarding many other water
quality issues — especially those related to nutrient enrichment
of Elephant Butte Reservoir, discharge of toxic chemicals, and
nitrate pollution in the Tijeras area. The Tijeras nitrates appear
to be natural in origin, and almost certainly do not result from
wastewater discharges. Nutrient and toxic metal problems are as
yet poorly defined; if such problems were to exist it is not certain
that they could be alleviated by changes in wastewater management
practices in Albuqueraue.
Despite the finding that Albuquerque's wastewater does not now appear
to be a major source of pollution problems, the prospect exists that such
problems may occur in the future. For example, agricultural water use south
of Isleta may be impaired during low flow periods within the next few decades,
as wastewater discharges increase. This problem is discussed further in
Section 3.1.2.
-79-
-------
2.5 THE BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
In deserts the availability of moisture is often the most important
ecological variable. This is true in the Albuquerque area, where plant
and animal communities near the Rio Grande are much more productive and
diverse than those which occur in the drier parts of the region. There
are two important riverside habitats: a) wetlands which are found where
the water table is at or very near the ground surface; and b) bosque, or
woodlands, which occurs where the water table is deeper.
The discussion which follows emphasizes the riverside habitats because:
the habitats are rare, and in the case of wetlands, endangered: the riverside
areas are the most likely to be impacted by wastewater management; the
habitats are critical to maintaining a diverse array of wildlife in the
Middle Rio Grande Basin; the wetland and bosque areas are particularly
important to migratory birds and waterfowl, including a number of endangered
or threatened species. The most valuable habitat areas occur downstream of
Albuquerque, in a number of wildlife refuges. Also downstream is the maior
aquatic habitat of the Basin, Elephant Butte Reservoir, which supports a
widely used fishery.
2.5.1 Communities in the Albuquerque Area
The distribution of natural bioloeical communities in the Albuquerque
area corresponds approximately to the natural regions discussed in Section
2.0.1. and graphically depicted on Figure 2-3. Detailed information on these
communities is presented in Section E-l of EPA (1977).
- The mountain area contains pinon-junioer woodlands at lower elevations
and pine-fir forest above 8,000 feet, with a varied wildlife including
larger mammals and birds.
- Grasslands occur on the mesas where grazing and subdivision development
have generally disturbed the native species (black grama, Indian rice-
grass and others); wildlife tends to be concentrated near arroyos and
includes varied insects, reptiles, rodents and birds adapted to a
desert environment.
- An agricultural/residential community occurs in the valley and is
characterized by irrigated fields, lawns, vacant lots, and a
civilization-adapted wildlife.
- A riverside woodland or bosque occurs near the river where trees such
as cottonwoods, willows and Russian olive have replaced the marsh and
meadow vegetation which once occupied the area. A varied wildlife
utilizes the area, including amphibians, reptiles, small mammals and
numerous migratory waterfowl.
Aquatic and wetland environments are very limited in the planning area, and
include the Rio Grande channel (which is rather sterile), moderately productive
drains and canals, and the one extant marshland, a 37-acre tract near the
University of Albuquerque. Wetlands were formerly much more extensive, but
have been eliminated by irrigation drainage and channelization projects which
have lowered the water table and altered the nhy?ical environment (BOR, 1975,
o.B-100).
-80-
-------
2.5.2 Downstream Habitats
Aquatic and wetland habitats are very important downstream of Albuquerque
and include the river channel, canals and drains, marsh and woodland areas
and Elephant Butte Lake. These environments are described in Section E-2 of
EPA (1977). The river channel is characterized by a shifting sand bottom,
highly turbid flows, and seasonal dryness. The resulting habitat is quite
sterile and is incapable of supporting a productive aquatic community without
radical modifications. Similar problems restrict the ecologic value of
irrigation canals. In contrast riverside and irrigation drains normally have
year-round flow and comparatively clear water. Modestly productive fishery
resources occur in some drains, primarily where State fish (trout) stocking
programs are employed. However, periodic maintenance actions such as dredging
disrupt the habitat on a long-term basis.
The riverside bosque and wetlands are distributed as a function of water
table depth, with the woodlands beine dominant where drainage has lowered the
water table and led to a dominance of deep-rooted phreatophyte vegetation,
especially salt cedar. These woodlands consume a significant portion of the
Basin's water resources and provide habitat for some game and song birds.
However, they lack the wildlife diversity characteristic of the open water,
marsh and swamp communities they replaced. Because wetland habitats have
declined, those areas which remain are extremely significant and valuable to
the ecology of the Rio Grande Basin; they represent, in effect, rare and
endangered habitats. Figure 2-8 indicates the location of the significant
wetlands, most of which are special refuges administered by State of Federal
agencies which supervise their use as hunting or wildlife observation sites.
The high, value of river-related wetland was indicated by BOR (1975,
B-13A), which noted that, "the combination of open water, shallow marsh areas,
irrigated cropland bordering the river, and the absence of other waters make
the Rio Grande system one of the most important waterfowl areas in New Mexico".
The most important refuge is Bosque del Apache, which includes 7,000 wetland
acres. A total of 268 bird species have been identified within the refuge;
thousands of sandhill cranes, ducks and geese utilize the area each year.
Endangered or threatened species present include Mexican duck, peregrine
falcon, southern b^ld eagle, Mississippi kite, osprey, and whooping crane.
Mammals, amphibians and reptiles abound, including deer, muskrat and coyote.
The Bosque del Apache was projected to receive 60,000 or more visitor-use
days in. 1976. Studies to investigate the habitat value of river-related wet-
lands have been initiated by the New Mexico Department of Fish and Game and are
expected to lead to improved management of the habitats over the next several years.
Elephant Butte Reservoir is a Dopular fishing area. Dominant game fish
include walleye and bass; these introduced predators are at the top of a food
chain which has phytoplankton (algae) and detritus at its base. Forage fish,
especially gizzard shad, are the dominant food source for the game fish and
are a major consumer of the standing plankton crop. Rough fish such as carp
and carDSucker are important in terms of biomass, and successfully compete with
the other species. Populations of the rough species have been controlled in
recent years through measures such as commercial fishing. Overall the fish
resource is somewhat limited because lake productivity is limited. Factors
such as water turbidity and extreme fluctuations in surface elevation appear
to be responsible for restrictions of the fishery potential of the reservoir.
To promote game fish populations, reservoir management practices now attempt
to stabilize the lake level during critical spawning periods (primarily May).
-81-
-------
2.5.3 Endangered Species
Lists of endangered mammals, birds and fish which might be affected by
wastewater management in Albuquerque are given in the Technical Reference
Document (EPA, 1977, Section E-3) and the Basin Plan (NMWQCC, 1976a).
The majority of these species are dependent on aquatic habitats. Fish
species include the shovelnose sturgeon, prosperine shiner, and bluntnose
shiner. Both shiners are likely to be extinct in New Mexico at this time
(BOR, 1975a), or at least restricted to areas below Elephant Butte Dam. The
only confirmed record of the shovelnose sturgeon was a specimen collected at
Albuquerque in 1875.
Four endangered bird species regularly frequent the Middle Rio Grande.
The whooping crane has used the Rio Grande flyway enroute to wildlife refuges
to the south (Bosque del Apache, Belen, Bernardo). Formerly a more common
winter resident, the whooping crane was eliminated in New Mexico through loss
of its wetland habitats and by overhunting. A "foster parent" program involving
sandhill cranes has allowed reintroduction of the whooping crane to Bosque del
Apache National Wildlife Refuge (4 in 1975-76), and numbers are expected to rise
in the future. The southern bald eagle and American peregrine falcon also use
the flyway in migration. The former winters irregularly at Bosque del Apache
and Elephant Butte Reservoir. The peregrine falcon has been known to nest in
cliffs on the west side of the Sandia Mountains. In both cases breeding has
been adversely affected by persistent pesticides, and because some young falcons
are taken illegally by falconers. The Mexican duck breeds on the lower Rio
Grande but has been observed as far north as Albuquerque. Protected marshland
refuges have been established for it at Elephant Butte Marsh (north end of
reservoir), Bosque del Apache, and San Simon Cienega. It is felt that as yet
undetermined changes in habitat have favored the common mallard duck, and re-
sulted in hydridization and thus reduction of pure strains of the Mexican duck.
Two endangered mammals are listed for New Mexico. The spotted bat,
residing in high cliffs and canyons, is listed only as "restricted" by the
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, due to its relative abundance locally.
The black-footed ferret is a rare animal, so reclusive that after first being
described in 1851. no specimens were reported by U.S. naturalists until the turn
of the century. A decline in numbers is apparently due to secondary poisoning
from programs to eradicate the prairie dog, which is the ferret's preferred
food source. Principally a grassland dweller, its range is all of central and
northern New Mexico.
Threatened mammal and bird species (in less serious danger of extinction than
endangered) which may be found in the Middle Rio Grande Valley are the black-tailed
prairie dog, olivaceous cormorant, Mississippi kite, grey hawk, black hawk and
osprey. The cormorant is at its northern limits in New Mexico, and deterioration
of habitat could wipe out the only breeding colony in the state at Elephant Butte
Reservoir. Both hawks and the kite are very rare, at best, and destruction of riparian
habitat and shooting are major problems. The osprey (fish hawk) is a rare breeder
in the State, almost totally dependent on fish for food.
No endangered or threatened invertebrates have been identified which would
be impacted by any wastewater-related actions. One threatened plant (Pediocactus
papvracanthus. a cactus) and one proposed endangered plant (Petalostemum scariosum.
a member of the pea family) occur in habitats of the type which are found on the
mesas and the Sandia Mountain foothills. Any construction projects on previously
undisturbed mesa or foothill lands could adversely affect these species.
-82-
-------
2.5.4 Vectors
Vector organisms, such as rats, mosquitoes and flies, have not been reported
as occurring in significant numbers in association with any of the City's waste-
water facilities. According to the records of the City Environmental Health
Department, significant problems occur with the many cesspools and septic tanks
which occur throughout the planning area. Wherever such on-site systems are not
sealed, mosquitoe breeding commonly occurs. This is considered by the Department
to be by far the most significant concern regarding wastewater management and
vector control.
2.6 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
Major socio-economic aspects of the Albuquerque environment include:
population size, characteristics and distribution; land use patterns and
projected changes resulting from the Comprehensive Plan; economic conditions,
including the extent and location of major private investments; the existing
infrastructure of the urban complex, especially utilities which can be
supportive of future growth; and capital improvements intended to expand the
infrastructure.
2.6.1 Population
Albuquerque's most explosive period of growth occurred during World War II
and the following decade. The 1940 population of about 35,500 increased more
than five-fold by 1960, when it exceeded 201,000. More recently growth has
been slower but relatively steady, to the point that the present population
of the planning area (which excludes those living on Federal land) is 358,150.
Detailed population projections have been made as part of the Facility
Plan (MMC, 1977), based on a study by BBER (1976) and additional work by the
City/County Planning Department. A population of between 590,000 and 687,000
is projected in the year 2000 for the planning area. Table 2-13 summarizes
the projections for the major political subdivisions of the area. As with
any such forecast, the estimates could be significantly high or low. For
comparison, the Basin Plan forecasts a population of only about 630,000 in
the year 2000 for an area which includes not only Albuquerque but Bernalillo,
Peralta, Los Lunas, Belen, Socorro, and vicinities (NMWQCC, 1976). The ultimate
population of the area, based on environmental carrying capacity, could approach
2,000,000 (ABCPD, 1972).
Ethnic minorities comprise nearly half the population (BOR, 1975, p.
B-180). For Bernalillo County in 1970, 39.2% of the population was
Spanish-surnamed, 2.1% was classified as Negro, and 1.8% were Indian. Half
the citizens were born in New Mexico. The median age, 24.4 years, is similar
to that for the State as a whole.
2.6.2 Land Use
Land use in the planning area reflects a pattern of urban development
which has gradually expanded at the expense of agricultural, rural and
vacant land. As a result much of the area is now a sprawling urban/suburban
complex. Some cropland remains, mixed with urban/rural development in parts
of the North and South Valleys. Several large parcels of vacant grazing land occur
on the mesas; most of these are being held for eventual subdivision or commercial
development. Much of the other rural or open land is publicly owned.
-83-
-------
TABLE 2-13. PLANNING AREA ?OPULATTON
PROJECTIONS.
Source: KMC,
(1977)
1970
1975
1980
1985
2000
Low
Total Planning Area: medium
High
304,695
358,150
393,200
398,200
401,200
434,000
443,000
471,000
590,000
687,000
low
City of Albuquerque. medium
high
243,420
303,100
340,383
349,321
355,395
393,201
397,486
427,618
-
Los Rdnchos de Albuquerque
2,200
2,400
2,600
3,000
-
Corrales (Sandoval County)
2,000
3,150
4,200
5,000
6,000
East Mountain Area
1,550
1,600
2,280
2 ,700
3,750
North Valley (north of Gsunn
Road, east of river)
9,393
12,973*
13,500
14,900
18,500
South Valley (south of Bridge
Blvd. to laleta Reservation)
29,185
31,787*
34,800
36,500
45,000
1973 estimates
-------
Within the metropolitan area most land is used for single-family
residences. Multi-family dwellings and retail outlets tend to occur along
major streets, while manufacturing and wholesaling activities are scattered,
though most often found near the north-south railroad line or near one of the
major interstate highways/freeways. Offices are concentrated in the Central
Business District, and along both freeways. Data on land use and ownership
in the study area are given in Section F-l of EPA (1977).
During the past decade there has been increasing public concern that
the existing urban development pattern is inefficient and undesirable. In
1975 the City and County adopted a new Comprehensive Plan (CP) in order to
accomplish development in a more orderly fashion (ABC, 1975). The heart of
the CP is a set of land use, environmental and economic policies and goals which
are intended to produce an attractive, diverse and efficient metropolis. Con-
formance to the principals of the CP is one of the prime objectives of the
wastewater management planning process. Indeed, once adopted, the Facility
Plan will become an official part of the CP.
Figure 2-13 illustrates the major land use policies of the CP. New
development is to be accommodated to a large extent within the already
existing urban and urbanizing areas, and on suitable portions of the adjacent
mesas. Development is discouraged or prohibited in most rural and open areas,
especially where land has aesthetic or recreational value or is unsuited for
construction. Particularly designated for protection are the Bosque, the
Sandia Foothills and the Volcanoes.
Figure 2-13 differs from the plan published in 19 75 in that it has been
expanded to include areas such as Corrales and Tijeras. Corrales is shown
as maintaining a rural character, based on the official village zoning policy.
The East Mountain area is similarly designated rural, reflecting goals of the
Plan for that region (ABC, 1975d). In both cases,as elsewhere in the rural
areas, denser development, including commercial activity, may occur in clusters.
Extensive consideration of economic and environmental impacts went into
the establishment of the land use policies discussed above. For example,
the promotion of a compact urban form is expected to reduce total development
costs, and the limitation of development in the valley areas is expected to
help control air pollution problems, reduce flood damage risks and have other
advantages. Therefore, unless special circumstances are present, it is reason-
able to expect that any wastewater management alternative proposed in agreement
with the Comprehensive Plan should have beneficial secondary impacts.
Enforcement of the CP is to be achieved by measures such as zoning,
control of services and utilities, and use of taxation policies. For
example, the basic approaches toward maintaining rural areas in the Valley
include large-lot and agricultural zoning, a general policy against provision
of urban-scale services and utilities to lightly settled areas, and the
greenbelt taxation program. The latter was begun in 1967 and reduces the
tax burden on those who maintain irrigated or grazing lands in urbanizing
areas. None of these enforcement measures have been completely successful
in preventing conversion of rural lands to more intensive development. For
example, within Bernalillo County there has been a loss of Class-A* irrigated
*Class A parcels are those 5-acres in size and larger.
-85-
-------
land amounting to 200 acres per year in recent years (Herkenhoff, 1973). If
this rate of conversion were to continue, no sizable irrigated parcels would
remain after the year 2015. This trend reflects the fact that farming on
small parcels is economically marginal, while sale of land for subdivision
purposes is generally profitable in the rural Valley areas. Thus, to achieve
the goals of the CP additional measures may be required, such as public
purchase of farms (with leaseback to operators), establishment of land trusts,
and use of transferable development rights. These measures and others are
under consideration by local planning agencies.
Provision of city utilities can play a role in accomplishing the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan, since development is more likely to occur
where municipal services are available than where they are absent. However,
as discussed in 2.6.4, the lack of such services does not by itself prevent
considerable growth from occurring in areas which are designated as rural
or open. Thus, the future land use of the area depends primarily on the
extent to which zoning and other measures are utilized to enforce the plan.
Based on historical patterns, at least some departures from the planned land
use must be expected.
Land Use Near Treatment Plants. The neighborhood near Plant //I is
dominated by industrial/commercial uses. Most of the former residential
area immediately to the north has been razed and will be developed as an
industrial park. This park will be managed to attract tenants of the light
manufacturing and warehouse type. Vacant industrial commercial sites are
also available south of the plant. Plant H2 is located in an area of mixed
urban/agricultural land use. The low-density Mountainview Community occurs
to the south and the riverside bosque lies on the west. Farms bound both
the north and south property lines.
The general area of the two treatment plants includes a number of animal
confinement and processing facilities such as feedlots and packing and rendering
plants. These facilities represent significant odor sources (see 2.2.4).
Although planning efforts have attempted to remove the operations to unpopulated
areas (e.g. a mesa industrial park), present County policy is to allow existing
facilities to continue, provided they obtain a special use permit.
-86-
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
2.6.3 Economic Conditions
The planning area has a relatively healthy economy compared to much
of New Mexico, which reflects Albuquerque's role as the trade and service
center of the State. Employment and income data as of 1975, and projected
through 1985, are presented in Table 2-14. These data indicate that the
largest economic sectors are: wholesale and retail trade, personal and pro-
fessional services, Government administration and services, and education/
medical services. Together these four groups account for 75% of all jobs
and 68% of the gross dollar output in Bernalillo County. Light manufacturing
and construction are also significant. Government employment, in both the
downtown area and at the Air Force/ERDA complex of Kirtland/Sandia, is a
mainstay of the economv, directly accounting for nearly 20% of all jobs.
At present there is about one job per three persons, with an unadjusted
unemoloyment rate in June, 1976 of 7.7%. This compares to an 8.0% unemploy-
ment rate nationwide, and to a 7.9% rate m Bernalillo County a year earlier.
According to Table 2-14, unemployment should decrease slightly in the next
decade. Employment opportunities are better than elsewhere in the State,
as illustrated bv the fact that BernalLllo County contains 55% of all
businesses in the State which employ more than 250 persons, though it contains
only 31% of the State's population (NMU, 1974). However, Albuquerque's role
as the State's economic center could be in decline. For although the City
has 41% of all New Mexico banl' deposits, in 1975 bank deposits grew only 7.2%,
whereas statewide the growth factor was 12.7% (NMU, 1974). This reflects a
shift in economic activity toward smaller cities, especially those in energy
boom areas.
Despite Albuquerque's relatively good employment situation, the population
as a whole is not affluent. Median family income (1970 census) was $7,371, about
10% less than the national average; the gap is estimated to have widened since
then. There are also more families with sub-poverty level incomes in the area
(16.3%) than nationwide (14.0%); however, the City compares favorably to New
Mexico as a whole (22.0%). Incomes are unevenly distributed within the area.
For example in 1970 family incomes were more than $l,000/year higher within the
Cit\ than in adjacent unincorporated areas. As suggested by the income figures,
povertv pockets are concentrated in some valley locations, especially in the
South Valley where the percentage is 25-30% in some census districts. Similar
percentages occur in other parts of the City, such as in the valley neighborhoods
of Martmeztown, Barelas and South Broadway. In contrast only about 5% of the
income levels in the Northeast Heights were below poverty level in 1970.
Projections in Table 2-14 indicate that the New Mexico economy will not
markedly improve in the decade ahead. Although personal income is projected
to increase faster than the national averaee, it will remain well below that
average. Confidence in the local economy is reflected by the large scale of
private investments in recent years. Building permits exceed $10,000,000 per
month, and the City was rated 16th among the nation's 200 largest cities in
terms of permits issued during the first quarter of 1976. Section F-2 of EPA
(1977) indicates the types and locations of $51.5 billion worth of public and
private investments announced in the period January 1975 to May 1976; industrial
oarks ire also listed and mapped. The reference provides an indication of areas
where major development is occurring and growth pressures are most intense.
Manv of the areas are within the existing urbanized sectors of Albuquerque,
or immediately adjacent in the Northeast Heights and West Mesa. The largest
investments are by the Federal Government in the Kirtland/Sandia complex.
-89-
-------
TABLE 2-14. PRESENT AND PROJECTED BERNALILLO COUNTY EMPLOYMENT AND OTHER
ECONOMIC INDICATORS. Baaed on data presented in BBER, 1976, for
medium population projections, and on U.S Census data.
Employment Sector Number of persons
1975 1980 1985
Agriculture
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing (sub-total of below)
Food processing
Printing, paper, & wood products
Chemical, petroleum products,
concrete & stone products
Machinery, electrical equipment
fabricated metals, & misc.
manufacturing
Transportation
Communications and Utilities
Wholesale and Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate &
Insurance (sub-total of below)
F.I.& R.E.
Hotels & motels
Personal, business, & professional
services
Educational, Non-profit, S Medical
& Dental Services (sub-cotal)
Medical & dental
Educational 4 non-profit services
Government—Administration & Services
710
666
616
96
96
98
12,200
13,779
15,069
14,989
18,621
25,159
1,933
1,860
1,809
2,437
2,740
3,127
1,430
1,577
1,746
9,189
12,444
18,477
3,956
3,943
3,952
5,286
4,898
4,876
35,897
37,104
37,400
28,621
31,100
34,313
7,673
8,115
8,823
2,610
3,180
3,526
18,038
19,805
21,964
18,425
20,634
23,371
7,098
7,164
7,317
11,327
13,470
16,054
25,356
30,144
36,065
Total Employment Bernalillo County 145,236 160,985 180,919
Total Gross Output Above Sectors $3,278x10® $4,006x10® $4,956x10®
Percent of Employment in Albuquerque 93% 93.6% 94.3%
Personal Income Estiraate-Bernalillo Co. $ 4,368 $ 4,841 $ 5,310
Median Family Income in 1970
Albuq. $7,737, S. Valley $5,543;
Remainder of County $6,646;
County Average $7,371
State's Share of Regional Employment 5.9% 5.2%
State's Share of Regional Earnings 5.3% 4.7%
State's Share of Regional Population 7.2% 7.0%
State's Per Capita Income as % of Nat. Ave. 80% 85%
-90-
-------
Two aspects of area economics are of special interest in wastewater
management planning. One is the fiscal capacity of local governments.
Albuquerque has a large budget, exceeding $100,000,000 per year, with
income originating from gross receipts tax, service revenues and bonds.
This income is spent on a full range of municipal services and facilities.
In contrast the County operates on a very small budget, about $13,000,000
in fiscal year 1974. Income is from property and gross receipts taxes and
goes for very basic services, not including sewer, water, or other major
capital investments. A discussion of City capital investments is given in
2.6.10.
The second aspect is the financial burden associated with use of on-
site wastewater systems (OSS) in unincorporated, low-income areas. A survey
of financial institutions in Albuquerque, including banks, the Federal Housing
Authority, and Veterans Administration was made as part of a previous
wastewater study (Matotan, 1975). The survey indicated that in locations such
as the South Valley,loans are difficult to obtain and sale is sometimes held
up for homes which are not connected to a sewer system, unless the homeowner
is able to meet OSS standards. In addition, use of OSS generally depresses
property values; a sewered house may be worth up to $500 more in a retail
market than one which has a septic tank or cesspool.
2.6.4 Infrastructure
The term infrastructure refers to the framework of facilities and services
which support life in any developed area, including: water supply, wastewater
disposal, solid waste disposal, storm drainage, transportation, energy and
communication utilities, health and safety, education, recreation and cultural
facilities. This framework is important to wastewater planning for two main
reasons. First it help6determine environmental conditions which interact
with wastewater facility construction and operation, such as: buried
utilities, storm runoff hazards, energy availability, and transportation-
related air and noise pollution. Second, it is important in assessing the
secondary land use consequences of extending sewerage utilities. All else
being equal, urbanization is most likely to occur where adequate facilities
and services are present. Thus provision of infrastructure allows for growth,
and growth usually demands additional infrastructure.
Infrastructure considerations play a major role in the City/County
Comprehensive Plan. The goal of accommodating growth by infill is intended to
increase the use of existing facilities and reduce the need for new ones, thereby
minimizing new public investment. One element of the Plan is directed explicitly
to coordinating the construction of public infrastructure in the West Mesa
area, to support expected growth and provide an alternative to further develop-
ment of areas designated rural or open.
Sections 2.6.5 through 2.6.9 include information on important existing
and future elements of the planning area's infrastructure. Three distinct
areas can be identified.
- Within the City limits extensive public facilities and services exist,
along with private utilities, educational and recreational facilities,
good transportation networks and other urban infrastructure. By and
large this area is capable of accommodating additional growth. A recent
survey indicates satisfaction with most City services, with only the
bus system and street repairs receiving less than 50% approval
(Mallory, 1976).
-91-
-------
In the unincorporated valley areas services and facilities are much
less extensive. However, this is not necessarily a critical factor
restricting growth, because on-site water supplies and wastewater disposal
systems are commonly used despite associated water quality problems.
Given present regulations for on-site systems, development in the area
must be at a relatively low density unless public sewers are available.
- Elsewhere in unincorporated areas infrastructure is generally limited,
and on-site water supplies tend to be expensive or locally unavailable
(e.g. East Mountain area). For such areas development probably requires
public water systems (as well as transportation and other facilities).
Wastewater collection facilities are also needed if the development is
to be at medium or high densities (small lots; multi-family dwellings).
2.6.5 Water Supply and Sanitary Sewers
Water Supply. Albuquerque's municipal water supply is derived entirely
from ground water by relatively deep wells and is of good to excellent quality.
Subject to water right restrictions (see 2.3A) there is little possibility of
a shortage because of the large quantity of water stored in the Santa Fe Group
aquifer. The pumped water is stored in a number of surface reservoirs (concrete
and steel) and distributed by gravity through trunk and smaller lines to areas
throughout the City, and to portions of the unincorporated North and South
Valley. The distribution system, which involves 20 pressure zones, is controlled
by computer automation. The supply is chlorinated to ensure that the naturally
good bacterial quality is maintained throughout the system; it has been
fluoridated since 1973. Additional information on the system, and other supplies
in the area is given in Section F-3 of EPA (1977).
The master plan for water supply, developed in 1963 and followed rather
closely since then, is now in the process of being updated and revised. The
existing plan calls for continued extension of water lines into the unincorpor-
ated portions of the valley. Such extensions would go beyond the present
South Valley service limit (Rio Bravo Road plus Adobe Acres) to the County line.
Service would also extend to the Mountainview area including Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant #2, which presently utilizes on-site wells for wash water and other
purposes.
As would be expected on the basis of population growth, both total and
peak water demand have increased in the past several decades, doubling every
15 years or so. In 1975, the average demand was 70 million gallons per day
(78,500 acre-feet during the year) with peak demand exceeding 143 million
gallons on June 25th. Per capita demand has also steadily increased, especial-
ly for peak periods which normally occur in June or July each year. In 1975,
the average daily demand was 227 gallons per capita and the peak demand was
464 gallons per capita. These values are among the highest in New Mexico.
Figure 2-14 illustrates how water demand varied during the year 1974,
and shows a pronounced peak during summer. The figure also illustrates the
amount of return flow to the sewer system. During winter almost all the
raw water pumped by the City was returned to and treated at Plants //I and //2,
and the consumptive use of water was small. In comparison, during summer
only 25-35% of the water supply was returned to the sanitary sewer system;
the remainder was consumed. Similar patterns are observed in other years.
Presumably the high rate of water consumption in summer reflects use for
lawns, air conditioning and other residential purposes, as well as increased
needs by business and industry.
-92-
-------
FIGURE 2-I4-. SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF MUNICIPAL WATER
DEMAND AND LIQUID WASTE, ALBUQUERQUE,
N.Mm 1974
Month
-93-
-------
Outside of areas served by the City system, water is normally obtained
from private wells; small water systems serve areas such as Sandia Heights and
Paradise Hills. Private wells in the valley are often shallow and adversely
affected by ground water contamination (see 2.4.4), but supply quantities are
not limited, and water service as such does not effectively restrict growth in
the valley. However, regulations as to lot sizes required for use of private
wells and septic tanks do limit development densities. Private wells in the
East Mountain area vary greatly in terms of yield and reliability; dry holes
are not uncommon. Available planning documents indicate that the lack of
adequate water supplies restrict the growth potential of this area (ABC,
1975d). In the mesa areas, since depth to water is normally great, well
construction is expensive; private water supplies are thus readily available
only to the affluent. Intensive development in the absence of public water
supplies is unlikely.
Sewers. The City's sanitary sewerage system is described in 2.1.1.
Service extends throughout the City, to Paradise Hills, and in the near
future to most of the South Valley north of Gun Club Road. Parts of Sandia
Heights and the Kirtland Base have their own facilities; elsewhere on-site
systems are utilized. There are few areas where OSS of advanced design cannot
overcome adverse soil conditions, and thus the absence of public sewer lines
is not a constraint to development as such. However, as noted previously,
existing regulations would prohibit dense development in the absence of
public water and/or sewer service; in general OSS use is permitted only on
lots 3/4-1 acre or larger. Special systems are needed for multi-family units,
trailer parks, and the like.
Rate Structure. Section F-4 of EPA (1977) contains information on
Albuquerque's complex rate structure for water and sewer service. Major
components of.the structure are:
minimum monthly charges, based on meter size;
incremental charges for water use beyond that allowed by the minimum
charge;
- discounts (reduced rates) for large water users;
discount in summer to residential water users;
- a standby charge for vacant lots which have access to a water/sewer line;
- sewer charges which are approximately half the water bill.
Minimum charges for residents in unincorporated areas are approximately
twice those for City residents. This results in County residents paying the
full cost of their water services, whereas part of the cost for service
in the City has been borne by taxpapers via general obligation bonds.
Rate increases in the past year have amounted to 25.9%, and can be expected
to climb further in the future, at least partly because of the past and project-
ed rise in energy and treatment costs. This should result in reduced water
usage.
Management. Late in 1976 the City of Albuquerque consolidated water supply
and wastewater management into a central Water Resources Department. The new
department is responsible not only for facility construction and operation, but
also for water and sewer billing. It is expected that the reorganization will
enable the City to engage in long-term planning regarding water resources.
This planning is expected to include the development of water conservation
programs.
-94-
-------
2.6.6 Sewerage and Development in Albuquerque
Because sewer extensions are a major concern of wastewater planning,
the wastewater management study has developed information on the complex
relationships of urbanization and municipal sewer service, as they may
apply to the Albuquerque situation (see Section F-5 of EPA, 1977).
Important findings are as follows:
- As indicated in the Comprehensive Plan, low-density development
tends to be expensive and inefficient; sprawling urban growth
tends to increase government costs more than it increases revenues.
- Where municipal sewers are constructed, development tends to
follow. Sewers thus have the potential to lead to premature
or sprawling development unless properly planned.
- Historically in Albuquerque the availability of sewers and
natural gas have been major factors determining development
patterns. Where sewers are absent, and on-site system regula-
tions are enforced, only relatively low-density single family
residential development is possible, unless a developer
utilizes advanced on-site systems or package plants (as in the
case of Sandia Heights).
In addition to these findings it is important to note that no single
agency presently has zoning authority for the entire planning area. Zoning
enforcement by the City and the County have not followed identical criteria
in recent years, and special use permits, which in effect change the zoning,
have frequently been issued within the area subject to Bernalillo County
zoning. Thus, development of areas such as the North and South Valley may
respond to market forces to a considerable degree. The provision of sewers
where planned growth is desirable can be a factor reinforcing market forces.
However, the withholding of sewer service in itself is likely to limit only
commercial and high-density residential development, rather than low-density
single family development. When considered independently of other factors
and controls, use of sewerage to influence land use patterns is of uncertain
effectiveness. As noted by Tabors et. al. (1976), the record of using
sewerage as a land use policy instrument is most effective where the
governmental controls of planning policy are centralized. This centraliz-
ation is lacking in Albuquerque.
2.6.7 Municipal Services; Utilities
Solid waste management involves regular pickups within the City limits,
and disposal by landfill at two sites; a third site is planned for the near
future. Within the County pickups are normally handled by private firms, and
disposal is at two privately operated (though publicly owned) landfills.
Litter is a major aesthetic problem in the area, especially near the landfills
where private dumping is common, and near arroyos which are also popular sites
for illegal disposal of solid wastes. Solid waste handling of sludge and
other wastewater treatment by-products was discussed in 2.1.5. The Montessa
Park landfill, or the East Mesa near Tijeras Arroyo, is used when treatment
plant solids are disposed of or stockpiled. Septage, the solids pumped from
septic tanks, is normally disposed of to the City sewer lines at a number of
specially designated manholes.
-95-
-------
Storm drainage is provided by a network of City-owned storm sewers, and
by the special diversion works of the Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood
Control Authority. For large portions of the area there are proposed AMAFCA
facilities; for example on the West Mesa a system of natural and improved
arroyos, earth-lined diversion channels and multi-use detention and desilting
basins will be utilized to limit flood hazards on the mesa and in the adjacent
valley (Matotan, 1974). Somewhat similar works are to be built on the northeast
mesa area; both systems conform with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan by
retaining arroyos in a natural state to the extent possible, and by permitting
the drainage works to service other purposes such as recreation. Soil
Conservation Service flood control works have been installed in the northwest
part of the area, but proposed facilities for the Corrales area have never
progressed beyond the planning stage. While the flooding problem in Corrales
remains unsolved damage is increasing as more homes are built in the area.
Energy utilities are well-established in the area. Electricity is
provided by local gas-fired" plants and by expanding coal-fired plants in
northwest New Mexico. Transmission lines are an aesthetic problem in parts
of the planning area, and the tendency is for new primary users (shopping
centers, etc.) to be served underground. Natural gas pipelines from north-
west New Mexico provide low-sulphur heating and industrial fuel for the
entire area and buried lines are found throughout the settled sectors. More
than most cities, Albuquerque is increasingly turning to non-conventional
sources of energy to meet its needs. Solar energy has been used for space
heating on a limited scale since at least the 1950's; solar heated homes
and buildings are relatively common in new construction. An experimental
solar-powered electrical generating station is nearing completion on the
East Mesa, and a recently installed solar-powered irrigation well on Isleta
Reservation appears to be highly successful. Geothermal energy has been tapped
to heat and cool a major downtown office building since the 1950's, but no
subsequent use of this source is known.
The 1975 electrical energy use averaged 18 megawatts per year for the
average customer, including residential, commercial and industrial meters.
By comparison, electricity consumed by the two treatment plants (beyond that
supplied by on-site gas combustion) averaged 0.05 megawatts for each of the
Cities 75,000 sewer connections. At a price of 3c/kilowatt hour, the per-
connection electricity cost for wastewater treatment is about $1.50/year;
this represents about 0.3% of the electricity bill of the average customer.
For residential customers only, average electricity use in 1975 was 6.5 megawatts/
year. For such customers the electricity cost for wastewater treatment would
represent just less than 1% of the average bill.
The gas produced at the treatment plants under 1975 conditions was about
220 million cubic feet per year. By comparison the annual natural gas con-
sumption in Albuquerque amounted to 38.5 billion cubic feet, of which 12
billion was utilized by residential customers. Thus the gas production at
the treatment works amounts to 0.5% of the total gas demand for the planning
area.
The City has recently implemented a program to achieve energy conservation
in municipal facilities. Among the objectives of this program which could
affect wastewater management facilities are: lowering of thermostats, reduction
in indoor and especially outdoor lighting, reduced energy use or use of
alternate energy sources for water pumping.
-96-
-------
Telephone/telegraph utilities are well developed. There are few
buried cables of the type which would interfere with sewer construction.
2.6.8 Transportation; Health and Safety
Private trucks and automobiles are the dominant transporation form into
and through the Albuquerque area. Two interstate highways (numbers 25 and 40)
divide the City into quadrants and provide access to most principal arteries.
A significant problem with reliance on fossil fuel propelled vehicles
is that in the last decade auto emissions have begun to outstrip the
dispersion capacity of the City's airshed (see Section 2.2.3). A major
objective of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide a more compact urban form
in which less vehicle travel would be necessary (hence less emissions and
energy use). A long-range goal is to provide mass transit systems, but to
date only a modest bus service exists. In the meantime transportation
planning is focused on upgrading of existing arteries (widening; new bridges
and overpasses).
Interstate passenger and freight service involves four major airlines
serving the international airport, Amtrak and freight service on the Chicago-
Los Angeles mainline, and frequent runs by truck and bus companies. Plans still
under development call for a major new airport to be built on the far West
Mesa (west of the Volcanoes), primarily to serve private aviation.
Health services are provided by seven major hospitals, numerous clinics,
several cancer research centers, a large veterans hospital and a railroad
employees hospital. All the major facilities are within Albuquerque. The
City and County Environmental Health Departments have major responsibility
for service related to sanitary surveys of wells and on-site systems. A
discussion of health problems related to OSS is presented in 2.4.5.
City police and professional fire departments operate within the City;
the Sheriff and volunteer fire departments act within the County. County
fire service is hampered by lack of water lines in many areas,
2.6.9 Other Infrastructure Elements
Education throughout the area is provided by the Albuquerque public school
system, with 109 schools attended by 83,000 pupils. There are also numerous
non-sectarian and religious private schools, special schools such as the South-
west Indian Polytechnic Institute, and two universities. "Recreational
facilities are discussed separately in 2.7.2. Cultural events focus around
musical and theatrical groups, school, university and professional sports,
and the State Fair. Fifteen libraries contain approximately 13 million
volumes. Public communications are provided by two daily newspapers with a
combined circulation of about 110,000, and by four television stations
and numerous radio stations.
2.6.10 Capital Improvements
The city maintains an ongoing capital improvements program which
-97-
-------
schedules infrastructure needed by present or future residents.
Funding of the improvements is accomplished with general obligation or
revenue bonds as the primary source of income. For 1975, planned funding
for capital improvements was as follows (source: City of Albuquerque, 1975):
Purpose
G.O. Funds
H
O
1.
Fire
$ 865,000
3
2.
Parks & Recreation
3,205,000
11
3.
Museum
2,900,000
10
4.
Animal Control
255,000
1
5.
Data Processing
495,000
2
6.
Courts Building
4,170,000
14
7.
Street Improvements
7,665,000
26
8.
Transit
985,000
3
9.
Library
320,000
1
10.
Sanitary Sewer
1,475,000
5
11.
Storm Sewer
6,395,000
21
12.
Zoo
1,045,000
4
13.
Water
110,000
-
Total
$29,785,000
With State and Federal participation, and other local monies, the total
investment was about $57,921,000. Use of funds is about evenly divided between
general utilities (fire, library, parks, civic building, water and sewer) and
transportation-related items. In recent years most facilities have been built
in one of four general locations: the fringes of the Northeast Heights, where
new growth is occurring; portions of the West Mesa where development is ongoing;
redeveloping areas such as the Central Business District; and previously unserved
portions of the North and South Valleys (including some water and sewer
facilities in unincorporated areas).
Fixed assets versus bonded indebtedness for the City and County in 1975
are listed below.
Fixed Assets Bonded Indebtedness
City $195,000,000 $138,000,000
County 17,730,000 14,000,000
This fiscal information, along with that presented earlier, indicates
the contrasting conditions between the City and adjacent unincorporated areas.
A recent study by the State Legislative Finance Committee stated that "the
City offers more to its residents in the way of services than is required to
meet basic needs" (Albuquerque News, 11/4/76).
In contrast, County residents have access to fewer and more limited
services, even though many live in urban conditions. Resources adequate
to develop services in the valley area are not available to the County
government; thus the water and sewer service that does exist has been
provided by the City through extensions beyond its limits.
-98-
-------
2.6.11 Jurisdictions
A significant factor affecting the planning area is that land use
controls and other policy-implementation measures are under the control
of different government bodies. The City, and each of the three small
incorporated areas, have complete jurisdiction within their corporate
limits. Elsewhere it is Bernalillo County which has the basic responsi-
bility for providing government services. However there is an area in
which municipal platting and planning authority overlaps with County
authority; in the case of the City and County this extraterritorial zone
extends three miles from the municipal boundary.
As might be expected with different governments there has not been
a uniform approach to matters such as planning, even though both the City
and County have adopted the same Comprehensive Plan. As noted in 2.6.10,
the City has a greater capability for providing services and utilities,
and is responsible for much of the water and sewer construction within the
County area. The City also has tended to follow zoning regulations rela-
tively stringently, while variances have been more common within the County.
A significant factor, expressed often during the Public Hearings held during
the 201 planning process, is the concern of County residents that the City
may desire to annex areas within the County, and that the extension of water
and sewer service to unincorporated areas is a prelude to such annexation.
The stated City policy is that such utility extensions are not related to any
annexations, and that the City will cooperate with the County in exercising
their joint planning and platting authority in the extraterritorial zone.
Recognizing the fiscal limitations on County services, and desiring
to foreclose any annexations by the City, residents in the unincorporated
areas have increasingly shown an interest in corporate government. One
example was the recent consideration of greatly enlarging the corporate
limit of Tijeras, to include a large segment of the East Mountains. This
proposal was widely debated, and eventually rejected. An even more signi-
ficant example is the proposal to incorporate as a new municipality the
entire valley and valley-side area south of Albuquerque. Such an incorpor-
ation was made possible by State legislation passed in 1976, and if effected
would result in creation of a South Valley municipality with a population
of at least 35,000 persons. As of May, 1977, no formal decision had been
reached regarding this incorporation.
2.7 RESOURCE SITES; AESTHETICS
2.7.1 Archeological and Historical Resources
Archeology (Pre-History). Section G-l of EPA (1977) provides a narrative
discussion of Albuquerque's archeological history. The Middle Rio Grande
Valley is a vast storehouse of artifacts left by people who have inhabitated
the area for many millennia. The oldest recognized cultural period is termed
Paleo-Indlan, and refers to Stone Age big-game hunters who exploited the grass-
land environment typical in New Mexico during portions of the ice ages (9,000
years ago and before). These early nomads hunted large mammals such as the
horse, camel, bison and mammoth, leaving behind evidence of camping, kill and
butchering sites, especially near marshes, streams and adjacent ridges.
Artifacts marking such sites include charred cobbles, flint chips, fossilized
animal bones, and distinctive lance-shaped spear tips such as the well-known
Cldvis, Folsom and Sandia points.
-99-
-------
Possibly overlapping with, but generally following the Paleo-Indian culture
was the Desert Culture-Archaic tradition of semi-nomadic hunting and gathering,
which gradually evolved through a period of about seven thousand years.
This culture involved game hunting (deer, antelope, other mammals) as well
as seed and plant gathering. Thus artifact sites occur in a variety of
locations. The best preserved artifacts are found in caves and under rock
ledges and include basketry, cord and cloth, rock tools, and even a very
early form of domestic maize. Small projectile points provide the most
widespread markers of this period.
The Anasazi-Mogollon farming tradition, which evidently evolved from the
Archaic culture, extended from about 2,000 years ago to historic times. The
onset of this tradition is marked by introduction of the bow and arrow, new
domestic crops, permanent settlements, and ceramic technology. The settlements
include pithouses as well as pueblos, and with the associated pottery and stone
implements represent some of the most important archeological resources in
the Southwest. In Albuquerque such remains are rare prior to 1,000 years
ago, because the Anasazi culture was centered in the San Juan River Basin to the
northwest, while the Mogollon culture was common in southern New Mexico. How-
ever, migration into the Rio Grande basin gradually led to an increase in the
size and number of farming villages in the area, up to about the year 1300
A.D. when the Pueblo people attained their highest levels of prehistoric
population and socio-cultural expression. The Pueblo culture began to decline
with the immigration into the area of aggressive newcomers, including other
Indians (e. g. Apaches) and the Spanish.
History. The historic period began with the Spanish entrada in 1540,
although permanent Spanish settlement did not occur until 1598. The Pueblo
peoples declined steadily in numbers in the face of new weapons and diseases,
although with the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 they were able to expel the Spanish
for about a decade. Spanish control was unbroken from the late 1600's to
1821, when Mexico obtained its independence and took over rule of the
territory. The United States won the territory in 1846, after which Anglo
immigration began. The Spanish village of Albuquerque, founded in 1706,
began its modern development after the arrival of the railroad in 1880. Other
villages of the 1700 and 1800's, such as Atrisco, Arenal and Los Griegos, were
settled at the same time and retained their identity until relatively recently;
they are now identified most readily as neighborhoods within the sprawling
urban complex. Refer to Reeve (1961) for a further discussion of the history
of the region.
Registered Sites. Historic and archeologic sites listed on either the
Federal or State Register of Historic Places are located on Figure 2-15 and
contained in Section G-2 of EPA (1977). The sites fall into three categories:
Indian sites, including Sandia Cave, Isleta Pueblo, and the petroglyphs of
Volcano Cliffs; Spanish sites, such as the church in Old Town and the newly
excavated Rancho de Carnue near the mouth of Tijeras Canyon; and more recent
structures, including a number of historic commercial and residential buildings
in and near downtown.
Other Sites. Many additional sites of archeological and historical
importance occur in the area, and are listed in the files of the Center for
Anthropological Studies (University of New Mexico), or the Museum of New
Mexico. The locations of known sites have been recorded as part of this EIS
and are available on a need-to-know basis as input to specific planning and
-100-
-------
or At I HI OA
W I 0! |/ 1
/ >
• «r-*- »*»*
- *Jl H'
MqNi^oMipjy
n i
TOWN O*
p> -.jEWiPHAB 1 .
*^1 5
win/oji "bivw i •:••••
^freL -V/F ~^V'-
* I. Sandia Cave
*2. San Felipe de Neri Church
*3. Charies Ilfeid Co. Warehouse
*4. Pueblo of Isleta
5. Commercial District
-numerous houses and buildings
6 University of New Mexico
-several buildings
7. Boca Negro Cave Site
8. Indian Petroglyph State Park
9. La Quinta
10 Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church
11. Rancho de Carnue
12. Site of the Plaza de San Miguel
de Carnue
13 San Antonio de Padua de Carnue
: n if
M j4
Vi -H i
' CALLICOS
i : i :
/jfD'-i' a,
*• f 1 ^
'M
rvRv;
p v ;
SP '
¦31- ¦
Mtr
ft&f \ *;
•1. 1. .
*Federal Register (all others are on
State Register only)
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REGISTERED HISTORIC SITES
FIGURE 2-15
SCI c . «coc
-------
design projects. Site file numbers and characteristics are provided in Sec*
tion G-3 of EPA (1977). Locations of the sites are not reproduced here, in
order to provide site protection. Rather, the general distribution of sites
has been summarized in relation to the natural areas identified in Section
2.0.1; refer to Table 2-1 for information on this distribution.
In general, areas richest in archeological resources are trie Mountain
Lowlands (especially Tijeras Canyon), the Volcanoes including associated
lava flows, and the Valley Side and Terraces. Most sites consist of Archaic-
period camps overlooking watering places. Older artifacts are found locally
on the Terraces and Sand Plains, and Anasazi petroglyphs occur in the Volcanic
terrain. Several Anasazi farming sites and associated building foundations
have been located on the East Mesa, near Tijeras Canyon.
The Valley Floodplain unit is the principal area of historical features—
houses, churches etc. It contains older sites as well, but they are commonly
disturbed by farming and construction.
2.7.2 Recreation, Open Space, Natural Areas
Recreation Sites. Formal recreation activity within the planning area
involves use of both public and private facilities, including 156 municipal
parks and centers occupying 10,371 acres. The City sites are well developed,
and provide opportunities for a variety of sports, from golf to drag racing.
In contrast, relatively fey dedicated parks occur in the unincorporated portion
of the planning area and these often have few or no facilities. Formal recreation
outside the City is available within the nearby Cibola National Forest, Indian
Fetroglyph State Park, and Isleta Pueblo fishing lakes, as well as at more
distant locations such as Cochiti Lake. The forest lands are used mostly
for picnicking and pleasure driving, but also for skiing, hiking, camping
and bowhunting (Adcock and McCormick, 1974), Downstream recreational areas
are discussed later in this section.
Open Space. There are many tracts of open space, both publicly and
privately owned, which are designated for protection by the Comprehensive Plan.
Key public lands of interest are the riverside bosque and right-of-ways along
irrigation canals and drains; arroyo right-of-ways; portions of the mountains
within the National Forest; and portions of the volcanoes owned by the City
or State. Storm drainage improvements, as proposed by recent flood control
plans, are also to have a direct recreational function. The Plan calls for
connections of these areas by horse and pedestrian trails and bikeways.
Complementing the public lands would be the existing private open areas in
the valley (irrigated agriculture) and on the mesas (grazing). As noted in
2.6.2, preservation of the private land is hampered by market pressures,
unless very strict land use controls are imposed.
Although the open space lands normally contain no formal facilities,
they are popular for many activities, even in the face of legal restrictions.
These activities include hunting, fishing (mostly in drains), hiking and
nature observation, horseback riding (especially in the mixed residential/
agricultural valley lands) and swimming (especially in drains and in the
river). The oxbow natural area, discussed in 2.5.1, has received special
public attention as an area to be preserved for wildlife habitat purposes.
-102-
-------
There has been little action in the past to integrate the Rio Grande and
environs into the recreational life of the City. The recent "City Edges"
study proposed numerous options for improving the situation to make the
river a prominent, more attractive, accessible amenity of urban life (CCIC,
1975). The options stress a more balanced use of the river, with emphasis
on recreation as well as flood control, and include formal parks and natural
habitat areas along the river; some of the latter would be created through
construction of ponds and marshes.
The Comprehensive Plan, City Edges study, and other reports indicate the
character of recreational facilities which might interact with wastewater
planning. Of special interest are recreation sites proposed for areas
near or downstream of the treatment plants. These include: a possible
Bravo State Park just south of the outfall from Plant if2; a small impound-
ment on the main stem of the river, below the outfall; designated open space
and natural areas along the river and in the Southeast Valley where large
tracts of irrigated land remain; possible trail systems along the river, which
could be included in the State trail network; a possible small impoundment
near the mouth of Tijeras Arroyo, just above the Mountainview community. Some
of these facilities would be part of a State-supported park system extending more
or less continuously along the Rio Grande for much of its length in New Mexico.
The most specific recommendation which has been made in the recreation reports
regarding wastewater is that treatment should be sufficient to permit primary
contact activities such as swimming and wading (CCIC, 1975, p. 2-21).
Albuquerque is unusual in that a wilderness area has been proposed for
designation within a few miles of the metropolitan limit. This area would lie
within the Sandia and Manzano Mountains, in the Cibola National Forest. Other
portions of the forest have been designated as game refuges, or proposed for
designation as scenic areas. The proposed scenic areas include one which
extends into the 201 planning area along Tijeras Canyon. Neither the game refuge
nor wilderness zones overlap with the planning area at this time.
Downstream Areas. Information on recreational activities in the Middle
Rio Grande Basin downstream from Albuquerque is summarized in a recent impact
statement (BOR, 1975). The major features are the wildlife refuges as shown in
Figure 2-8, and Elephant Butte and Caballo Reservoirs. Elephant Butte re-
ceives more than one million visitors per year, the majority of whom are
interested in water skiing and fishing (Coppedge and Gray, 1968). Fishing is
the major activity at Caballo Reservoir, which receives about half as many
visitors as Elephant Butte.
The refuges are used for wildlife-associated activities, including
observation and, in a few areas, hunting. However, total visitors are few
compared to the reservoirs; for example during fiscal year 1974, a total of
26,178 persons visited the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge.
Wildlife-oriented recreation is also limited for the Basin as a whole. For the
Velarde-Elephant Butte reach, the estimated hunting and fishing use is about
100,000 days/year (BOR, 1975, p. B-169).
2.7.3 Aesthetics
The characteristics which make an environment aesthetically desirable are
open to debate. Certainly the scenic quality of Albuquerque is a major environmental
-103-
-------
attribute, and factors impairing this quality are undesirable. A recent survey of
New Mexicans indicated that the most significant sources of visual blight in the
State are junk cars and litter, including litter of City sidewalks and vacant
lots (KNMB, 1975). Blowing dust and automotive exhaust-emissions were identified
as problems for the Albuquerque area, along with industrial air pollution and in-
adequate animal control. Odors are the major aesthetic problem associated with
wastewater management (See Section 2.2.4).
-104-
-------
3. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
3.0 THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Albuquerque is already committed to wastewater actions which include:
expansion of Plant //2B to a capacity of 47 mgd; construction of sewers to
service certain developed portions of the South Valley as well as developing
neighborhoods in the Northeast Heights; and the general upgrading of system
operation and maintenance. Federal funds are committed to support the plant
expansion and the construction of South Valley sewers. By about 1980 these
actions are expected to provide a well-run system capable of meeting NPDES
requirements without causing substantial odor problems. Further, water
contamination and health problems caused by use of OSS in one densely populated,
unincorporated part of Bernalillo County would largely be eliminated. The
total wastewater discharge in 1980 would be about 42.8 mgd, or 91% of the
nominal capacity (MMC, 1977). Some environmental problems would remain,
including relatively moderate odor problems at both treatment plants and
continued use of on-site systems in most of the area outside the City limits.
Further, the past trends of economic and population growth would be expected
to increase wastewater flows rapidly, to the point that treatment capacity would
be exceeded by about 1982.
The alternative exists of taking no significant wastewater management
actions beyond those already planned. If this no-action alternative were
adopted one of two conditions would result.
a) If population growth were allowed to increase wastewater flows
beyond treatment capacity, treatment would become inadequate and severe odor
problems would occur near Plant It2B, similar to the present situation. The
legal mandates of the NPDES permit and the Stipulation would be violated.
b) Or, the City would be forced to adopt a no-growth policy stabilizing
population at approximately 425,000 persons, the size which could be accommodated
by the expanded treatment facilities. In this event the objectives of the City/
County Comprehensive Plan would be negated, since there would be no prospect
for the orderly development of the metropolitan area.
Regardless of which of the two situations occurred, problems related
to OSS and treatment plant odors would remain. In the event that the City
adopted a no-growth policy it is likely that new development would be
concentrated in presently unincorporated areas, increasing the reliance on and
contamination from OSS.
The no-action alternative would have the benefit of eliminating any
further major public investment in wastewater facilities in the planning area.
However, it is clear that the alternative would fail completely to address
the basic objectives of P.L. 92-500, the National Environmental Policy Act,
the City/County Comprehensive Plan, the Stipulation and other pertinent
documents. Indeed, the terms of the Stipulation alone force rejection of the
no-action alternative, since the City is obligated to achieve Best Practicable
Control Technology for odors within the wastewater system; this can be done
only by improvements additional to those already planned.
-105-
-------
Beyond odor control, it is conceivable that the no-action alternative could
be adopted were a no-growth policy to be in effect. However, lengthy and detailed
studies undertaken as part of the Comprehensive Plan led to adoption of policies
which are intended to accomodate moderate growth in the Albuquerque area. In
effect the CP obligates the City to provide adequate facilities and services which,
by supporting orderly development, will tend to enhance the environmental quality
of the area. In the event Federal funding were not available for wastewater
facilities it is likely that the City would fulfill its obligations by funding the
necessary construction out of bond monies, without NEPA environmental review of
the contemplated actions.
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE YEAR 2000
Wastewater management alternatives must be evaluated in the context
of evolving environmental conditions which will prevail over the time-frame
of the Facility Plan, and in particular must provide solutions to problems
which are related to the collection, treatment, reuse and disposal of
municipal liquid wastes in the Albuquerque area. For the most part future
environmental conditions and problems are expected to be similar to those
which now occur, and which were described in detail in Section 2. The
discussions which follow summarize the conditions, with emphasis on any
projected changes for better or worse. Section 3.1.1 outlines general
environmental trends which are independent of wastewater facilities.
Section 3.1.2 concerns water quality and water supply conditions which are
caused by or which interact with wastewater discharges. Section 3.1.3
reviews other environmental conditions which relate to wastewater, such as
odor control and resource use.
3.1.1 Environmental Trends
The major factor acting to modify existing environmental conditions over
the next few decades will be population growth and development which occurs
in conformance to the City/County Comprehensive Plan. By the year 2000
the planning area is projected to have a population of between 590,000 and
687,000 (see Table 2-13). For the purpose of evaluating wastewater collection
needs, the City Planning Department distributed the population projections of
Table 2-13 according to the land use patterns outlined by the Comprehensive
Plan (MMC, 1977). Within areas designated urban (Figure 2-13) it is projected
that infill will occur and that densities will be in the range 10-30 persons/
acre by the year 2000. Additional growth will occur in areas which do not now
have full urban utilities and services. This new development has been projected
to be concentrated on the near West Mesa, primarily in the vicinity of
Central Avenue-Interstate 40 and near Paradise Hills. Development in the
Northeast Heights/North Albuquerque Acres area has also been forecast,
although much of this growth will not occur until the next century. In all the
developing areas densities would generally reach 5-10 persons/acre by the
year 2000, with some more densely populated neighborhoods occurring. A
critical aspect of the projections is that, in conformance to the CP, no
significant growth is projected for areas designated as rural or open. Thus
population densities of less than 5 persons per acre are expected to prevail
over much of the North and South Valley, in Corrales and the East Mountain area.
Areas such as the far West Mesa are considered to remain unpopulated during the
time frame of the Facility Plan.
-106-
-------
The population density and land use trends noted above probably will be
reasonably accurate over a short period - five or ten years - but could
require adjustments before the year 2000. In particular it was noted in Section
2.6.2 that the rural nature of the Valley is gradually being lost to a more
urban type of land use. Herkenhoff (1973) projects that the historical trend
of reduced irrigation acreage could lead to elimination of agricultural lands
in the Valley during the first half of the 21st century, but that the trend
will probably shift so that irrigated acreage will stabilize at approximately
3,500 acres. These lands, which are less than half that now occurring, would
mostly occupy small parcels, averaging seven or eight acres in size. Population
densities could be semi-urban or even urban in much of the Valley area if the
loss of irrigated lands continues. Other portions of the Albuquerque area
also may develop in a manner somewhat different from that indicated by the
CP. However, for purposes of wastewater facility planning, the forecasts made
by the City Planning Department are taken as accurate in detail, recognizing
that adjustments may be needed over time to reflect changing development
patterns.
The local and regional economy is expected to improve parallel to the
increase in population. However, the area will remain characterized by a
high percentage of low-income families, and the existing ethnic diversity
will not alter markedly. The level of government services and budgets can
be expected to increase significantly, especially in presently unincorporated
areas. A major change in government relationships would occur if the
proposed South Valley community is incorporated. This new municipality could
include areas as far west as Westgate Heights and as far east as Mountainview
(encompassing Treatment Plant #2), from the Albuquerque City limits to the
Isleta Reservation.
Despite the growth in Albuquerque, it is projected that most environmental
conditions will not be radically different in the year 2000, compared to the
present. This is because the increase in resource demands and environmental
stresses associated with growth will by design be offset at least in part by
actions which conform to the goals of the CP. For example the increased
emission of air pollutants which normally occurs in developing areas is to be
checked by reduced per capita travel which will result from creation of a
more compact and efficient urban form; more direct control measures will also
be used. Similarly, increased energy demands will be offset by conservation
measures, the reduced travel requirements, and use of renewable resources
such as solar heating. Increased solid waste production and litter should be
balanced partially by increased recycling. Growth in flood-prone areas
should be limited by development policies, with flood damages reduced by
construction of control structures.
In brief, implementation of the Comprehensive Plan together with more
direct environmental control measures is expected to minimize the environmental
stresses and resource use which will occur as the result of population growth
in the Albuquerque area. The appropriate goal of wastewater planning is to
support these measures, as well as to solve specific wastewater-related
problems which are discussed in the next two sections.
-107-
-------
3.1.2 Water Quality and Water Supply
The analysis presented in Section 2.4 indicated that few if any water
quality problems can be attributed to the present wastewater collection and
treatment practices of the City, but that ground water contamination (and
associated surface water effects) do occur because of the extensive use of
on-site systems. It was also noted (Section 2.3) that wastewater is already
an important resource, accounting for a significant portion of the river flow
which is diverted at Isleta Dam, and utilized for irrigation purposes in the
MRGCD.
Considerable change in the water resource patterns of the Middle Rio
Grande Basin can be projected to occur over the next 20 or so years, related
to factors such as population growth and the implementation of various water
projects. The following review highlights these projected changes, and indicates
the concerns over wastewater management which may occur by the year 2000. The
projections given normally assume continued discharge of effluent to the Rio
Grande. This is intended to provide a basis of comparison for evaluation of
other alternatives, and does not mean that such a discharge is necessarily
the preferred option.
Increased Wastewater Volume. Population growth and sewerage extensions
are expected to increase wastewater flows in the Albuquerque area. Projections
given in the Facility Plan are:
1985 ... projected flow of 50.7 mgd;
2000 ... projected flow of 76.55 mgd.
The wastewater volume in 1985 will exceed the capacity of the existing
treatment system, even after completion of the proposed Phase IA improvements.
This indicates that actions to increase treatment capacity need to be started
by the early 1980's.
One consequence of the increased wastewater flow will be that the City will
receive a large return flow credit for any alternative which involves discharge
of all effluent to the Rio Grande. Although the projection given for the year
2000 is tentative, at best, indications are that the credit would be approximately
86,000 acre-feet per year.
Increased Value of Wastewater as a Resource. The water supplies of the
Rio Grande Basin are relatively fixed, while the amount of wastewater is
increasing; over time wastewater will grow in significance as a water resource.
Not only will the value of wastewater increase, but it is likely that the
present trend of using water to benefit wildlife and recreation will also
continue. More traditional uses such as irrigation and municipal supplies
will remain significant.
Quantitative Impact of Wastewater. Table 3-1 provides a quantitative
analysis of wastewater impacts as measured at Isleta Dam in 1975 and 2000, for
any alternative which does not change the present practice of direct effluent
discharge to the Rio Grande. The analysis reflects both the increased waste-
water discharge and the effect of several factors which will act to modify
the flow regime of the Rio Grande over the 25-year interval.
-108-
-------
TABLE 3-1. COMPARISON OF HYDROLQGIC AND WATER RESOURCE CONDITIONS, MIDDLE RIO
RIO GRANDE BASIN, 1975 AND 2000. Based on analyses in Section D-2
of EPA (1977). All values given as acre-feet/year unless otherwise
noted. All values of water use are for depletion. All entries
marked by asterisk (*) represent values used in a model developed
by the State Engineer, and may not conform to information provided
in the Facility Plan or other documents.
Condition Tfear. 1975
Water use in Middle
Rio Grande Basin 228,000
Water use In
Bernalillo County 72,000
Water pumped by
City of Albuquerque* 78,500
Effect of pumpage on river flows* 49,000
Return flow credit for wastewater* 39,000
Net depletion of river flow by City,
hence water rights requirement of City
water use* 10,000
Average discharge of the Rio Grande
at Isleta Dam 520,000
Wastewater discharge if all flow
is direct to river AO,000
Percentage of flow at Isleta which is
wastewater 8%
Maximum monthly percentage of flow at
Isleta which is wastewater, for average
conditions 17%
Flow volume diverted at Isleta
for irrigation purposes 186,000
Flow volume diverted at Isleta
which reaches farms 82,000
Amount of effluent diverted at
Isleta which reaches farms 6,600
Percent of irrigation water in
Belen Division which is wastewater 82
2000
302,000
127,000
153,000
111,600
76,500
35,100
600,000
86,000
1621
282
171,000
82,000
13,100
162
^ May be as little as 142 depending on method of calculation.
-109-
-------
- Rio Grande flows at Isleta are expected to increase because of the
greater wastewater discharge and because of increased diversions of
San Juan-Chama Project water for use in areas downstream of Albuquerque.
The increased flows will occur despite the growing effects of City well
field pumpage. The projection could be altered if recent climatic trends
continue to lead to reduced water supplies in basin headwaters.
- The flow regime at Isleta will become more regular, with smaller spring
peaks and larger discharges during the late summer low flow season.
This stabilization will reflect the wastewater and San Juan-Chama
influences noted above, and the regulating effects of recently
constructed flood control reservoirs upstream of Albuquerque.
- Water use in the Middle Rio Grande Basin will increase due primarily
to growth in Albuquerque. Water use quantities and patterns downstream
of Isleta will not change markedly. A small decline in water diverted
for irrigation purposes is projected due to increased efficiencies in
irrigation practices. However, the water delivered to farms from
diversions at Isleta is not expected to change.
Section D-2 of EPA (1977) provides further information on present and future
water budgets.
Fate of Wastewater. The quantitative effect of wastewater discharges
is relatively simple: since the discharge will approximately double by the year
2000, its impact on downstream water uses will increase approximately twofold
during the same period. The following comparisons illustrate the change:
- by the year 2000, 16% of the water which reaches Isleta Dam will be
wastewater from the City of Albuquerque, versus 8% in 1975;
the amount of effluent reaching farms in the Belen Division of the
MRGCD will Increase from 6,600 acre-feet/year (8% of the total farm
supply) in 1975 to 13,100 acre-feet/year (16% of the total farm supply
in 2000);
- during late summer in an average year the percentage of farm irrigation
water which will be effluent will increase from 17% to 28%, with even
higher values being observed during dry years.
Impact on Water Rights. As indicated in Table 3—1, calculations based on
an unpublished model developed by the State Engineer indicate that by the year
2000 the effect of pumping City water supply wells would be to deplete Rio
Grande flows by 111,600 acre-feet/year. Assuming that all wastewater were
discharged to the Rio Grande also, the net impact, or water rights requirement,
would be 35,100 acre-feet/year. These estimates may be low; for example, the
projected water use and wastewater flow is less than forecast in the Facility
Plan. It is Important to recognize that the growth in water rights requirements
reflects not only increased pumping, but also the delayed effects of past
pumping. Thus any actions which alter pumping or discharge patterns will not
fully affect river flows until several decades after they are implemented.
If the water rights requirement in 2000 is approximately 35,000 acre-
feet, then all the City's vested well rights and about one-third the San Juan-
Chama Project rights would be needed at that time. Slightly less than 30,000
acre-feet of unused San Juan-Chama rights would remain, to be used to offset
-110-
-------
delayed flow effects and to support population growth. For any alternative
which completely cut off discharge to the Rio Grande, the water rights
requirement in 2000 would be 111,600 acre-feet/year. This would utilize
all the vested and San Juan-Chama rights, leaving a deficiency of about
46,600 acre-feet.
Clearly an expanding portion of Albuquerque's wastewater will reach the farms
of the Belen Division of the MRGCD. It is conceivable that during very low-
flow periods City effluent could represent half of all the water diverted at
Isleta and applied to the land by downstream farmers.
The increased use of wastewater for irrigation purposes in the MRGCD will
be associated with a slight reduction in the amount of wastewater reaching
Elephant Butte Reservoir. Whereas perhaps two-thirds of the present-day
effluent is calculated to reach the Reservoir, little more than one-half may
be observed to impact the Reservoir in the year 2000. However, this change
does not substantially offset the net effect of increased wastewater discharge.
Thus, the total quantity of City effluent which can be calculated to reach
the Reservoir will nearly double over the forthcoming two and one-half decades.
Impact of Water Quality: General. Despite the increased quantitative
significance of wastewater in the future, qualitative changes may not be
great for any alternative which meets NPDES requirements and which involves
continuation of the present practice of direct discharge to the Rio Grande.
This is because the concentration of most contaminants in the secondary
effluent in 2000 will be much less than was observed in trickling filter
effluent in 1975. The improvement in wastewater quality will offset the effects
of larger effluent discharges. For example, in 1975 the average nitrogen
concentration was 30 milligrams/liter and the average discharge was 36 million
gallons/day. A total of 1645 tons of nitrogen was contributed to the Rio
Grande. For the year 2000, assuming activated sludge treatment, the projection
is that 76 mgd of effluent will contain 15 mg/1 nitrogen, and contribute 1735
tons of nitrogen to the river. There is little difference between the two
contributions.
Similar effects can be projected for organic material, bacteria and heavy
metals. It will probably not be until near the end of this century, or early in
the next, that the factor of population growth will overcome improvements in
treatment technology, such that the total pollutant load from Albuquerque will
become greater than experienced in the recent past. One major exception
concerns total dissolved solids, which are not significantly controlled by
secondary treatment. The salt loading and salinity impact of City wastewater
can be forecast to parallel the quantitative changes, that is a two fold increase
will occur by 2000.
Effect of Wastewater on Salinity. SEO (1974) projects that in the year
2000 the salt loading related to Albuquerque wastewater would amount to
52,000 tons/year, or 12% of the total dissolved solids measured at San
Marcial. As indicated in the paragraph above, this is double the present
impact. Dissolved solids concentrations below Caballo Reservoir would increase
-111
-------
to 657 mg/l, about 19% greater than present; at El Paso the concentration
would rise to 1075 mg/l, 23% greater than now occurs. These levels, especially
at El Paso, could adversely impact the use of water for irrigation practices.
If so, the prospect exists that at some time in the future a salinity control
program would be needed for point and non-point salt sources in the Middle
Rio Grande Basin. The specific nature of such a program, if it ever occurs,
cannot be projected at this time, and no alternatives have been developed
which relate to salinity control.
Nutrient Loading at Elephant Butte Reservoir. Simple mass balance
calculations presented in EPA (1977, Section D-5) indicate that in the future
City wastewater will remain the dominant point source of nutrients in the Middle
Rio Grande Basin. If effluent continues to be discharged to the Rio Grande,
the City may account for approximately half of the total nitrogen measured
at San Marcial in the year 2000. As discussed in Section 2.4.3, no significant
nutrient-related problems have been identified at Elephant Butte Reservoir
for historical nutrient and flow conditions. Moreover, even if problems
occurred it would be difficult to determine the importance of City wastewater,
as opposed to other nutrient sources. Therefore, it is impossible at this time
to identify any basis for establishing a nitrogen-removal requirement for
Albuquerque. However, both the Basin Plan and the Stipulation mandate that
nitrogen-removal alternatives be evaluated by the Facility Plan and this EIS.
A detailed analysis of such alternatives is provided in Section 3.4.1.
Possible Impairment of Agricultural Water Use in the Belen Division, MRGCD.
It has been reported that in the past crop growth in the Peralta-Los Lunas area
has been adversely affected when river flows were especially low and the water
diverted at Isleta Dam contained a high percentage of Albuquerque wastewater
(Charles Diebold, personal communication). No data are available to quantify
this effect or to demonstrate the nature and cause of the problem. However,
it is likely that pollutants such as salinity, alkalinity or one or more heavy
metals (such as copper) which occurred in trickling filter effluent could have
accounted for the observed impact on plant growth. So far the adverse effects
have been comparatively minor and limited to drought periods.
Since the cause of the past problem cannot be identified it is not
possible to predict if similar impacts will occur in the future. The immediate
prospect is that projected improvements in effluent quality would minimize any
such impacts. The long-term increase in total wastewater flows could be an
offsetting factor, eventually leading to a recurrence of the problem. Thus
the potential exists that irrigation water use will be impaired by waste-
water discharges at some indefinite future time, especially during low-
flow periods when the relative importance of wastewater is greatest.
Ground Water Contamination from OSS. Existing use of OSS in the
Albuquerque area has resulted in low grade contamination of ground water,
local sanitation problems, and possibly some harm to public health (see
2.4.4 and 2.4.5). The long-term implications of continued reliance on OSS
for waste disposal purposes were summarized by Anderson (1972). "Surely, if
unabated, before the year 2000 this continual pollution will affect the lower
levels of the valley water table, thereby causing problems for all public and
individual water wells in the Albuquerque area ." "... if the continued use
-112-
-------
of (on-site systems) leads to ground water pollution problems throughout
Albuquerque, the economic costs resulting from correcting such a condition
would be staggering".
In the absence of any particular public action, water pollution from OSS
will continue in the area, contrary to the goals of P.L. 92-500. This suggests
that either the systems should be upgraded extensively, or else replaced by
some form of public sewerage. Ordinarily the decision to choose between
upgraded OSS and sewers might be based on cost factors alone. However, the
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Comprehensive Plan specifically recommends
against development in many of the areas served by OSS, and there is considerable
concern that construction of sewers in the areas would spur unwanted growth.
A search of the literature and a review of past development in Albuquerque
suggests that sewers need not be a direct incentive to growth, but that the
provision of sewerage service would be expected to remove a constraint to
growth (see 2.6.5). Put another way, if on-site disposal regulations are
enforced, the existing rural valley and mountain areas cannot readily develop
at an urban density, because of requirments for large lot sizes. With sewers,
densities can reach any reasonable level, and the preservation of large lot
sizes would depend on strict enforcement of zoning or subdivision regulations.
Other Water Quality Trends. Except as noted above, changes in water
quality in the Basin over the next 20-25 years will relate to factors other
than Albuquerque wastewater. A significant reduction in sediment pollution
is projected because of sediment storage in upstream reservoirs. Extensive
mining development in the Grants area could affect water quality in the Rio
Puerco drainage, and eventually impact the Rio Grande; parameters such as
pH and alkalinity, nutrients, metals and radioactivity might be of concern
from this stream. Controls of point sources can be expected to reduce pollution
from animal confinement facilities, which are presently a significant origin
of bacteria, nutrients and organic material. However, at best there will
probably be only partial control of non-point sources such as irrigation
return flow and urban storm runoff, which may remain significant sources of
bacteria, nutrients and* in the case of urban flows, metals.
Impacts of Water Table Lowering. Increased pumping of City and other
wells, combined with reduced recharge from irrigation, is projected to cause
drawdown of the water table in the Albuquerque area. Reeder (1967) forecasts
that the drawdown might eventually exceed 50 feet. In the area of the Rio
Grande flood plain there will be a significant change in soil moisture and
ground water hydrology conditions. The present situation whereby saturation
occurs near the surface, and soils are often deficient in oxygen, will be
replaced by a situation in which an extensive aerated zone exists between the
surface and the water table. The impact of OSS discharges can be expected
to change. Possibly a greater amount of nitrate contamination will occur per
unit discharge, because soil nitrification processes will be more effective.
However, the aerated soil and greater depth to ground water will probably
increase soil treatment capabilities for bacteria, and also reduce the
historical iron and manganese problem. It is not known if the onset of aerated
conditions would lead to the leaching out of contaminants which were dis-
charged by OSS and other sources in the past, and which may now be bound to
soil particles near the ground surface.
-113-
-------
Wastewater Management and P.L. 92-500. Actions which appear to be
necessary to comply with the objectives of P.L. 92-500 include: treatment
of Albuquerque wastewater to meet secondary standards as set forth in the
proposed NPDES permit; reduction of ground water contamination from the
use of on-site systems. These actions will not mean the immediate improvement
of ecological productivity and recreation opportunities in the Middle Rio
Grande Basin. Even if all sources of ground water pollution are eliminated in
the Albuquerque area it will be a substantial period before water quality in
the shallow alluvial aquifer improves to levels which cause no problems;
this is because it will take many years for the contaminated water to be
flushed out or diluted. Surface water improvement will be delayed also.
More significantly, even if and when wastewater treatment actions improve water
quality in the Rio Grande, they may not accomplish the ecological and recreational
benefits sought under P.L. 92-500. According to the New Mexico Water Quality
Control Commission (NMWQCC, 1975, page 7) "water pollution per se prevents
the propagation of aquatic biota and recreational use of few, if any, New Mexico
streams which would otherwise be suitable for these uses. In almost every
case, intermittent flows and such hydrologic modifications as diversion for
irrigation and impoundments are the overriding causes of poor fishery and
recreational potentials of these waters".
Nonetheless, actions which improve existing water quality conditions can
be expected to have some ecological and recreational benefits, for example by
helping to protect the downstream wildlife refuges and Elephant Butte
Reservoir. More local benefits could occur as well. Alternatives which
continue the discharge of highly-treated wastewater to the Rio Grande would
ensure that there is a continuous flow in the river above Isleta Dam, even
during months when the stream is dry above Albuquerque. The river water can
and probably will be used for swimming, especially during the hot summer
months. Further, it is likely that there will be increased use of bosque
areas for recreation, including development of parks and trails along the
river. A permanent river flow can be considered to have a significant
aesthetic value for persons who engage in such recreation.
3.1.3 Other Problems Related to Wastewater Management
Problems related to specific wastewater facilities are discussed in the
evaluation of alternatives which relate to those facilities. For example,
the adverse safety and other impacts of chlorination use are considered in
Section 3.6. More general concerns which relate to several aspects of the
treatment system include odor control and resource management.
Odor Control. Odors are undoubtedly the most significant environmental
problem related to wastewater facilities in the City of Albuquerque and are
especially severe at Treatment Plant //2. The City has proposed the following
steps to reduce odor problems at Plant //2 (see Section 2.1.3).
a) Emergency operational measures will be implemented to reduce the
severity of odor problems in 1977. The potential for serious odor problems
will remain.
b) Emergency construction of sludge thickening units will eliminate the
lack of adequate sludge handling facilities, which is the most significant
-114-
-------
source of present problems. This action should result in the elimination of
critical odors by the summer of 1978. The action is recommended by the Facility
Plan, but will be funded directly by the City prior to completion of the 201
planning effort, in order to eliminate the problem as soon as practicable.
It is anticipated that the City will seek Federal funds as reimbursement for
a portion of the design and construction costs of this action, and for other
lesser emergency measures which are to be undertaken.
c) Completion of the Phase IA improvements, which will expand the
capacity of Plant //2B to 47 mgd, is expected to further reduce odor problems
by early 1980; in particular operational flexibility will be enhanced
so that odor-causing upsets of the treatment system should become extremely
rare.
d) Additional measures will be taken to remedy minor odor sources at the
Plant. Some, such as most of the steps specified by the Stipulation, have
already been completed, or will be implemented in 1977-78. None of the measures
are considered essential to the reduction of critical problems, but all are
necessary to meet the mandate of the Stipulation for use of Best Practicable
Control Technology.
Measures as outlined in d) above are also proposed to reduce odors at
Plant #1.
Upon completion of the steps indicated above, some odor problems will
still remain at both treatment plants. Most of the problems will relate to
the sludge handling system; the most significant source at each plant will be
the continued use of open drying beds for sludge dewatering. Other problems
may include lack of preliminary treatment facilities at Plant //2B and lack
of positive odor control measures (e.g. collection and treatment of gases)
at facilities such as grit chambers and bar screens. Solution of these
problems must be accomplished by measures recommended by the Facility Plan
in order to comply with the Stipulation and to eliminate a serious
environmental impact. Odor control measures are a high priority among
all potential wastewater management actions.
Resource Managment. In Albuquerque, as elsewhere, there is a trend
toward increased scarcity and cost of resources. Wastewater management thus
faces the need to maximize recycling of waste products, while minimizing the
consumption of resources. Specific potentials for improvements in recycling
or resource use include the following.
a) Wastewater, and the nutrients it contains, is obviously a potential
water supply source which might be recycled for many uses. Two types of
recycling, agriculture and aquaculture, have been mandated for consideration in
this EIS by the Stipulation. All alternatives for recycling must be judged
against conditions which would prevail if existing practices were continued.
Specifically, virtually all water in the Rio Grande Basin is put to beneficial
use, either through formal exercise of a water right or informally by natural
vegetation and wildlife. In effect, City wastewater is already being recycled
by discharge into the Rio Grande.
-115-
-------
b) The by-products of wastewater treatment can be recycled. As indicated
in Section 2.1.3, sludge is already recognized as a valuable fertilizer-
dressing for City parks. By the year 2000 the worth of sludge for this purpose
will be approximately $300,000 per year; even more valuable uses for sludge
may exist. One potential problem in future sludge reuse is that the solids
produced by an activated sludge plant may differ from those produced by a
trickling filter facility; for example, nutrient content may be slightly more
or less, and metals concentrations will probably be less. Scum and sludge
gas are other by-products which can be considered for recycling.
c) Water conservation programs, while normally aimed at reducing water
demands, would have the benefit of reducing wastewater flows, and hence reduce
the need for expensive system expansion. Energy conservation measures associated
with collection and treatment facilities would similarly help reduce the
problem of increasing resource use and costs.
d) Resource demands can be minimized by phasing the construction of
collection and treatment facilities to avoid incurring premature or unnecessary
commitments of capital, labor and materials.
3.2 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
The Facility Plan contains technical and cost data on all alternatives
which were given a complete analysis during the 201 planning process (MMC, 1977).
The evaluation in this EIS divides the alternatives into six categories, as
identified below. In practice the categories are interrelated, and the ultimate
selection requires consideration of the compatibility of different system
components.
Sewerage. The basic choice is between use of on-site systems for liquid
waste disposal, or the construction of sewers and central treatment of waste-
water. More detailed options relate to: different approaches to one-site
system technology and management; pressure versus gravity sewers; the renovation of
lift stations; construction of relief lines; sizing and phasing of sewer lines;
and choice of sewer pipe materials (see Section 3.3).
Treatment. The most important alternatives relate to the siting of
facilities which could be built to meet NPDES permit requirements, and the
possibilities of using land application or advanced treatment to achieve
nutrient removal (see Section 3.4).
Solids Handling. The major alternatives relate to the treatment and ultimate
disposal of sludge, in order to achieve positive odor control and to maximize
recycling. Thermoradiation of sludge, for subsequent use as an animal feed
supplement, is one option to consider instead of sludge application as a
fertilizer-dressing for City parks. Alternatives also concern the recycling
of other solids - scum and grit - as well as sludge gas (see Section 3.5).
Disinfection and Chemical Odor Control. These alternatives include measures
such as chlorination, ozonation and use of hydrogen peroxide (see Section 3.6).
Wastewater Reuse. In addition to use of wastewater for irrigation
purposes (discussed in 3.4.1), alternatives include: aquaculture, silviculture,
cooling water, recreation and open space, and others (see Section 3.7).
-116-
-------
Ordinances and Management Policies. Alternatives relate to the liquid
waste ordinace and toxic waste disposal, water and energy conservation, and
other matters. (See Section 3.8).
3.3 SEWERAGE AND ON-SITE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
Should new sewers be built in areas which now depend on on-site liquid
waste disposal9 The available evidence indicates that at least some exten-
sions are needed. As discussed in Section 2.4.5 the existing practice
whereby 6 million gallons of wastewater are discharged each day from septic
tanks and cesspools in the planning area is in conflict with accepted
sanitary practice, because most of the discharge occurs in areas of shallow
water table and/or where wells are in close proximity. Although regional
health problems cannot be attributed with certainty to the use of on-site
systems (OSS), widespread low-level degradation of ground water quality has
occurred. This degradation runs counter to the objectives of P.L. 92-500
and to the goals of the City/County Comprehensive Plan. It can be reduced by
either of two methods - upgrading of OSS or construction of sewers. Since many
of the OSS occur in relatively urban areas, at least some sewer service can be
provided at moderate cost with few if any adverse consequences or controversy.
Thus, the real questions to answer are - which parts of the planning area
need sewers the most, which need sewers at a lower priority, and which do
not really need sewers at all9
The decision as to which areas need sewers and which do not depends
on a site-specific evaluation of sanitation problems (as reflected in lot
sizes and soil conditions), land use planning criteria, and construction
problems. In turn, evaluation of these factors requires a look not only at
conventional OSS versus sewers, but also at options which can improve OSS
sanitation (e.g. use of advanced systems) or reduce the impact of sewers
(e.g. pressure sewers). To encompass all these factors the analysis is
presented in several sections, as outlined below.
Section 3.3.1 assesses the pros and cons of different technologies for
on-site waste disposal, including advanced systems such as the aerated tank
and the evapotranspiration field.
Section 3.3.2 discusses possible management options which would permit
the upgrading of OSS so that they would provide environmental protection
comparable to that afforded by sewers.
Section 3.3.3 presents brief evaluation of the common options associated
with gravity sewers, such as sizing and phasing of lines, selection of
¦jine material, and route selection. It also provides information on pressure
sewers, lift stations and relief of existing interceptors.
Given all the basic information, it is then possible to compare OSS to
sewers in a general and systematic way. This comparison is provided in
Section 3.3.4.
Section 3.3.5 applies the general considerations just mentioned to the
specific areas of Albuquerque where new sewer systems are a possibility. It
presents the major conclusions of the analysis.
-117-
-------
3.3.1 Alternative Qn-Site System Technologies
The upgrading of OSS is an alternative to installation of sewers. Up-
grading could involve at least two related types of actions: use of advanced
systems (discussed here); and improved regulation and management of OSS
(Section 3.3.2).
Only three methods of on-site liquid waste disposal can be considered
to be widely available on a commercial basis for use in northern New Mexico:
the septic tank-drainfield (used in at least 80% of new installations);
the aerated tank and drainfield (increasingly common in problem areas);
and the septic or aerated ,tank followed by an evapotranspiration field
(limited use so far). In the future other methods should become available,
such as recycling/composting systems; systems which discharge to neighborhood
marsh or pond areas (see Small, 1976); and mound systems.
Tables 3-2 through 3-4 provide information on the pros and cons of these
three technologies. From the point of view of dollar costs (Table 3-2), the
following conclusions can be made.
a) Septic tanks and drainfields are a low-cost option for on-site
wastewater disposal, but if soil conditions are poor aerobic units are no more
expensive in the long run.
b) For clustered dwellings in which several units are installed at once,
with some common use of drainfields, aerobic tanks may be the least-cost
on-site option.
c) Evapotranspiration (ET) units seem very costly compared to the other
systems; however, this cost disadvantage disappears as soil conditions become
less favorable for the other systems. When impermeable, shallow or rock
soils are present, only the ET system may be acceptable; similarly the ET
system is best for high water table, non-flooding environments.
Table 3-3 presents some of the environmental costs and benefits of
different systems. Evapotranspiration units stand alone in that they dis-
charge no pollutants to ground or surface water and thus cause no contamination;
the cost of this benefit is complete loss of the water resource instead of
recharging ground water. Aerobic units may offer quite a high degree of
environmental protection and also reduce odors; however, some contamination
from substances such as nitrates and metals does occur, and bacteria loads
can be sizeable unless the effluent is disinfected. Septic tanks and drain-
fields offer the least degree of environmental protection by far; as a rule
these systems cause 2-3 times as much pollution on a per unit basis as
do the least effective of the advanced systems. Use of multiple-chambered
tanks improves the effectiveness of these systems somewhat.
Table 3-3 also presents information on system operation, maintenance and
reliability, and indicates that on balance few of the on-site units are as
potentially effective as centralized treatment plants which offer a greater
prospect for adequate maintenance, hence reliable operation. Aerobic units
are especially vulnerable to improper maintenance, to the point that they may
render no more treatment than a conventional septic tank.
-118-
-------
TABLE 3-2 OH-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS AND COSTS, BY EIA SOIL LIMITATION GROUPS, FOR INDIVIDUAL AND CLUSTERED DWELLING UNITS.*
Slight Limitations** - A
(Percolation rate of 1-15 min/inch)
Slight Limitations - B
(Percolation rate of 16-30 min/inch)
Moderate Limitations - C
(Percolation rate of 31-60 min/inch)
ONE DWELLING UNIT (du)
Drainfield Surface
Sq. Feet
Equipment costs
Tank
Drainfield
TOTAL
Maintenance Coats/Year
Pumping
Drainfield Replacement
Maintenance Contract
Electricity
TOTAL
SEPTIC
TANK
AERATION
UNIT
ET
SYSTEM
25 DWELLING UNITS
Drainfield Surface
Sq. Feet
Equipment Costs
Tanks
Drainfield
TOTAL
Cost per du
Maintenance Costs/Year
Pumping
Drainfield Replacement
Maintenance Contract
Electricity
TOTAL
Cost per du
Other:
280-760
$ 400- 500
$ 420-1140
? 820-1640
196-532
$1300-1400
295- 800
2000
$ 400- 500
2000-2500
20
21- 57
0
0
$1595-2200
$ 10
7- 20
35
15
$2400-3000
$ 20
100- 125
0
0
$ 41- 77 $ 67- 80
5250-14250 3675-9975
$ 5000
3500- 9500
$ 10C00
2450- 6650
$ 120- 145
50000
$ 5000
33500
$8500-14500
$ 340- 580
240
175-
0
0
475
§12450-16650
$ 498- 666
$ 120
61- 166
175
80
$38500
$ 1540
$ 240
2500
0
0
$ 415- 715 $ 436- 541
$16- 29 $ 17-
22
$ 2740
$ 110
$ 1546-2000 $2103-2450 $2400-3000
SEPTIC
TANK
AERATION
UNIT
764-1000
400- 500
1146-1500
535-700
$1300-1400
803-1050
20
57- 75
0
0
10
20- 26
35
15
77- 95 $ 80 86
14550-18750 10185-13125
5000 $
9700-12500
1000C
6790- 8750
$14700-17500 $16790-18750
$ 588- 700 $ 672- 750
240
485- 625
0
0
120
170- 219
175
80
725- 865
29- 35
545-
22-
594
24
ET
SYSTEM
2000
$ 400- 500
2000-2500
20
10O- 125
0
0
$ 120- 125
50000
$ 5000
33500
$38500
$ 1540
$ 240
2500
0
O
$ 2740
$ 110
Delivery at $1.50/mile; chlorination unit of aeration system is $157 Initially.
SEPTIC
TANK
AERATION
TANK
ET
SYSTEM
1004-1320 703-924
2000
$ 400- 500 $1300-1400 $ 400 -500
1506-1980 1055-1386 2000-2500
$ 1906-2480 $2355-2786 $2400-3000
20 $ 10 $ 20
75- 99 26- 35 100- 125
0 35 0
0 15 0
95- 119 $ 36- 95 $ 120- 125
19050-24750 13335-17325 50000
$ 5000 $ 10Q00 $ 5000
12700-16500 8890-11550 33500
$17700-21500 $18890-21550 $38500
$ 708- 860 $ 756- 862 $ 1540
240 $
635- 825
0
0
120 $ 240
222- 289 2500
175 0
80 0
$ 875- 1065 $ 597-
$ 35- 43 $ 24-
664 $ 2740
27 $ 110
* estimates, based on a survey of suppliers and government officials in the Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Los Alamos areas, 19"5
** except where water table high
-------
TABLE 1-3. EHVEROJWEMlkL CD51S AMD BENEFITS OF DIFFEREN1 ON-SITE SVSIEHS
Information on c«ntr&L and pncltaye --loots Is provided for
cnnparIac-r"i purposes-
Organic Load. Organic load Is a convenient measure of pollution, and is
often expressed In terns of biological oxygen demand (BOD). Its signif-
icance as a pollution measure Is not: always clear in arid-zone Mew Mexico,
but as a rule any system wltlch does not reduce BOD to 30 mg/1 or less is
not achieving the degree of treatment: which Is generally required Typical
BODs are
Raw sewage 2 SO tog/1
Septic tank 180 mg/l+
ST/DF* 100 mg/1
Aerobic tank Type II** 60 mg/1
All other systems achieve 33 mg/1 or Jess BOD, Including
Aerobic tank Type I** (20 mg/1 or less)
Aerobic tank Type II with dralnfleld (often 10 mg/1 or less)
Host package and central plants, If properly operated and
designed, achieve 30 mg/1 or less.
Evapotransplratlon units Nil
I Solids Load. Builds in final effluent discharges should no-t exceed 30 eg/1
^ as a rule. As with BOD, high solids are more indicative of Inadequate treat-
O ment than a direct measure of a pollution problem in Hew Mexico. Typical
' values are
Raw sewage 300 ®g/l+
Septic tank 150 mg/1
Aerobic tank Type 11 100 mg/1 or leas
ST/DF 50 mg/1
Aerobic tank Type I 40 mg/L or less
All other systems achieve 30 mg/1 or less suspended solids,
including.
Aerobic tanks and drslnflelds 20 mg/1 or less
Package plants and central plants 30 mg/1 or less
Evapotranspiration units Kit
Bacteria Load. Bacteria can cause diseases, or be associated with other disease
causing organisms; colI form bacteria are used as Indicators of disease
potential. In raw scvage ten to fifteen million colifortc colonies may
be present per 100 cci11111ters of sample; the amount Is little reduced
by septic tank detention, and reduced only about 2-3 times io an aerobic
cor.k Dralnflelds reduce it further, but only to barely tolerable Letsls,
the beat co-site systems still discharge 100,005 ctfllfora colonies/100 aJ.
which Ib then reduced by soil fllcratlon..
*ST/DF° septic tank and dralnfleld
** Type 1 Aerobic tanks are those meeting standard £ 40 of the National
Sanitation Foundation. Type II units do not meet the standard
Further bacteria control requires chlorlnation or other disinfection, and
is usually associated with package or central plants; however some aerobic
tanks do provide for addition of chlorine tablets Evapotransplratlon
units, of course, discharge no bacteria to the ground.
Other Contaminants. Contaminants such as nutrients and base metals are
only moderately reduced by any conventional form of treatment, some of
these substances may settle out with solids, but the rest are discharged
to the environment, although sometimes in modified form. Special treat-
ment facilities are needed to control these substances if contamination
reaches a problem level, such facilities are most easily incorporated into
full-scale treatment plants Evapotransplratlon units, having no discharge,
do not lead to pollution problems from these or other contaminants.
Odor problems are sometimes associated with s«phc tanks and their
dralnflelds. These problems are reduced when an aeTobic tank la used or the
dralnfleld Is vented. Limited experience exists with regard to odorB
for ET system
Other Resources Package and central plants utilize electrical energy,
considerable manpower, and same chemicals, aerobic tanks also consume
energy Evapocransplraclan units consume all water discharged to them,
henc-e unlike the other units provide no opportunity for local recharge to
ground water For a 25-unit community, this could mean a net loss of 10-15
acre-feet/.per year of water from the local resource, a water rights loss
might also be lnrurred
Operation and Maintenance Problems*. As system sophistication increases, the
following O&K situations are encountered, a) Moat of the sophisticated
systems (package plants end to a lesser extent aerobic units) require more
attention than simple septic tank systems; chla increases costs. Ail
exception Is the evapotransplratlon unit, which compares to the septic system
in terms of maintenance needs, b) System complexity usually determines
effluent quality. The more complex the system, the better quality waste-
water produced. However, if Q&M is less thao adequate, the benefits of
the advanced treatment may be lost. Periods of peak use (surge flows) can
upset aeration tanks and inputs of floating material and garbage grlntfings
can clog the units, c) The potential for proper control of system
operation Is greater for the more sophisticated systems. Just as is the
environmental loss which occurs if control Is not obtained
On balance, the centralized systems seem to offer more of a prospect for
efficient operation and maintenance than do a prcllFeratioa of on-site
systems It appears that aerobic tanks are particularly vulnerable to
lack of maintenance, however, ev-apc t renspl cat ion units are relatively
little affected. IHc situation c«uld be changed by public
¦of on-sice systems.
-------
TAHLl 3-4 . SUMMARY OK 1 KADCOFT COSTS AND UV*Nf¦ PITS OF DIULRI'NT WAST TWA TliR DISPOSAL OPTIONS*
OPTION
Septic Tank ami DrainficKi
Aerobic Tank and Drainfield
KvdpotranspJrat ion Unit
FA(/1 OR.
Economic Cost Only marginally the least ex-
pensive, if at all cheaper,
least up-front cost, however
Competitive with septics In
many cases, especially over
the lontj run.
Relatively expensive
I
M
hO
M
I
Lnvlronmontal
Con L i (J 1
Rcl icihi 1 i ly
Lc>;a 1 i ly
Summary
Limited, causes much more
pollution chan any other
system unless soil filtration
is effective
Vulnerable Lo pour design
and consiruction practices.
Not permitted on bad soils
or siimIL Lots.
Adequate if soils are good, and
lots and setbacks are lar^e
enough to allow treatment, and
dilution of contaminants before
the effluent reaches ground
water. Causes pollution if
many .ire massed in .i snu 11 art t
Relatively pood but 1Lmlted
control over trace contaminants
especially nitrates
Vulnerable to lack of main-
tenance .
Acceptable on comparatively
small lots and adverse soils
May be encouraged provided lhat
proper maintenance can be
assured; pollution will be
reduced several-fo1d.
Will increase energy use,
labor roqu irements.
No discharge, hence no
ground water pollution
Reliable, with exception
of possible liner deterior-
ation, or flooding.
Generally can be used regardless
of soil or lot-size consideration.
lo be encouraged if cost and
water loss not a factor. Only
choice where soil is shallow
or rocky, or water table very
high Odor control might re-
quire use of aerated tank, thus
increasing costs
*Thls summary refLects information published prior to 1976.
-------
Table 3-4 summarizes trade-off information presented in the Technical
Reference Document. Based on the table the following conclusions can be reached.
a) Septic tank systems are less effective and cause more pollution
than other systems, have only slight-cost advantages in the long run, and gener-
ally are not desirable in an urban situation unless soil conditions and lot
sizes are very favorable.
b) Aerobic tanks work much better than septic tanks, and are not really
much more expensive; however, their proper function requires adequate main-
tenance which may be lacking in many households.
c) Evapotranspiration units offer reliable and nearly complete
environmental protection at high economic and water resource costs;
flooding and deterioration of the buried plastic liner may be a problem.
Other technological options include use of passive aeration in the drain
field (such as a vent pipe) to improve soil treatment of effluent, and use of
clustered systems, whereby several homes discharge to a communal tank and field.
The latter alternative has been utilized successfully in the Albuquerque area
for small subdivisions and trailer parks, and reduces per capita disposal costs
substantially.
It should be noted that,except where soil conditions are favorable, the
conventional septic tank and drainfield would not meet the discharge standards
which apply to central treatment facilities. Aerobic systems which meet par-
ticular construction criteria can produce effluent which meets most discharge
standards. ET systems meet the goal of no discharge of pollutants, but not
goals promoting wastewater reuse. Overall the advanced systems approach the
level of pollution control mandated by P. L. 92-500. Existing regulations on
OSS prohibit conventional tanks and fields in much of the valley portion
of Albuquerque; increasing emphasis on the advanced systems is thus likely,
even though the regulations do not now provide specific criteria regarding
such systems.
3.3.2 On-Site System Management Alternatives
The management options are complex and address the question of how OSS
can be controlled through regulations and management programs in order to
promote the goals of P.L. 92-500 and the Comprehensive Plan. If on-site
systems are to be viable in an urban/rural setting, they must at least
approach the level of environmental control associated with centralized treat-
ment works. Five management alternatives have been identified. In order of
increasing complexity they are:
1. Continue present policies and procedures.
2. Adopt more stringent regulations without greatly increasing the role
of government in OSS management.
3. Replace existing systems which do not meet modern standards.
4. Move to comprehensive management of all aspects of OSS.
5. Treat on-site systems as a public utility.
-122-
-------
Alternative 1 would continue existing management practices. These are
stringent with regard to construction standards, but provide little control over
OSS already built, and are vague with regard to advanced systems. A number of
additional measures, listed under Alternative 2, are needed if on-site systems
are to be upgraded significantly.
Alternative 2 would upgrade regulations through steps such as:
- require advanced systems for new installations under specific conditions;
- require all new systems to meet standards such as those issued by
the National Sanitation Foundation;
- provide for more frequent inspections of existing systems, especially
advanced units such as aerobic tanks.
For Albuquerque this nption would probably mean that attait,; -anks and/or
evapotranspiration fields would be required in most developing unsewered areas;
see EPA (1977, Section A-6, part d) for details. Some personnel increases
would be needed to permit government agencies to review construction plans,
inspect installation sites and check up on system operation to at least a
limited extent. However, on-site disposal would remain the responsibility
of the private citizen and the government role would not change radically.
This alternative has the advantage of being the minimal cost option for
upgrading on-site systems. It will accomplish at least some of the goals of
F.I. 92-500 and the Comprehensive Plan, though it will not completely control
water pollution, nor in itself restrict urbanization. Its major disadvantage
is that it would not address problems caused by existing systems.
Alternative 3 would take up where Alternative 2 leaves off, by actively
phasing out systems which do not meet stringent regulations. First priority
would be to replace cesspools, privies and septic tanks/drainfields which fail
a sanitary survey. Systems failing lot-size limits would be tackled later.
In effect this option would eliminate the concept of accepting past mistakes,
and it is probably the minimum step needed if existing health problems and
water contamination are to be reduced.
However, this alternative is not likely to be equitable, since the persons
affected would be financially responsible for system upgrading. In contrast,
citizens with access to sewer service would have their sewerage costs reduced
through government grants. As it often is the poorer neighborhoods which
contain OSS, it is not certain that the replacement expense could be borne
at all. To actually accomplish Alternative 3, a public subsidy program would
probably be needed. Total costs for replacing existing systems could exceed
$30,000,000 (at $2,000 per system for 15,000 units).
Another drawback is that this alternative would lead to extensive use of
advanced systems, and thus increased energy and water use. Resource costs
would probably exceed those associated with sewers and central treatment, with-
out actually achieving the same level of effluent quality and potential for
wastewater reuse. A sub-alternative to 3 would be to replace only some of the
existing systems, e.g. cesspools in areas with a shallow water table. This
would be less expensive and more readily justified on the basis of public
health and protection of water quality.
-123-
-------
Alternative 4 would establish a single government or non-profit agency to
provide central management of on-site systems. Duties and obligations of the
agency could include any or all of the following:
- maintain detailed information on soil, water table and water quality
conditions, including any necessary operation of a monitoring program;
- perform feasibility studies and percolation tests on lots to evaluate
the potential for the use of individual on-site systems;
- prepare plans for such systems on behalf of individuals, or review and
approve submitted plans;
- license those responsible for system design, installation and maintenance;
- inspect all systems during installation, and periodically thereafter to
ensure they are being operated properly;
- inspect tanks and fields every few years to determine their condition
and ability to function, and require replacements if necessary;
- establish standards for system maintenance, for use of water softeners,
for well depths;
- obtain grants or loans, and provide subsidies or incentives for replace-
ment of existing systems not meeting standards;
- perform system maintenance, or require reporting of private maintenance;
- perform experiments, such as on test plots to determine the effect of
dosing cycles;
- perform sanitary surveys, and require removal of cesspools and unsanitary
systems ;
- develop policies regarding utility extensions.
The agency would probably be supported by fees charged to those served, possibly
with a government subsidy; private firms might be used on a contract basis to
perform some of the work.
The major benefit would be that the level of management for OSS would
approach that for central systems and system operation would improve with
consequent reductions in environmental pollution. The primary disadvantage is
that the concept is new and has only been initiated in a few locations; experience
with centralized management of OSS is limited. The legal procedures needed to
establish the agency are uncertain and costs would probably be substantial.
However at a fee of $20/unit/year, the agency budget could reach $200,000 for
management of 10,000 systems, and would be sufficient to perform many of the
listed tasks.
This alternative, as well as the one to follow, could be implemented for
the entire planning area, for one of the incorporated communities, or for any
special district within the region.
Alternative 5 would extend the central management concept to include
central public ownership of on-site systems. The management agency would be
a full-fledged public utility, responsible for all aspects of liquid waste
disposal, whether by sewers or individual systems. The agency could extend
the concept of clustered units to properties other than subdivisions and
trailer parks, and could be responsible for operation and maintenance of
pressure sewer systems.
-124-
-------
A major advantage of this alternative is that new facilities might be
eligible for Federal and State funding, and such funding might extend to
replacement of cesspools, tanks and fields which do not meet sanitary
standards. However, the legal implications of this option have not been
explored, and it is not certain how the public would respond to the incursion
of government activity into the private sector. The pros and cons of both
Alternatives 4 and 5 are being evaluated under the 208 Program, in order to
determine approximate costs, impacts and legal constraints.
Summary. Alternative 2 is the minimum effort needed to upgrade on-
site systems to the point where at least some environmental benefits are
achieved from system operation. The more sophisticated options are worth
considering on a regional or local basis, especially if there is concerted
interest in maintaining on-site systems to minimize the need for sewer
extensions and interest in improving water quality to respond to the goals
of P.L. 92-500. However, these alternatives are relatively unproven. On-
going studies should clarify the tradeoffs on these more intense alternatives
and permit better decisions to be made as to when an option such as Alternative
4 or 5 can be implemented. Until the studies are completed, Alternative 2
appears to be an effective choice.
3.3.3 Alternatives Related to Sewer Construction
Sanitary sewer systems commonly consist of gravity collector and inter-
ceptor lines. Options exist with regard to sizing and phasing of lines,
selection of pipe material, and route selection; also in some circumstances
pressure sewers and force mains may be considered instead of a gravity system.
Other alternatives to be evaluated are proposed interceptor capacity increases
and lift station renovations.
Sizing of lines is a function of expected population development. According
to the Facility Plan, population forecasts for ultimate development in different
parts of the area have been provided by the City/County Planning Department.
Future per capita flows have been estimated to be the same as now experienced,
namely, 110 gallons per day. Collection and interceptor lines are then sized
in order to carry the ultimate.projected flow, even though such flow may not
occur for several decades.
Two exceptions to the sizing policy occur. First, in many valley
locations the slope of the proposed gravity lines is very slight and projected
flows are rather small; flow velocities within a normally sized pipe would
be low, and odor problems might result. To avoid such problems the Facility
Plan proposes to use pipes which are significantly larger than required to
convey the wastewater flows. Such larger pipes reduce the frictional slowing
of the flow, increase velocities, and reduce odor potential. Drawbacks to
the larger pipes include higher cost, and the possibility that the excess
capacity of the lines could be an indirect stimulus to development. Since
the lines with excess capacity are proposed for valley locations a possible
conflict with the Comprehensive Plan exists. Should an actual conflict occur
alternatives such as the use of a lift station and force main need to be
considered, to ensure that the large lines represent the best solution to the
problem.
-125-
-------
The other exception to sizing policy is that in order to meet EPA regula-
tions, interceptors large enough to accommodate ultimate development are not
constructed if they would be less than half-full by the end of the planning
period (1996 or so). Instead smaller lines are constructed. This approach
not only reduces short-term dollar costs, but avoids making a commitment toward
future population conditions which may or may not come to pass.
The phasing of sewer construction is also based on population forecasts.
According to the Facility Plan service would generally not be provided until
densities reach or exceed 5 persons per acre. This is approximately the density
associated with "semi-urban" development as defined by the Comprehensive Plan
(ABC, 1975), and indicates that the population has reached the level where urban
services may be considered appropriate, provided that other factors are favorable
to provision of sewers. The timing of construction in accordance with population
projections has several advantages, especially in that premature costs are avoided
while the expansion of urban infrastructure is closely coordinated with properly
sequenced development.
Alternatives with regard to pipe material are discussed in the Facility
Plan. The basic choice is between material which is "permanent" and that which
is less expensive, but which may require periodic replacement. From an environ-
mental point of view permanent materials have many advantages. In particular
they reduce the potential for infiltration or exfiltration to a negligible level,
and minimize the prospect of construction impacts that would occur during line
replacement. In recognition of these environmental benefits the Facility Plan
recommends use of permanent materials for all circumstances. Based on costs
and proven performance capabilities, the specific recommendation is to utilize
vitrified clay for lines 15 inches in diameter and smaller, and to utilize con-
crete pipe with a PVC crown liner for larger lines. Alternate materials consid-
ered included plastic pipe, unlined concrete, asphalt-lined concrete, and
concrete lined with coal tar epoxy coatings; these four materials all face the
prospect that their long term performance may not be satisfactory.
With selection of permanent pipe, long-term ground water contamination
problems associated with exfiltration or leakage would be expected to be minimal,
and to occur only where special problems exist, such as penetration of the line
by tree roots, rupture because of superimposed loads, or poor construction at
the time of pipe laying. Should leakage take place the result would be similar
to the effects of septic tank discharge, that is the trench would act as a per-
colation field and marginally renovate the sewage. It has been noted that
"the true effect of sewer leakage on ground water quality is probably far less
than the theoretical potential" (EPA, 1973).
Alternatives with regard to route location are determined on a case-by-case
basis in order to reflect site-specific problems such as right-of-way availability
and grade. In general a route selected on the basis of cost and engineering
considerations could be rejected on environmental grounds if any of the follow-
ing problems were significant:
- the construction would disturb an environmentally sensitive site;
that is a site characterized by especially valued archeologic
resources, a site occupied by a viable natural ecologic community,
a site where the soils are especially vulnerable to water or wind
erosion, or a site where dewatering would have especially adverse
effects on wells;
-126-
-------
- the proposed route would cause unacceptable noise levels or traffic
disruption; for example, a route which passed near a hospital and
not only caused excessive noise but cut off emergency access would
not be acceptable.
Few problems of this type are anticipated in Albuquerque. During
design and construction stages certain measures will be used to minimize
construction impacts; these are discussed in Section 5.1.
Where gravity flow is difficult or expensive it is necessary to consider
use of lift stations with or without force mains. These stations may also be
considered to avoid oversizing of lines. Use of lift stations can result in
several environmental concerns including: a general increase in the potential
for odors; increased energy consumption; increased operation and maintenance
requirements; and increased risks in the event of power failure. On balance,
these factors lend support to the recommendation of the Facility Plan that new
lift stations not be considered except where their drawbacks are offset by
significant benefits. In practice these benefits would occur where lift stations
reduced the need for deep trenching and dewatering, and thus lessen construction
impacts and dollar costs.
While lift stations are generally not recommended, those which do exist or
will be built need to be in good condition and properly maintained. To this
end the Facility Plan contains a number of recommendations for renovations to
specific lift stations. General recommendations are made to provide a lift
station alarm/monitoring system, and to provide standby power to be utilized in
the event of a blackout. If implemented, these recommendations would benefit
system function while involving very small-scale and short-term construction
impacts. The recommendations, which are listed in Section 4.1, would cost
less than $1,000,000. The only apparent benefit of not making the
improvements would be the short-term saving of funds.
Pressure sewers represent a special type of system in which a grinder or effluent
pump and holdover tank are installed at each household (or for a cluster of house-
holds). The pumps act as small lift stations and feed the wastewater to small
diameter (normally two-inch) pressure lines for ultimate discharge to a
larger gravity sewer or to a larger force main. Grinding of the wastes prior
to pumpage reduces the solids to a small diameter, so that the pressure line
does not get clogged. The major advantage of pressure sewers is the reduction
in construction impacts. The lines require only a shallow, narrow trench;
traffic disuption is minimal and dewatering is seldom required. Structures such
as irrigation canals, which are major obstacles to a gravity sewer, can be
readily crossed by a pressure line. Line capacities are limited, a fact which
would be compatable with construction of sewers in areas designated by the
Comprehensive Plan for minimal further development.
Disadvantages relate especially to the need for regular operation and
maintenance of the individual pumps and to the lack of experience in using
pressure sewers on a large scale. Additional staff would be necessary to ensure
that a failed pump was immediately replaced, so that sewage would not back up
into a house or otherwise cause problems. Energy use would be about one KWH/unit/
day; for a large system the total energy commitment would be significant.
Installation of the pumps within individual property lines would generally be
required, resulting in potential legal problems of access.
-127-
-------
Because of these disadvantages, pressure sewers are considered mainly
for problem areas such as the Valley, where construction impacts and land use
concerns are especially significant. Specific locations where pressure
sewers have been considered as an alternative are discussed in Section 3.3.5.
It is possible that future experience with pressure sewer systems will
indicate that this alternative is cost-effective in many situations. A
particularly attractive option is the use of existing septic tanks
coupled with effluent pumps(DCEO, 1974).
The Facility Plan discusses a number of existing interceptors which do not
have sufficient capacity to carry increased flows which are projected to occur
within the planning time frame. For most of these lines there are two alter-
natives to be considered at the time that increased capacity is needed. The
first choice is to run a new line parallel to the old; the second is to
completely replace the existing line with a new one. Advantages of the first
option are a much lower cost and much simpler construction. The second
alternative is considered mainly if the existing pipe, when inspected,
appears to be in comparatively poor condition and thus in need of replacement.
A summary of the alternatives, with costs, is given in Table 3-5.
3.3.4 Comparison of Sewers and On-Site Systems
Many of the environmental characteristics of sewers and on-site systems
are generic, that is they apply to most situations and depend to only a limited
degree on site-specific conditions. Significant generic characteristics of
the two basic alternatives are listed in Table 3-6. In general on-site systems
have the following advantages:
- construction impacts are minimal and localized, involving no
traffic disruption or dewatering, and creating minimal dust and
noise;
- initial costs are low, especially since existing households in an
unsewered area have already incurred the major expenses.
Conversely, sewers are favored for reasons of water quality protection,
including:
- there is almost no direct contamination of ground water;
- the collected sewage is centrally treated, and the potential exists
for almost any desired level of treatment and reuse of wastewater;
- sewers are reliable (whereas the failure rate for OSS is high);
- long-term replacement costs are low.
A major factor in the evaluation of sewers and OSS is their impact on
land use. Sewer service is essential in any area which is to be developed
in a highly urban form. Conversely, the use of OSS is by itself a factor
which forces land use to be low-density in character, since sanitary
regulations prohibit use of on-site waste disposal on small lots. In areas
designated rural or semi-rural by the Comprehensive Plan the use of on-site
systems will provide a strong support to the objectives of the CP, while
the installation of sewers would eliminate a significant restraint to small
lot or multi-family development. This does not mean that the provision of
sewers in rural areas would force development, since measures such as strict
zoning ordinances, enforcement of subdivision regulations and widespread
use of greenbelt-type tax subsidies can slow or prevent urbanization.
-128-
-------
TABLE 3-5 SUMMARY OF WEEDED INTERCEPTOR CAPACITY INCREASES (MMC, 1977)
line Date Overloading Est. Cost to Esc Cost to
Number Location of Interceptor Expected Parallel Existing Line^ Replace Existing Line ^
103
Comanche Road (Juan Tabo Co Moon)
1985-1994
203,700
283,200
104
Near Menaul and Juan Tabo Blvd.
1980
30,800
42,300
105
Hannett Place(Eubank to Parsifal)
1982
70,100
90,700
112
Eubank Blvd.(Buena Ventura Co Copper)
1985
95,500
121,400
113
Near Loraas and University Blvd.
1980-1985
30,700
50,200
119
Comanche Road(San Pedro Co Pojoaque)
1980
49,BOO
67,400
120
Near 1-40 siphon(San Pedro & Indian School)
present
(see note
1)
121
Carlisle Blvd.(Candelaria to Aztec)
1985
(see none
4)
132
Edith Blvd.(San Francisco co Palomas)
1991
39,900
56,300
142
Anderson Ave. & AT&SF RR tracks
1992
8,600
11,500
t
M
hO
VD
I Notes:
1 Today's prices.
2. The choice between paralleling or replacing a line would depend on the physical condition
oi tlie line when ovti lodding occur*,
J No i»ioblems aio belnj^ caused by tliw pr*_->ert sin chnrge, tior aie problem-* ev]>et_ted wi-thin
20 years* but a compile population survey and £low analysis is recommended for 1980.
A. The surcharge expected is, and should remain, significant. Due to age and material used,
an inspection and population analysis is recommended for 1985.
-------
TABLE 3-6 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS AND SEWERS
CategQTy
On-site systems (OSS')
Sewers
Construction Impact normally localized and
minor. Some locations may re-
quire construction of a mound,
or small blasting
Potential for considerable
noise, dust and traffic dis-
ruption. Deep lines in valley
require extensive dewatering,
adversely affecting wells.
Blasting may be needed in moun-
tains. Impact of pressure sewers
is much less.
Pollution Conventional systems lead to
Control degradation, advanced systems
may meet standards of 92-500,
but have limited potential for
tertiary treatment and re'ise
Centralized management
system might utilize effluent
for Irrigation.
Potential exists for thorough
treatment and reuse of waste-
water. Minor problems can occur
with lift station failure, ex-
filtration, odors.
Land Use
Other
With existing regulations, use
of systems would not be per-
mitted on most small lots
Therefore this alternative
will tend to perpetuate low-
denslcy development. Use of
advanced systems could reduce
lot-size requirements.
Flexible with regard to timing,
capacity, lavout. But requires
careful site-specific analysis
of soil conditions, and may not
be acceptable everywhere Sys-
tem failure rate is comparative-
ly high, reliability is limited
without central management
"formally not eligible for grant
funds. Initial low costs offset
by need for replacement
In theory lines can be sized to
support any level of density
and pattern of land use How-
ever, practice shows the need
for large lines in valley areas,
in order to maincain proper
flows Thus where sewers are
installed the potential for dense
development is increased unless
controlled bv zoning, subdivision
regulations or the like.
Represents a sizeable commitment
of funds, resources; flexibility
somewhat limited, except for
pressure lines. Requires moder-
ate to high density to be cost-
effective vary reliable, and
may be eligible for government
tunds Initial cost offset
by modest long-term replacement
and operation costs.
-130-
-------
However, in the absence of such controls there is little question that sewer
systems in areas such as the North and South Valley and Corrales could serve
to stimulate development.
To some extent the comparative differences between sewers and OSS can be
lessened by actions such as centralized management of OSS (to provide reliability
comparable to sewers) or installation of pressure sewers (to reduce
construction impacts). Chi balance the fact that sewers provide much more
protection of water quality than OSS means that they are more in keeping
with the goals of P.L. 92-500. For OSS to be preferred to sewers in an
area where there are water quality problems, at least one of the following
conditions must exist:
- severe construction impacts would result from sewer installation (for
example where there is a need for deep dewatering, or a need to cross
many canals and drains);
- sewer service would remove a major constraint to denser development
in an area designated as rural by the Comprehensive Plan;
- the cost of sewer service cannot be justified on the basis of projected
population levels and wastewater flows.
Guidelines for Selection of Sewerage Alternatives. Where land use patterns
already reflect urbanization, the drawbacks of sewers are comparatively small
while those of OSS are substantial. Sewer service provided to such urban
areas will generally not have significant adverse long-term impacts, although
it will result in short-term construction effects. Based on the Comprehensive
Plan (ABC, 1975, page 3) the extension of sewer service would be appropriate
where densities equal or exceed 3 dwelling units (du) per acre. All else being
equal, high density areas and those with soil conditions adverse to OSS would have
the highest priority for sewer construction.
Conversely in areas which are now and will remain rural, installation of
sewers is commonly expensive, and may conflict with land use planning goals.
In many such areas continued use of OSS can be expected to be an effective
alternative, especially if advanced systems are used to overcome soil problems,
and if improved management of the OSS is undertaken. Based on the Comprehen-
sive Plan the use of OSS is generally preferred where densities are less than
1 dwelling unit per acre.
In semi-urban areas with densities of 1-3 du/acre, the decision regarding
sewerage versus OSS depends on site-specific conditions, especially soil char-
acteristics and presence of open space. Factors such as health hazards and
gross ground water pollution would be more significant, but in practice are
difficult to demonstrate in the planning area. If soil conditions are such
that conventional on-site systems will not be able to function, then extension
of sewers would tend to be favored. This is especially true if the existing
development is clustered and comparatively near already developed areas; in
such cases extension of a small sewer line could take place without providing
a significant stimulus to development. Where soil conditions are relatively
favorable for conventional or advanced OSS, and where development is scattered
or physically separate from urban areas, then extension of sewers would tend
not to be favored. Obviously a fixed criteria cannot be stated to indicate exactly
when one of the options is preferred over the other; however, the above guide-
lines will resolve most situations rather quickly. They also may apply to
-131-
-------
some rural areas. Thus even if development is less than 1 du/acre on the
average, a clustered neighborhood located near the urban area and faced wit
adverse soil conditions may be considered for sewer service. Similarly,
an urban area completely separated from the main city by an open space corr:
may be better served by a local collection system and treatment facility.
As noted in 2.6.2 and elsewhere, the prospect exists that the legal
measures used to implement the Comprehensive Plan may not always succeed in
achieving development at desired levels. While control of sewer extensions
can be used to support the Plan, this technique is an imperfect mechanism
for land use decision-making. Therefore, in the event that development in
designated rural areas actually takes place to urban densities, it would be
appropriate to consider extending sewers to protect ground water quality.
To this end it would be appropriate to design any proposed interceptors so
that they have adequate capacity should extensions eventually be required,
provided that the capacity by itself is not a factor which would lead to
excess growth.
At least three other factors must be considered in selecting between
OSS and sewers in rural areas such as the North and South Valley. The first
is that many residents in these areas have low incomes and cannot easily
afford either a sewer hookup or OSS upgrading. The actual cost of the
alternatives to the homeowner is thus an important consideration in any
evaluation. The second factor is the desire of many County residents to be
relatively independent of the City government, as evidenced by the ongoing
effort to incorporate parts of the South Valley. Some residents may consider
sewer extensions as a prelude to annexation or extraterritorial zoning; if so,
implementation of any sewerage alternative might be difficult. Finally,
plans already e::ist to extend City water lines throughout much of the partly
settled valley area; some extensions have already been made. This action
may reduce the desire of residents for sewer service, since it eliminates
the problem of contaminated drinking water supplies for those who hook up to
Che public system. Provision of sanitary water supplies may be a useful
short-term alternative to extension of sewer lines in many areas, since the
lot size restrictions associated with OSS would remain as an obstacle to
intensive development of rural areas.
The above factors all contribute to the possibility that many valley
residents might not utilize public sewerage service even if it were available and
thus the benefits of sewers would not be fully realized. Other evidence suggests
that most residents would connect to a public sewer within a few years of construction
This evidence includes the high failure rate and replacement cost of OSS, aw * he
fact that inadequate OSS facilities foreclose access to many of the fiscal •, • urces
needed in a low-income area. Such strong economic pressures for connectioi
augmented by the fact that a hookup results in immediately increased proper¦ -alues
which tend to offset the potentially high charges and fees associated with t:• lookup.
In addition, the procedure for assessing connection charges is to roll part cl the
charge into the monthly rate, and to permit payment of the remainder in 60 moiithly
payments (after a 10% downpayment). Other factors which will lead to a high percenLa
of hookups include: most low-income residents live in rental units, so that the
sewerage expenses will be borne initially by landlords; and plumbing code ordinances
will be used to force hookup on lots where use of OSS is leading to unsanitary condition
3.3.5 Evaluation of Specific Alternatives
The process of arriving at a sewerage plan for Albuquerque involved a
lengthy procedure which included: separation of the planning area into eleven
-132-
-------
sewerage system analysis areas; development of initial alternatives for each of
these areas; use of a screening process to eliminate inappropriate alternatives;
detailed technical, cost and environmental evaluations of the remaining
alternatives; and recommendation of the preferred alternative. In most areas
the detailed evaluations concerned the comparison between construction of
gravity sewers versus use of on-site systems, but in some areas the major
options were gravity sewers versus pressure lines or force mains.
The eleven sewerage system analysis areas are shown on Figure 3-1. A
list of the alternatives which received a detailed evaluation for each
area is given in Table 3-7, with cost data. The extent of the construction
which would occur were all potential lines to be constructed is shown on
Figure 3-2.
As part of the 201 planning process, all the alternatives which were
evaluated in detail in the Facility Plan were analyzed according to environ-
mental considerations (Table 3-8). The conclusions which result from this
analysis are summarized below for each of the eleven areas.
Corrales. The information given in Table 3-8 indicates that OSS face
problems in the Corrales area due to high water table, flooding and other
concerns. However, the main alternative to these systems, construction of a
conventional sewer system, would have substantial adverse environmental impacts
including: severe construction problems associated with deep trenching on
narrow winding streets, with a shallow water table; extensive need to cross
canals and drains; probable support of dense development, conflicting with
Village policies which aim to retain the rural character of the area. For
these environmental reasons the sewerage alternative was rejected.
The preferred alternative for Corrales is thus continued reliance on OSS,
with some upgrading to reduce the present problems. In effect this upgrading
will involve improved regulations such as set forth in Alternative 2 of Section
3.3.2. At the request of Village officials the Facility Plan contains a
contingency plan to be used in the event that growth pressures lead to the
urbanization of Corrales. Because of construction impacts indicated above,
widespread use of conventional sewers were rejected for the contingency plan.
Rather, the contingency actions would include use of gravity sewers on a
limited basis, to serve only the most densely settled part of Corrales,
and use of OSS in the remaining areas. It is expected that under the
contingency plan central management of OSS would occur, following Alternative
A or 5 of Section 3.3.3. However, as indicated in that section it is not possible
to define such a management system at this time, pending guidance from studies
which are being undertaken under the 208 Program.
Northwest Mesa. Substantial portions of this area are designated for
urban use by the Comprehensive Plan. For such areas the alternative of
providing conventional sewer service is favored for sanitary reasons, and is
not expected to have adverse land use or other environmental impacts. The
Facility Plan has recommended a schedule for providing this service in
accordance with population projections made by the City Planning Department,
following the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The phased construction of
lines would be favored over immediate construction, since the latter could
lead to premature service, or to service which does not in fact follow the
development patterns which actually evolve.
North Valley. The North Valley is actually a complex mixture of develop-
ment patterns and soil/water table conditions. In general the east side of
-133-
-------
Mr-' * ¦ • V".' - ^ ? ~v. .,-/.,/
|v-s -• '• •—••::? «.:VoL.v^ - ; 1?^ '. »/ / i' ¦
fix. *. . /•¦,.•• " v. Sftfr -», •• fi hv/V/.fy- ,
i! • - LSj'' '• - . ' vV^r/W;'/ * - /~\[
ts' - .-57 - - !<¦>¦¦ - • — > -./ .'\\\, /7 / •- 'r •
J,
-J .
~s •
" t
I
1 *
'.Q> *
*• <
4
V
. 1 - 1
V_^,v . <_ XI.
¦**"—V • J '/ / ; • —-44 - i
/ ' — Scrr'' \ 1 ¦ '^vy s, * v-—t— —1 y . *¦—•-*
- .£ ,J*M .7 ??*.•> £77 / J-* *r
s"' Z?¥\ A ' > ' :•'••¦-- \* ;
V - // 1 I ,i. t, / .t\ _ 1 i,i 11 t , / uurf 1 if--'* ;; » • 1
SEWERAGE SYSTEM
ANALYSIS AREAS
FIGURE 3-
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE 3-7. SUMMARY OF SEWER EXTENSION ALTERNATIVES (MMC, 1977)
Area Alternatives
Corraleg 1. Continue use of Individual systems, with
"advanced" units for new homes - cost
for new hone
2. Provide gravity sewer service to more densely
populated areas (more than 5 person/acre)
- cost per home served
- total cost of sever system
Northwest 1 Provide Interceptor service to developing
Mesa areas but do not serve Corrales
2 Provide interceptor service to developing
areas and do serve Corrales (after 1985)
3 Continue use of Individual systems near river
below Alameda Bridge
4 Provide gravity collector sewers for developed
area just below Alameda Bridge
North Valley 1 Provide gravity sewers to all developed areas
2 Provide a combination gravity-pressure system
to all developed areas
3. Provide gravity severs only to areas designated
semi-urban in Comprehensive Plan, plus portion
at 2nd and 4th St corridor
Present Worth
4,060J
5,112
5,418,800
3,409,000
3,380,000
see Corrales
Alternative 1
38,000
11,860,000
12,579,000
9,465,000
North 1 Continue use of septic tank and drainfield 2,085,700
Industrial 2 Replace septic tanks with aerated tanks 2,320,400
Park 3 Provide gravity sewers for existing develop-
ment in vicinity of Bear Canyon Lane and
Arroyo Seco Drive 3 362,500
North Provide interceptor in 1995 for projected
Albuquerque growth (existing population is presently
Acres served) 213,700
Sandia 1 Continued use of on-site systems and package
Heights plant through year 2000 1,347,800
2 Extend sewer service from Albuquerque 2,700,800
Canaelarla 1. Continued use of septic systems 662,400
Industrial 2 Replace septic tanks with aerated tanks (8/yr ) 691,000
Park 3 Extend sever service from Albuquerque via
lift station and force main 2,225,500
4. Extend sever service from Albuquerque via
lift station and no force main 2,283,000
Southwest 1 Continue use of on-site systems, with
Valley "advanced" units for new homes $1,839,000
2. Using a "westside" treatment plant
a. Provide gravity sewer service 1,558,000
b Provide pressure sever lines which would
discharge to gravity interceptors 4,852,200
c. Provide a combination of gravity and
pressure severs 3,240,900
3 Using Treatment Plant 02
a Provide gravity sewer service 5,859,000
b. Provide a pressurized 9ewer system 5,513,000
c Provide a combination of gravity and
pressure severs 7,541,800
Southeast 1 Continue use of Individual systems, with
Valley advanced units for new homes
- coat for new home 4,060
2 Provide gravity sewer system with force
main to Plant it2 484,100
3. Future interceptor work 88,300
East Mountain 1 Continue use of septic systems 2,312,300
Area 2 Use aerated tanks and drainfields 2,459.900
3 Extend sewer service from Albuquerque 4,415,800
4 Provide sever service and treatment locally 4,340,900
Four Hills 1 Construct gravity interceptor up Tijeras
Canyon, sized for possible collection of
East Mountain area wastes 942,500
2 Construct gravity Interceptor up Tijeras
Canyon but do not size for possible
collection of East Mountain area wastes 828,000
Total cost not given in Facility Plan
Collector severs would be provided by developers as development occurs.
Does not Include service to Coronado Village Trailer Park.
-137-
-------
TABLE 3-8 ENVIRONMLM*Al EVALUATION OF SEWERAGE SYSTEM ALTERNATTVES
Generic Impacts are summarized 1n Table 3-6 OSS • on-site
systems. CM ¦ central management of OSS CS - gravity
sever PS ® pressure sewers. CP ¦ Comprehensive Plan
Asterisks mark recommended alternative (see Section 4 1)
Environmental and Land Use
Cona ideratIons
Possible Impacts, Comments
X Corrales
U>
00
2 NorLhwest Mesa
OSS function United by soils,
high water Cable, flooding
and local high densities
Water quality impaired
Canals, drains, low grade,
high water table affect
construction.
Basically rural area; zoning
recently adopted to maintain
low density patterns
Incorporated village, capable of
i nd e pe nd en t mo nagemen t.
Most of area designated for
urban uses by CP
Areas designated rural are
generally unsuiied for OSS
because of water table or
flooding probletos Many
of these areas already have
access to pubLlc sewers
*0SS, with Improved regulations,
would be compatlble with local
goals and zoning for some time
CS would Involve significant
construction Impacts, use of
many lift stations, however,
impact on land use could be
minimized by strong zoning measures.
PS would minimize construction
impacts in selected areas
*Small CS system could be combined
with CM for a contingency
system
Public water service may be higher
priority than sewerage.
*CS in urban and urbanising areas
are compatible with all goals
and will promote growth outside
of valley
Some construction impacts
could be greater than normal
If 1 ine 302 Is located in
arroyo.
Area
Environmental and Land Use
ConsIdera tIons
Possible Impacts, Concents
3 North ValIcy
Bast side of area Is devel-
oped (south) or developing
(norih) West is wore open
and designated rural by CP
OSS limited, especially in
west, by high water table
Water quality impaired.
Canals, drains, low grades
and high water tabic could
adversely affect construc-
tion, especially toward
western part of area
Public vdter service exists
or is planned for most of
area
I os Ranclios de Albuquerque
is Incorporated and could
provide Independent manage-
ment capabilities
*0SS and CM in western part of
area could be compatible with goals
and be designed to minimize lirpaccs.
*C3 In eastern "semi-urban" port
would probdhlj liavc minimal
adverse loi^-n ria tail-act
Cb in western part has potential
conflict with CP, and could
involve greater than normal con-
struction impact. Thus alter-
natives proposing Interceptors
along Rio Grande Blvd. were
screened out by initial environ-
mental review
No alternatives were presented
for Los Duranes.
Several proposed lines have excess
capacity, alternative us« of
lift stations could reduce need
for oversized lines
*Kouting along Cuadalupe Trail
will have greater tbnn normal
construction Jmpji tt>
4 North Industrial
Park
Urban/industrial land uses
existing or planned
Some sewer service already
ava I lab I e
Soils comparatively favor-
able for low density use
of OSS
*0SS would produce no unacceptable
impacts for majority of area
*Lin>ited provision oE CS, as pro-
posed, would serve existing
development, and not conflict
with CP.
5 North
Albuquerque
Acres
Soil conditions generally
favorable to OSS at low
density
Mostly undeveloped, but planned
for expanding urbanization
over next several decades, to
densities greater than can be
Supported by OSS
*GS extended in accordance with
population projection would not
conflict with CP
*0SS can provide for disposal In
inter im
-------
TABLE 3*8 (continued)
Environmental and Land Use
Considerations
Possible Impacts; Comments
6. Sand la Heights
OSS face moderate limitations
(bedrock, elope)
CP culls for "semi-urban"
development, which accords
with existing plat6.
Private sewe*" service avail-
able in portions of area,
with treatment via a package
plant diseharglng to a
dralnf1 eld.
*Use of OSS and package plant
would probably hove no unaccept-
able impacts over the 20-year
planning horizon.
Premature extension of CS from
City could produce leap-frog
development pattern
7. Candelaria
Industr Lai
Park
U)
V0
I
6. South Valley
Soils adequate for OSS opera-
ting at low densities
Area open (gravel pits) in
east, moderate to densely
developed on west
Valley side (Vest Mesa) suited *
for OSS at low densities. CP
Indicates development will
be urban (including satellite
centers), but population pro-
jections show only a portion
developing by year 2000.
Valley bottom characterized by
complex patterns, but In most
areas conditions are unfavor- *
able to OSS because of soil
permeability, shallow water
table, or local flooding
Water quality impaired, espec-
ially In Pajarito area. Canals
and drains are common, grades
very low
Arcnal district In Valley is
comparatively developed,
designated semi-urban by CP,
and has access to City water.
Large interceptor already In
exla Lcnc e
PaJar1 to-Pad 111 as district char-
acterized by cluster development
and substantial open space,
designated fo rural use by
CP, with no water service as
yet planned
Use of OSS in area along Edith
Blvd. would require CM in order
to meet water quality goals
which would be achieved by
sewers. Would also need better
control of industrial sources.
Densities locally too high for
most OSS to be acceptable.
•Sewers In developed area would
be compatible with CP, but would
Involve lift station. Construc-
tion impact less if force main
option chosen.
*CS to serve projected development
on West Mesa (valley sides) would
be compatible with all goals
and would promote growth outside
sensitive valley areas Interim
use of OSS In lemalnder of
valley bide area would serve very
low densities, and probably have
no significant adverse Impacts
*GS for Arenal area would eliminate
OSS in an area where the latter
are not suitable, and would not
appear to conflict with the CP.
OS for PaJarIto-Pad11 las district
could conflict with CP, even If
carefully laid out to serve only
clustered development, because
of interceptor construction
through open areas Construction
impacts would be greater cltan
normal because of the shallow
water tabic and largo number of
canals and drains Much of the
area might be served by OSS, with
Improved regulations CS woulo
be more feasible if a westside
treatment plani wurc built
Area
Environmental and Land Use
Consldera t i ons
Possible Impacts; Comments
South Valley (cont'd)
Evaluation of PS also depends on
decision to build a westside plant
With such a plant PS could mini-
mize construction impacts on some
collection lines. With eastslde
treatment, PS may be more cost-
competitive with interceptors/
lift stations, especially If
service is only to most densely
settled areas
9. Last South
Valley
10. East Mountain
Area
11. East Hesa
and other
areas
Conditions unsuited for OSS
in most of Valley area because
of shallow water table, but
suitable on valley sides.
Water quality problems severe
in Mountainviev area, but
cause is probably natural
dlbcharge from Tijeras Canyon.
Mountainview is. already developed
at moderate density, but rest
of area is open. Valley bottom
is designated rural by CP,
valley sides are planned for
uiban development, but projec-
tions are for limited growth in
next 25 years
*01 (with lnrce mal
Mountainview woul
conflict with CP
*US can also serve
North and Northwe
tor all areas, va
have higher prior
*0SS acceptable as
method for valley
*0SS acceptable In
only if densltLes
planned. Otherwl
would be needed t
ground w tier po11
n) to t.erve
d not
built up areas
st of Plant 92
ter service may
lty
interim disposal
s lde.
rural valley
remain low as
se CM or sewers
u control
ut (on
Shallow bod rock and steep slopes *OSS might require CM or at least
are unfavorable to OSS, but
Lowland areas locally suitable
for OSS at low density.
Primarily a rural area with
village clusters, plans are
to continue this pattern
Water quality problems occur,
but cause is uncertain
Limited reliable water supply
for private wells Is a major
constraint to development.
Creater than normal concentration
of archeological sites
improved regulations in order to
minimize potential for signifi-
cant adverse impacts by future
development
CS would probably have greater
than normal construction Impact
because of shallow bedrock and
frequency of archeological sites
Potential conflict with CP exists
but extensive development would
probably not occur without pro-
vision of central water supply.
These elements of the Facility Plan refer primarily to extension
of existing lines to serve developed areas. In general the
decision regarding these actions are based on engineering consider-
ations Relief of most overloaded lines should not conflict with
the CP, or have other significant long-term impacts Some construc-
tion Impjcts might be greater than normal with use of Tijeras Arroyo
for construction of an interceptor to serve Four Mills
-------
the area is already undergoing urbanization, especially toward the south;
the western part retains the rural character which is to be protected by the
Comprehensive Plan. This suggests that sewerage service might be appropriate
in the eastern and southern parts of the North Valley, but not to the
west, in order to match sewerage service to land use patterns. The same
conclusion is reached by observing that sewer construction in the western
area would be costly and would have significant impacts for reasons of deep
trenching in an area of shallow water table and frequent canals and drains.
The only contrary indication is the fact that the high water table limits OSS
use in the western part of the area, indicating that system upgrading or
replacement should be considered.
In accordance with actual and projected land use patterns, the preferred
alternative for the North Valley is to provide sewer services in areas which
are urban, or are urbanizing. On this basis service to the southeastern
part of the area would have high priority, as development is already quite
dense. Subsequent construction would be appropriately phased to extend service
up to the east side of the area, primarily along the urbanizing Second and
Fourth Street corridors.
Similarly, to protect the rural land use character of the western North
Valley, and avoid the high dollar costs of sewering a low-density area,
continued use of OSS would be preferred to the extension of interceptor lines.
OSS upgrading as per Alternative 2 of Section 3.3.2 is recommended by the
Facility Plan. Consideration of central management (see discussion for Corrales)
may be appropriate in the future in the event sanitation problems result from
OSS use. Should enforcement of the CP not be adequate to preserve low-
density land uses in the western North Valley, it maybe appropriate to
reconsider the Facility Plan recommendations at a future date.
North Industrial Park. Land use patterns for this area (existing and
projected) indicate that a small portion will be urban/industrial and the
remainder will continue to have little or no development prior to the year 2000.
Soil conditions are favorable to OSS use throughout the area, provided that
only low density development occurs. Evaluation of alternatives is relatively
simple. Conventional sewers are appropriate and cost-effective for the small
part which is or will be developed. They are not appropriate, and indeed are
excessively costly, for the remainder of the area, especially considering that
OSS can operate effectively.
North Albuquerque Acres. This area is similar to the above in that
portions will urbanize in the next few decades while the remainder will be
undeveloped. Soils are suitable for OSS given low-density or rural land uses.
Clearly it is appropriate to plan for phased extension of conventional
sewers to the developing portions of the area, in accordance with population
projections. Until development occurs, OSS will provide an adequate interim
means of waste disposal.
Sandia Heights. Sandia Heights is unusual in that a privately owned
and operated treatment system serves part of the area, with OSS being used
elsewhere. Population projections indicate that the sector between Sandia
Heights and the present urban area will fill in over the next three decades,
such that sewer service would be appropriately extended to Sandia Heights
sometime near the year 2000. In the meantime, extension of an interceptor to the
area would be premature in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, since such a line
would run through an open space sector and could encourage a leap-frog
development pattern.
-140-
-------
There is no direct evidence to indicate any ground water contamination
results from the treatment plant discharge or from septic tank discharges.
Indirect evidence suggests that the contamination would probably be minimal
because: a) the plant effluent is of good quality (with nitrogen levels of
10 mg/1) and is chlorinated to kill pathogens; and b) both plant and septic
tank effluent would percolate about 300 feet vertically before reaching
groundwater, so that passage through the soil would remove many impurities.
Documented cases of nitrate pollution related to sewage discharges
indicate that problems are most likely in shallow aquifers, and are rare for
water tables as deep as those which occur in the Sandia Heights area.
Since construction of sewers does not conform to the CP, and existing
practices are not identified as causing problems, the recommended alternative
is to take no action regarding sewerage in Sandia Heights at this time.
Candelaria Industrial Park. The western part of this area is developed
in small, light industry; use of OSS is inappropriate for wastes from these
sources. Since a sewerage system in the area would not conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan, the preferred alternative is to provide sewer service. By
connecting the industrial park with the existing system, it was determined that
construction impacts of a new interceptor would be less if a force main were
used> rather than a gravity interceptor. For this reason, and because of
cost factors, a force main has been recommended by the Facility Plan. The
eastern part of the industrial park is presently open and not expected to
change over the next two decades. Soils are adequate for the minor amount
of liquid waste which occurs in this open area and thus the preferred
alternative is to continue use of OSS.
South Valley. As defined for sewerage analysis purposes, the South Valley
actually consists of five markedly different areas.
a) Valley-side lands near Westgate Heights are expected to develop at
urban densities, with some of the growth occurring prior to the year 2000. In
order to accommodate this growth the recommended alternative is to phase in
construction of conventional sewers in accordance with population projections.
Because soil conditions are favorable, interim use of OSS for low-density
development is not expected to have significant adverse impacts.
b) The Arenal district is characterized by considerable development, and
is designated for semi-urban land use by the CP. OSS are generally not suitable
for use in this area but public water supplies are available. Similar
considerations were the basis for the recent decision to provide sewer service
to extensive areas north, east and south of the Arenal district. Given the
existence of these lines adjacent to the area, and the land use designation of
the CP, it appears appropriate to provide central sewer service to the area
and to eliminate a large number of unsuitable OSS. Since the Arenal neighborhood
is already relatively developed, such service would have a high priority.
c) The remainder of the Southwest Valley is characterized by cluster
development mixed with substantial open space; this area, known as the
Pajarito-Padillas district, is designated for rural use by the CP. Although
OSS are generally not suitable, the extension of sewers would appear to
conflict with the CP, since interceptor construction would occur through open
areas. Also construction impacts would be considerable because of the shallow
water table and large number of canals and drains. Thus, while parts of the
-141-
-------
area would benefit from sewer service, it appears that the preferred alternative
would be to support a rural land use pattern by continued use of OSS. Upgrading
of OSS (through measures such as Alternative 2 in Section 3.3.2) is recommended
to minimize the problems which are expected to occur because of the continued
use of on-site systems. As in the North Valley, this recommendation would
change if development occurs despite the provisions of the CP.
d) The Southeast Valley consists largely of agricultural lands, which
represent a major part of the open and rural areas to be protected by the
CP. In addition, conventional OSS are not suitable in this area and
densities are so low that sewer construction would not be cost-effective.
Therefore the recommended alternative is to upgrade OSS, through measures
such as outlined in Alternative 2 of Section 3.3.2.
e) The valley side adjacent to the Southeast Valley is not expected to
develop extensively during the time frame of the 201 plan. As OSS will function
adequately in the area at low densities, use of such systems is the preferred
alternative.
East South Valley. This area includes developed neighborhoods such
as Mountainview and along Rio Bravo which could be served by sewers without
creating a conflict with the CP. As OSS are only marginally suited for this
area, the extension of sewers is the preferred alternative. Although ground
water contamination in the Mountainview area is severe, the construction of
sewers is not considered a high priority because it is believed that natural
contamination from Tijeras Canyon is the cause of the problem, not local
septic tank discharges. The remainder of the area is not expected to be
urbanized within the time frame of the 201 plan, and continued use of OSS
is therefore recommended.
East Mountain. This area is similar to Corrales in that the existing rural
land use pattern makes sewers an expensive and environmentally undesirable
option, even though conditions are not particularly suited for OSS. Further,
sewer construction impacts would be unusually large in this area, due to
shallow bedrock and numerous archeological sites. Therefore, the preferred
alternative is to continue use of OSS, with upgrading through more stringent
regulations.
The East Mountain area is unusual in that water shortages and water quality
problems (which are not related to OSS) limit development. If a central water
system were constructed the area might well develop beyond its present rural
condition, unless zoning and other measures were stringent. To meet this
eventuality a contingency sewerage system has been evaluated by the Facility
Plan, and could be implemented if and when the need arises.
Four Hills and Other Areas. Several alternatives in the Facility Plan
relate to increased service to already developed areas. In general the
selection among the different alternatives is based on dollar cost, not
environmental or land use criteria.
Summary and Priorities. Sewer service is recommended for all urban
and urbanizing areas of the Albuquerque region in order to promote sanitary
conditions, protect public health and prevent ground water contamination. Two
areas which are already extensively developed would have a high priority for
such service: the southeast part of the North Valley and the Arenal district
of the South Valley. Other areas to be served include: the
-142-
-------
Northwest Mesa; the Mesa portion of the North Valley; the middle North Valley;
Mountainview and vicinity; and parts of the North Industrial Park, Candelaria
Industrial Park and North Albuquerque Acres. For all proposed sewerage
extensions, lines will be phased in accordance with population projections, sized
according to expected flows, and will involve use of permanent pipe materials.
All other portions of the planning area will utilize on-site systems for
liquid waste disposal (except portions of Sandia Heights). This recommendation
has been made for reasons of cost and because of land use considerations, that
is the need to limit premature or undesired growth which might occur were
sewer service to be provided. Many of the areas which will continue to use OSS
may experience some sanitation or water contamination problems, especially in the
more densely settled valley neighborhoods. To minimize such problems it is the
recommendation of the Facility Plan that regulations regarding OSS be strengthened,
generally along the lines of Alternative 2 as described in Section 3.3.2.
This alternative will lead to increased use of advanced systems at sites
unsuited for conventional units, and should result in increased government
involvement in assuring proper operation and maintenance of new systems. If
problems persist more advanced alternatives may need to be implemented, addressed
especially to existing systems; guidelines on such advanced options are expected
to be forthcoming from an on-going 208 study.
Throughout the areas to be served by OSS the prospect exists that market
forces will lead to some urbanization which does not conform with the
Comprehensive Plan, even though sewers are not constructed. If so, it may be
necessary to reconsider the recommendations of the Facility Plan, and eventually
to construct sewers in those now-rural areas in order to control sanitation and
water quality problems.
3.4 TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives related to wastewater treatment concern the process or processes
to be used, and the preferred locations for current or new facilities. With
regard to process, there are two basic levels of treatment to be considered:
- secondary treatment to meet existing Federal and State standards related
to parameters such as oxygen demand, suspended solids, and coliform
bacteria;
- additional treatment which might be needed to achieve existing or
potential standards for nitrogen, phosphorus, metals, or other sub-
stances which may adversely affect surface or ground water quality.
With regard to siting, options exist concerning on-going use of Plant it 1 and/or
#2, and construction of new facilities at many possible locations throughout
the planning area.
Alternatives regarding treatment processes and plant sites are inter-
dependent, and were evaluated simultaneously in the facility planning process.
The analysis of nitrogen-removal options turned out to be fundamental in
consideration of other alternatives, and is thus presented first in this EIS.
All evaluations of treatment processes assume that proper operation and maintenance
will occur, since there is no acceptable alternative to good operation and
maintenance techniques.
-143-
-------
3.4.1 Nitrogen Removal Alternatives
At this time no Federal or State requirement exists which would mandate
nitrogen removal from Albuquerque's wastewater, but the prospect exists for
such a requirement at some future time. Further, an evaluation of both nitro-
gen and phosphorus control alternatives is specifically required in this
document by the terms of the Stipulation.
The nature of the possible future N-removal standard is difficult to
forecast. As discussed in 2.1.3, activated sludge treatment may have the
capability to achieve 35-50% N-removal. If such a removal can be obtained
reliably, some potential N-standards could be met simply through proper
operation of the activated sludge process.
If additional removal is required, the major alternatives available with
present technology are: a) advanced treatment processes such as special
nitrification-denitrification units; or b) land application of effluent to
an irrigated field or infiltration-percolation site. Table 3-9 summarizes the
most prominent pros and cons of these two alternatives, as determined in the
Facility Plan and in the technical literature. Section 3.7 discusses other
possibilities, such as aquaculture.
Advanced treatment has the merit of providing reliable control of effluent
quality, with a minimum land requirement and with increased nutrient value in
sludges. Its disadvantages are numerous, commonly including high capital and
operation costs, considerable use of energy and chemical resources and the
fact that it minimizes direct, positive reuse of nutrients.
In many cases land application through crop irrigation is preferable.
Although process control is less than for advanced treatment, and nitrogen
removal is less than 90%, irrigation with effluent provides a positive
reuse of both wastewater and the nutrient contaminants within it. There are
numerous examples in which effluent has replaced surface or ground water as
an irrigation source, and thus reduced the regional demand for both water and
fertilizers. Other advantages include: preservation of open space; no special
requirement for chemicals (however chlorination is often utilized); generally
a considerable improvement in soil condition; and removal of other contaminants
(e.g. metals, phosphorus).
Among the more significant disadvantages of land application which
may vary according to local conditions are the following: generally large land
requirements; potential for ecological disturbances and displacements if
land is not already cultivated; potential for contamination of crops and
the food chain by pathogens, metals and other contaminants, and for airborne
pathogens to infect farm workers and those living nearby; and depletion
of part of the water resource, with resultant loss of water rights.
-144-
-------
TABLE 3-9 TRADEOFF FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS OF ADVANCED TREATMENT AND LAND
APPLICATION. Based on Facility Plan (MMC, 1977) and technical literature, especially CWC
(1976,e.g. Table 10), and EPA, 1975 The evaluation concentrates on factors pertinent
to nitrogen-removal. All factors are subject to variation on a site-specific basis, and no
consistent relationship between process type, dollar costs and environmental impacts will
exist for all situations.
General Considerations
Advanced Treatment — Processes such as nitrification-denitrificaticn, breakpoint
chlorination and ammonia stripping can be considered, not
all have been demonstrated on a long-term large scale basis.
Land Application
Includes watering of crops, parks, golf courses and other
vegetated areas and direct recharge at an infiltration/per-
colation site. Factors such as land cost and energy use (for
pumping to the site) vary enormously according to location.
Long-term impacts not well-known. Impacts may vary depending
on whether farm site is publicly or privately owned/cperated,
BENEFITS OR POSITIVE FEATURES
DISADVANTAGES OR NEGATIVE FEATURES
ADVANCED TREATMENT
La
I
Generally reliable and subject to direct
process control.
Obtains high percentage removal of
nitrogen (95% + )
Relatively small land requirements and,
often, minimal siting restrictions.
Treated water is fully available for
further use, including stream discharge
to benefit water-short areas downstream-
Some processes produce sludges with
relatively enhanced nutrient value.
May create more jobs than a similarly
sized land application project
Normally requires large capital investments,
with on-going high operating costs.
Most processes involve considerable energy
and chemical resource use
Nutrients such as nitrogen are recovered
to only a limited extent (except in
sludge).
Possible equipment noise problems if
sited in populated areas
Some increase in local traffic.
Secondary pollution may occur (solid
wastes, gases). (See, for example,
Antonucci and Schaumberg, 1975.)
LAND APPLICATION
Tends to have comparatively small
operation costs which may be offset
in whole or part bv income from sale
of crops.
Minimizes use of chemical resources
(but chlorination normallv is practiced).
Provides for positive, direct reuse of
wastewater and its nutrients, return
flows can be collected (at increased
cost) and used again. If not reused,
then water will augment stream flow
and ground water racharge
Potential exists for additional treat-
ment of other contaminants phosphorus,
metals, solids, organic load, bacteria.
Land utilized for crops provides often
valued open space and greenbelt areas,
farmland.wildlife habitat, and potential
tor some recreation (e g hiking during
non-irrigation season).
Organic material and trace elements tend
to accumulate in the irrigated soil, and
improve long-term fertility (see, for
example, data in COE, 1974)
Control of the treatment process is indirect
and ootentially less reliable than advanced
treatment with regard to producing effluent
of a given quality (e.g. see CWC, 1976, p.
29, 33). Extensive monitoring is advisable.
Less nitrogen removal than advanced treatment
(normally less than 90%), export of crops
needed for maximum N-removal from basin.
Large land requirement needed to permit proper
design for nutrient, hydraulic loadings If
land costs are high, this may lead to large
capital costs For urban areas, large parcels
nay be distant and require sizeable pumping/
deliverv facilities.
If land has not been previously cultivated,
extensive clearing may be required; in some
areas relocation of individuals, business,
utilities is needed. Archeological sites
may be destroyed. Clearing nay increase
erosion hazards and need for runoff control
structures Tax revenues from land *nav be
foregone.
Site selection limited dv soil and geologic
conditions. Svstem operation vanes with
-------
TABLE 3-9 (CONT'D)
BENEFITS OR POSITIVE FEATURES
DISADVANTAGES OR NEGATIVE FEATURES
LAND APPLICATION Potentially could be used to prevent
intrusion of saline water into fresh
water aquifers, or obtain other re-
charge-related benefits.
¦O
o>
\
climate. Normally, year-round full-scale
cropping not practicable. Depending on
crop, nay need to use normal water during
some periods (e.g. maturation period)« Thus
effluent must be discharged directly at some
times, or large storage facilities must be
constructed. These niav provide sites for
breeding of vector insects.
Questions have been raised regarding pathogens,
which may contaminate food crops during
irrigation. Normally crop restrictions are
imposed (thus reducing cash value). Soray
irrigation may lead to airborne pathogens and
increased disease levels among those living
or working on or near the fields. For
example, Katzenelson, et al. (1976)
presented data from Israel which demonstrate
increased incidence (by a factor of 2 to 4) of
shigellosis, salmonellosis, typhoid fever, and
infectious heoatitis in communities practicing
wastewater irrigation.
Questions nave been raised regarding tendency for
heavy and possibly toxic metals to build up in the
irrigated soil and/or food chain Studv of an
area irrigated for 70 years with raw or minimally
treated sewage showed Increased metals levels in
grazing forage, but no direct hazard to sheep and
cattle, however, changes in macro-nutrienc concen-
trations (calcium, magnesium, potassium) did in-
crease the risk of grass tetany in grazing animals
(COE, 197A).
Soil salt buildups may also occur and suoplemental
use of chemical fertilizer may be needed to
provide balanced plant nutrition.
Some of the wastewater resource is consumed during
irrigation, reducing overall water availability.
In water-short areas this may have significant
legal consequences with regard to water rights,
(see EPA, 1975c, p. 24).
Fog formation from spray irrigation has been reported
in some locations.
Odor problems have oeen reported and soil clogging ay
solids may occur; pretreatment facilities thus are
required (EPA, 1975c),
Vormallv, access to sites must be controlled, fences may
inhibit wildlife movement.
As noted above, crop selection is limited av concern
for pathogens; foodstuffs which are eaten raw are
not grown. Moreover, wastewater is normally more
saline tnan the raw water suoply of an area; salin-
ities of 500 cg/1 or higher can have detrimental
effects on some crops, further limiting crco
selections (EPA, 1975c d* 25)
Knowledge of the effects of large-scale land disposal
is presently insufficient (Spvridakis and /eich, 1976)
Even small-scale projects may present problems -rtiicn are
not ye: adequately identified (Walker, 1975)
-------
One of the most recent comparisons of advanced treatment and land
application is that by CWC (1976). Their findings can be summarized as
follows.
- The two alternatives vary greatly according to site-specific conditons,
but in general advanced treatment will tend to be more cost-effective
than land application as the amount of wastewater to be treated
increases; for some common situations the break-even point is in the
range 2-10 mgd.
- Factors which could make land application more favorable, especially
at flows above 10 mgd, include: low land costs; low costs for land
preparation; no requirements for water rights retirement; land suited
for simple irrigation systems; no need for subsurface drainage.
Clearly lowest costs will occur when existing irrigated lands are
utilized and effluent replaces an existing water supply.
As will be indicated below, site-specific conditions in the Albuquerque
area tend to be unfavorable for land application, especially cropland irrigation.
A particular problem is the large land parcel required. With more than 100
acres needed per 1 mgd of effluent treated, about 7 square miles or more than
4500 acres would be required for the existing effluent alone. Siting con-
siderations differ for the two major areas of irrigable land: valley and mesa.
The valley sites are of interest not only because they might be used for a
formal, large-scale program designed to achieve certain levels of nitrogen
removal, but also because the valley is already the location of an informal
land application program, that is the use by local farmers of effluent-river
water mixtures for conventional irrigation. At present this informal program
has no public control, and no wastewater treatment objectives.
Valley Sites. The Rio Grande Valley south of Albuquerque includes large
tracts of irrigated lands in the MRGCD. Use of these sites for effluent recycling
would have the advantage of protecting open space and conforming to existing
water use patterns and water rights regulations in the Middle Basin. However,
at least two significant sets of problems appear to rule out large-scale use
of such sites.
The major physical problem with the valley location is that the water table
is generally within a few feet of the ground surface, so that processes such as
nitrification-denitrification are probably not completely effective due to the
lack of aerobic conditions in the soil. Thus, operation of the land application
system to achieve a required level of nitrogen removal would be difficult.
In addition, the capacity of the thin unsaturated soil zone to provide
additional treatment would be limited, and contamination of ground water by
pathogens, metals and even phosphorus could occur.
The other problem concerns existing socio-economic patterns. Presentlv
the farms of the MRGCD involve many small parcels and a large number of land
owners; garden foodstuffs are commonly grown in addition to the dominant
crops such as alfalfa. A formal land application program would require that the
individual farm owners be subject to close control in order to achieve proper
effluent management. Many popular foodstuffs could not be grown. Monitoring
would have to be very complex in order to reflect the great variety of soil and
hydrologic conditions which would occur over a several square mile area of the
valley. Administration requirements to oversee such a project would present
-147-
-------
a significant barrier to implementation, especially given the traditional
independence of the several hundred land owners who would be affected.
While direct acquisition of the needed land by the City would simplify the
administrative problem, the consequent relocation requirements and/or life-
style change for valley residents would represent unacceptable social and
economic costs.
Mesa Sites. Development of full-scale irrigation on presently non-
cultivated mesa sites has been considered in detail in the Facility Plan.
The search for an acceptable site is made difficult by the land-size requirement,
and by the fact that mesa soils are at best only moderately suited for irrigation
due to problems such as excessive drainage. As part of the environmental
analysis, many potential sites were considered and rejected. For example, use
of Tijeras Arroyo is unacceptable because of soil conditions; field inspections
of possible sites indicate that clay lenses are numerous and that a serious
soil-piping erosion problem would result if the arroyo area were cultivated.
Some other mesa sites were rejected because they lie on Indian land. The
major site evaluated in the Facility Plan is the mesa south of Tijeras Arroyo
(Figure 3-3). This site has no particularly adverse characteristics not
found elsewhere in the area, and has one advantage: effluent from the North-
east Heights could be diverted to the mesa with a relatively small pumping lift
(about 100 feet) and pretreatment works could be constructed on-site without
any unusual problems or costs resulting. Much of the projected increase
in City wastewater flows could be handled by a Mesa facility sized at 20 mgd.
The remoteness of the site from existing and planned development areas would
be attractive as it would minimize odor and vector problems.
Unfortunately, because it would be a completely new operation, this
site lacks many of the advantages commonly attributed to land application.
For example, it does not have the benefit of replacing existing water and
fertilizer usage — and thus reducing total resource demands in the project
area. Rather, resource demands could increase because of the energy use
involved in pumping and farming and the need for supplemental fertilizers
(e.g. potassium additives). Other significant adverse impacts include:
- several square miles of land would be cleared and otherwise modified,
with resulting loss of habitat, archeologic sites and other resources;
- the cleared soils would be very vulnerable to wind erosion during
periods when crop cover was not present, and air pollution problems
related to fugitive dust would increase.
The water rights impact of a land application project on the mesa has been
evaluated by the Albuquerque office of the State Engineer, in unpublished file
documents which are summarized in Section D-4 of EPA (1977). The impact is
determined on the basis of a hydrologic model which takes into account geologic
conditions and the delayed effects of pumping and recharge. As indicated in
Section 3.1.2, an alternative which involves direct wastewater discharge to
the Rio Grande is calculated to offset most of the impact of well pumping, leav-
ing a net water right requirement in the year 2000 of 35,100 acre-feet/year.
Conversely, an option which completely eliminates direct discharge would in-
crease the water rights requirement nearly threefold, to 111,600 acre-feet/year.
-148-
-------
vO
I
-- £ -Ci-'W 7^ ¦
¦-'£¦'? -*x\<
<#¦.<¦ Va - > •»-
CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TREATMENT PLANT ALTERNATIVE
SERVICE AREAS AND
SATELLITE FACILITY SITES
FIGURE 3-3
-------
In practice a land application project would not completely eliminate
return flow to the Rio Grande. Some fraction of the irrigation wastewater wlII
percolate to the water table, and eventually reach the river or its immediately
associated aquifer. The State Engineer projections indicate that for a project
5.1 miles east of the Rio Grande using all the City's wastewater for land
application, with half the wastewater percolating to the water table, the net
water rights requirement would be 90,100 acre-feet/year. A requirement of this
amount would exceed the present water rights holdings of the City, including
vested rights and San Juan-Chama Project water, by approximately 25,000 acre-feet/
year. The estimate of 50% percolation is probably optimistic; if so, the water
rights impact would be larger.
Because of the effects of delayed pumping, and assuming increased water use
and wastewater flows, even larger water rights impacts would occur in 2020. For
the situation described in the previous paragraph, the State Engineer calculation
is that the water rights requirement would be 128,600 acre-feet/year at that time.
If the percolation rate were less than the assumed 50%, an even greater impact
would be experienced. In the event there were no percolation and return flow
from land application, the water rights requirement would be 163,600 acre-feet.
The only way the City could obtain substantial water rights beyond its present
holdings would be to purchase and retire rights on irrigated lands along the Rio
Grande Valley. This action would defeat the goal of providing agricultural
bottomlands as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. Thus development of a
project to recycle all City wastewater at a mesa land application site can be
considered unacceptable.
Smaller-scale projects which reduce water rights effects could be acceptable
if they would not lead to loss of other irrigated lands. The specific alternate
discussed in the Facility Plan would involve land application of 18 mgd. Using
the same percentage relationships developed by the State Engineer, and assuming
that the State Engineer projections for pumping and wastewater flow are correct,
the water rights requirement in 2000 would be 49,600 acre-feet/year, or 14,500
more than if land application were not undertaken. In the year 2020 the water
rights requirement would be 74,600 acre-feet, or 13,200 more than if land appli-
cation were not undertaken. Note that over time the impact of a constantly-
sized land application site actually declines due to the fact that it will take
many years for the full benefit of land application recharge to be felt at the
Rio Grande.
The following tabulation summarizes the water rights requirements associated
with different land application projects in the year 2000.
Project
No irrigation; all
effluent to river
City Water Rights Need
35,000 acre-feet/year
Excess of Need Over Available Rights
None
18 mgd project
Southeast Mesa;
50% percolation
49,600 acre-feet/year
None
76 mgd project
Southeast Mesa;
50% percolation
90,000 acre-feet/year
25,000 acre-feet/year
76 mgd project
Southeast Mesa;
no percolation
111,600 acre-feet/year
46,600 acre-feet/year
-150-
-------
For conditions in the year 2020, the following values would apply.
Project
City Water Rights Need Excess of Need Over Available Rights
No irrigation; all
effluent to river
61,400 acre-feet/year
None
18 mgd project
Southeast Mesa;
50% percolation
74,600 acre-feet/year
9,600 acre-feet/year
76 mgd project
Southeast Mesa;
50% percolation
128,600 acre-feet/year
63,600 acre-feet/year
76 mgd project;
Southeast Mesa;
no percolation
163,000 acre-feet/year
98,000 acre-feet/year
Based on the above calculations, and assuming that the City does not ob-
tain additional water rights, the full City allocation of San Juan-Chama Project
water will be committed around the year 2020 if no land application is undertaken
and perhaps 10-15 years earlier if an 18 mgd land application project is under-
taken. Complete reliance on land application for wastewater disposal would,
for all practical purposes, completely commit the City's water rights as soon
as the irrigation project began operation.
This analysis indicates that the water rights impact of a relatively small
wastewater irrigation project would probably be less than 15,000 acre-feet/year.
Based on the present price of San Juan-Chama Project water, the cost of this im-
pact would be nearly one-half million dollars per year. However, it is important
to note that the City must pay for San Juan-Chama water whether or not the water
is put to beneficial use. Thus, through the year 2000 the City could utilize
San Juan Chama water to offset the effects of an 18 mgd wastewater irrigation
project without actually increasing water rights expenditures. After the year
2000 a conflict would exist between use of the San Juan-Chama supply to offset
irrigation, and use to support municipal growth by offsetting the effects of City
well pumping. For a project of fixed size this impact ^ould gradually decline.
-151-
-------
The conclusion reached from the above analysis is that it may be
economically and technically feasible to use existing City-owned water rights
to offset the legally determined hydrologic effects of a moderately sized land
application project located on the Southeast Mesa. Indeed, since the City
already pays for unused San Juan-Chama water, water rights costs need not be
a major factor in the economic analysis of wastewater irrigation proposals.
Moreover, water conservation programs (Section 3.8) could further improve
the water rights position of a land application project.
Another aspect of land application would be its actual physical impact
on the surface water hydrology of the Rio Grande. The legal basis of water
rights determinations relate to the long-term effects of water use as the use
reduces flows measured at San Marcial gaging station. Thus the fact that a
water use (such as land application) is covered by water rights does not assure
that there will be no impact on short-term flow conditions. What then would
be the physical consequences of land application? Presently wastewater
discharges to the river provide a physical augmentation of river flows; during
drought periods wastewater may represent the dominant source of flows which
are diverted at Isleta Dam. If some wastewater were utilized for land
application this physical discharge would be reduced and surface flows would
also be reduced. Legally speaking the lost discharge would be offset by
existing City water rights (not actual water), long-term subsurface return
flows from the irrigation area (not actual surface discharges or even,
necessarily, short-term actual subsurface flow), and releases from the San
Juan-Chama Project. Of these only the latter would be physical surface
water, and this too might be limited in dry years if the flows available
from the San Juan Basin w^re in short supply.
Use of wastewater for a mesa irrigation project would thus reduce surface
water flows in the Rio Grande over the short-run, for example during late summer
and during prolonged drought periods. If the reduced flows were accounted for by
water rights, then legally speaking it would be assumed that long-term flows
measured at San Marcial would not be reduced. However this is no guarantee that
such a reduction would not occur in reality, nor does it imply that flows above
San Marcial would not be reduced. The major environmental consequence of reduced
surface flows between Albuquerque and San Marcial would be that recharge of
ground water from irrigation canals and the river channel and floodway would be
lessened, thus limiting the amount of water available to riverside woodlands and
marshes which provide a prime wildlife habitat. As much of the habitat (especially
the woodlands) is not protected by water rights, there would be no legal or
physical basis for offsetting the reduced water supply. The impact would
probably be small under most conditions. However, it could become severe during
a prolonged drought and could lead to irreparable loss of wildlife resources.
Substantial benefits must accrue to a land application project. io offset
the water resource impacts noted above. As noted previously, water quality
benefits associated with such a project cannot now be identified. Economic
benefits are probably minimal. Calculations given in the Facility Plan indi-
cate that the project would operate at a net loss, that is income from crop
sales would not offset operating costs, much less capital investment costs.
This is not surprising, considering that existing farms in the MRGCD generally
operate with little or no profit. For example, long-time records from one of
the largest and most productive farms in the Peralta area show that income
from corn and alfalfa averages $336/acre, while operating expenses average
$305/acre (Charles Diebold, personal communication). The small profit (10%)
provides little return on land or other investments. That the profit occurs
at all probably reflects the low cost of MRGCD water; if the farmer had to pay
municipal prices for San Juan-Chama project water to irrigate the fields, the
operation would show a deficit. The fact that large scale farming takes place
in the Middle Rio Grande Basin probably reflects historical economic and social
patterns; certainly there is little economic incentive to increase agricultural
activity.
-152-
-------
In summary, use of a Southeast Mesa site for effluent irrigation purposes
has many environmental disadvantages and few if any benefits; it does not
appear to be an effective approach for maximizing the long-term beneficial use
of the area's physically limited surface water resources. The disadvantages
of this alternative are reflected in dollar costs, which are several million
dollars higher for land application than for an equivalently effective advanced
treatment process.
Other Land Application Alternatives. In addition to cropland irrigation
as just described, three other land application processes are available: high-
rate irrigation; overland flow; infiltration-percolation. The first two of
these are not appropriate for Albuquerque; high-rate infiltration has the same
fundamental problems as normal irrigation, while overland flow requires rela-
tively impermeable soils to be effective.
Infiltration-percolation involves the rapid spreading or spraying of
effluent onto relatively coarse soils which normally are not cultivated.
The effluent is renovated as it percolates rapidly through the soil; the
high rate of application results in a smaller land requirement per effluent
volume than irrigation. Other advantages include: large potential for
recovery of recycled water and/or larger percentage of effluent recharging
ground water; water rights requirements are therefore much less than for
irrigation; generally more easily operated than irrigation. Disadvantages
include: much less effluent treatment than irrigation, especially for
nitrogen; no income from crop sales; recharge may increase salts and
hardness of local ground water.
Evaluation of a possible infiltration-percolation site near Mountainview
(Figure 3-3) indicates that this alternative is more favorable than mesa
irrigation in many respects, but still has substantial drawbacks. Because of
reduced land and water rights requirements, the site is probably capable
of achieving some degree of nitrogen removal at a dollar cost which is broadly
comparable to some advanced treatment alternatives. However, the process
offers no benefits except additional treatment, since crops would not be
grown and the ground water recharge would provide no advantages over direct
discharge of treated effluent to the river. Disadvantages are significant.
The land parcel is highly visible from the valley area. Clearing of the
site would produce aesthetic problems. The site is upwind of Mountainview in
summer, so that odors, if present, could impact an area which historically
has suffered from odor pollution. In particular, by placing an infiltration-
percolation site south of Mountainview, and continuing the operation of
Plant ?^2 north of Mountainview, any odor-causing problems associated with
sewage treatment would be almost certain to impact the neighborhood, whereas
at present, at least some wind patterns spare the community from this problem.
More distant sites would reduce the possible odor and aesthetic impacts, but
would greatly increase transportation costs.
Advanced Treatment. The Facility Plan provides detailed evaluations of
seven alternatives for nitrogen removal, four of which involve advanced
treatment. Using the Facility Plan designations, the alternatives are as
follows:
A. Activated sludge treatment for partial N-removal, as discussed at
the beginning of this section.
B. Two-stage nitrification-denitrification, with secondary treatment
for BOD being accomplished in the first stage.
C. Three-stage nitrification-denitrification. That is, BOD removal is
accomplished in a first stage (standard activated sludge), nitrifi-
cation occurs in a second aerated basin, and methanol is added to an
anaerobic reactor in the third stage to obtain denitrification.
-153-
-------
D. Infiltration-percolation of activated sludge effluent (discussed above).
E. Same as C but for only a portion of the total effluent flow.
F. Similar to C except the second (nitrification) stage utilizes an
ultra-high rate trickling filter, and the third stage is a nitrogen
gas-filled column.
G. Primary treatment followed by infiltration-percolation (similar to D,
and discussed further in 3.4.2).
If nearly complete (95%+) N-removal is required, alternate B would be
the lowest dollar cost option. However, this would require an almost immediate
decision if it were to be implemented effectively. In the absence of a
nitrogen standard for the Rio Grande, the two stage N-removal system would
simply increase environmental and dollar costs without obtaining any clearly
defined benefits.
Alternatives C, E and F are all similar in that they can be added onto
activated sludge at any time; depending on design, almost any desired level
of N-removal can be obtained. All are broadly comparable in terms of
environmental characteristics, involving modest amounts of land (10-20 acres)
and requiring about 100% more energy than needed for activated sludge treatment
alone (per mgd treated). Alternative F has slight advantages in terms of
minimizing land and energy use, and is the lowest dollar cost option
if only a portion of the effluent is treated for N-removal. Alternate C
achieves slightly better odor control and is the lowest dollar cost for treat-
ment of all the effluent. Both C and F are less expensive than land application.
Should advanced treatment ever be necessary, it would be appropriate to
choose between alternatives C, E and F depending on the specific N-removal
requirements and environmental conditions occurring at the time. Dollar costs
are not greatly different among the options at present, so that if in the
future energy conservation were the highest goal, alternative F might be
preferred, while if odor control is critical, alternatives C or E could be
chosen even if direct costs were slightly higher.
Irrigation Reuse in the MRGCD. As discussed in 2.3.2, presently
about 6,600 acre-feet of Albuquerque's wastewater (mixed with river water)
are used for cropland irrigation in the Belen Division of the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District. This amount will about double by the year 2000.
During drought periods the ratio of effluent to river water may reach 1:3,
and it may approach 1:2 by 2000. This unregulated land application program
probably has some treatment benefits through nitrification-denitrification
in irrigated fields and along canals and drains, and through crop uptake and
export. Based on the nitrogen budget for the Middle Rio Grande Basin (2.4.3),
the removal efficiency can be tentatively estimated at about 40% (versus 70-90%
in properly designed and operated programs).
No data are available to indicate that pathogenic contamination of food-
stuffs occurs in the MRGCD, but as reported in 3.1.2, farmers in the Peralta
area have experienced adverse effects on alfalfa growth when the ratio of
effluent to river water is comparatively high. Long-term toxic element
accumulation could occur (Chaney, 1973). Problems associated with the in-
formal land application program can be expected to increase as effluent
loadings increase over the next few decades.
-154-
-------
Study of MRGCD irrigation, as it relates to Rio Grande water quality,
will be undertaken in the 208 program described in 1.5, but only a portion of
the major questions will be approached due to funding limitations. Thus
additional research would be appropriate to achieve two objectives:
- an understanding of effluent reuse in the MRGCD, as it may effect
crop growth, contamination of foodstuffs, soil conditions, fertilizer
use, and fanning practices;
- an analysis of how the reuse might be better managed to reduce
adverse effects on farms and crops and, if possible, to achieve a
reliable and possibly increased amount of nitrogen-removal.
A possible research program discussed during the public hearings would involve
use of farmland near Plant It 2 for experimental purposes, to determine the
detailed interaction of farming practices, effluent quality, and nitrogen-
removal. Such research would be compatible with the recommendation of Bouwer
(1973) that "because the performance of a land treatment system for liquid
waste depends so much on the local conditions ... pilot systems should precede
any large-scale development." Since some land application already occurs the
pilot study would seem an appropriate undertaking in the near future. The
Facility Plan makes no formal recommendation regarding such a pilot study, as
it is in effect an element of system operation.
Should research determine that effluent reuse in the MRGCD can achieve
reliable nitrogen-removal under certain circumstances, then steps to formalize
the land application program could include:
- institution of farm management practices to ensure against foodstuff
contamination;
- institution of practices to achieve the desired level of N-removal, or
control of other contaminants;
- supervision by the City to ensure that proper practices are followed.
The possibility exists to significantly increase the amount of effluent reused
in the MRGCD, by changing the point of discharge from the river to the canal/
drain network passing Plant //2, and then extending the network to Isleta Dam.
However, such an action would not be sound unless the research determined that
adequate effluent management practices could be reliably implemented through-
out the Conservancy District.
Summary. Table 3-10 indicates factors pertinent to the evaluation of
nitrogen removal alternatives. All are expensive and in the absence of an
N-control standard or N-removal benefits, the no-action alternative is pre-
ferred. In the event a significant N-removal requirement is imposed on
Albuquerque's effluent discharge, construction of a three-stage nitrification-
denitrification process for advanced treatment would be the lowest cost option.
While some environmental costs would be high - especially energy use - the
most important resource of the area, water, would be protected, and the treated
water could be discharged to the water-short Rio Grande for reuse downstream.
A formal land application project would increase dollar and environmental
-155-
-------
TABLE 3-10. COST-EFFECTIVE DISPLAY: NITROGEN REMOVAL ALTERNATIVES. As given here, alternatives differ
according to treatment process at Plant 02 (two-stage or three-stage nltrification-denitrlficatlon,
or infiltration-percolation) and presence or absence of a Westside (three-stage) or Southeast
Mesa (irrigation) facility.
Plant 02:
Satellite:
2 Stage
None
3-Stage*
None
3-Stage*
Westside
3-Stage*
Mesa
3-Stage, partial
treatment only
None
Infiltration-
percolation
None
Dollar Cost
(Present Worth)
42,979,000 51,066,000 51,082,000 52,921,000
37,488,000
33,367,000
Total N mg/1
Construction
Impact
2
small
2
small
4.5
moderate
moderate
7-11
small
11-15
moderate
Odor
Potential
small
small
small-moderate
small
small
moderate
Other Effects
energy
use
energy
Use
energy use
& land use
energy use
& land use;
large water
rights loss
energy use
large lard area
required for pond
large water
rights loss
Reliability and
Flexibility
fair-good
good
good
good
good
fair-good
Rating
6**
* Aerobic reactor second stage; methanol addition to anaerobic reactor third stage
** Must be implemented immediately
-------
costs without achieving substantial benefits. This fact occurs even though
land application is often a desirable alternative elsewhere in New Mexico.
There are two major reasons for the unfavorable evaluation: the scale of land
application for Albuquerque would be much larger than for any other New Mexico
city; the land application would be a new use of water in an area where surface
water resources are limited, and thus the total surface water supply of the
Basin would be further reduced.
The partial nitrogen removal which occurs with reuse of effluent/river
mixtures in the MRGCD can never be upgraded to a full-scale highly efficient
land application treatment system because of high water tables in the river
valley, and because the farms of the MRGCD are in the hands of a large number
of private owners, with only limited potential for thorough supervision and
consistent operations. Nonetheless, research could help reduce problems
associated with the effluent reuse, and possibly increase the degree and
reliability of N-removal. In the event that only a modest N-removal
requirement were imposed, the existing reuse program might provide an
acceptable alternative.
3.4.2 Secondary Treatment; Phosporus Removal; Metals Removal.
Secondary Treatment. Activated sludge is "presently considered to be the
superior method of biological treatment consistent with present and future
treatment requirements as set forth in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972" (Battelle-PNL, 1974, page 7.). Most alternatives to
activated sludge for secondary treatment involve physical-chemical processes
which increase dollar costs and resource usage, with few if any increased
environmental benefits. A particular advantage of activated sludge is that
it is reliable, achieves significant levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and
metals removal, and can be modified by "add-on" technology to achieve
additional removals if and when they are required. The process is the same
as now used by the City, and thus its continued use would simplify operation
and maintenance; the potential for solids recycling would also be continued.
The process does have some disadvantages, including substantial energy
use and the need for highly qualified operators. Recycling of sludge gas
can provide some of the needed energy. In Albuquerque, the newly completed
activated sludge units have been responsible for severe odor problems.
These have been determined to be due primarily to design limitations caused
by funding cutbacks at the time the units were undertaken; construction to
remedy the limitations has been proposed and would begin prior to any additional
actions taken under this Facility Plan. See 3.6 for a further discussion
of odors.
The only secondary treatment alternative to activated sludge which was
analyzed in detail in the Facility Plan was primary treatment followed
by infiltration-percolation. This alternative resembles that discussed in
3.4.1, except that only primary treatment occurs prior to land application.
Dollar costs are thus reduced, but odor problems would be increased, and
the potential for public acceptance would be small. Thus the alternative
would not be considered cost-effective.
-157-
-------
Phosphorus Removal. The situation regarding phosphorus is similar to
that for nitrogen: no removal requirement now exists, nor can one be
forecast with certainty; activated sludge treatment accomplishes significant
P-removal; alternatives involving large-scale land application are not
cost-effective; should P-removal be required, advanced treatment could
accomplish almost any degree of removal at a reasonable cost.
For phosphorus, advanced treatment would consist of chemical precipitation
prior to final clarification. This treatment has two significant environmental
costs: chemical resource use (probably aluminum salts), and a great increase
in the amount of sludge to be disposed of. Further, the sludge is much less
suitable for parks fertilizer than that from secondary treatment processes.
Chemical control of process pH would also be required. Advantages are
simplicity of the process, low dollar costs, and the fact that the treated
water is not consumed, as it would be by land application.
Given the lack of a phosphorus standard in the Rio Grande, the no-action
alternative is favored regarding P-removal. Chemical treatment would be
appropriate should a requirement be developed- However, as with nitrogen, it
may be that effluent reuse in the MRGCD could be improved to meet a modest
phosphorus removal standard, and such an option should be explored prior to
accepting the environmental costs of chemical treatment. Should nitrogen,
phosphorus and metals removal all be required at some future date, then even
the full-scale land application alternative, with its associated water usage,
would warrant reevaluation.
Metals. The Facility Plan provided analysis of five alternatives for
metal removal. Two of these involved land application, and suffer from
the same problems discussed with reference to irrigation and infiltration-
percolation in 3.4.1. The third, chemical precipitation, was rejected be-
cause of high dollar cost.
Rigid enforcement of the industrial waste ordinance is the fourth
alternative. Based on the Facility Plan, the following is the minimum
reduction in metals loadings which could be obtained given such enforcement:
Metal
% Reduction
Metal
X Reduction
As
0
Hg
5.3
Ba
0
Mo
13.3
B
1.1
Ni
13.2
Cd
4.0
Se
0
Cr
6.6
Ag
1.5
Cu
30.5
Zn
0.0
Pb
2.5
Mn
0
Other than monitoring and enforcement costs, there is no additional expense
for this alternative. However, without additional treatment the above
reductions would not be sufficient to consistently meet the discharge
limitations set forth in the Stipulation. See 3.8 for a further discussion
of metals control through regulation, rather than treatment.
The Facility Plan recommends the fifth alternative—combining ordinance
enforcement with activated sludge treatment. The activated sludge process, as
-158-
-------
now operated at Plant it2, achieves substantial metals removals from influent,
and is able to meet discharge standards. The most important enforcement
step under this alternative would be to prevent large heavv metal "dumps" by
industrial sources. One disadvantage of this option is that metals found in
sludge would increase on a total mass basis. It is not known if future chantes
in plant operation (e.g. an increased or decreased rate for wasting activated
sludge) would affect heavy metal removals.
3.4.3 Satellite Treatment Facilities
The Facility Plan presents many alternatives which differ mainly in the
extent to which they involve satellite plants in addition to the continued
operation and/or expansion of Plant it2. The alternative of eliminating Plant
it2 was rejected because of the large dollar cost involved, including loss of
major recent investments for construction of activated sludge units.
Continued use of it2 is based on the engineering analysis that if organic
loadings are maintained at a proper level, and adequate sludge handling
facilities are provided, the Plant can operate in a manner which normally will
be free of offensive odors, and will produce a high-quality effluent.
All evaluations relating to Plant it2 take as given that the proposed expansion
of activated sludge capacity to 47 mgd will take place prior to 1980. Further,
the Facility Plan recommends that regardless of whether or not Plant it2 is ex-
panded further, its operation should be improved by renovation of equipment such
as the grit chamber and primary lift stations.
Given that Plant it2 would continue to be a mainstay of the City's
wastewater management system, decisions remain as to how best to meet
expanding wastewater flows in the future. One option would be to expand
it 2 as needed; alternately new plants could be constructed to handle some or
all of the increased flows or to serve the needs of somewhat isolated rural
areas. In addition, the question must be raised regarding Plant itl — should it
be renovated and retained in its present role as a satellite facility, or abandoned?
The following discussion evaluates all of the satellite facilities which
could be built as an alternate to expansion of #2. The discussion refers
to activated sludge treatment facilities, but also would apply to N-removal.
While the Facility Plan discusses these satellites in various combinations, the
evaluation here is simplified by considering each facility independently of the
others. The location of each satellite site is shown in Figure 3-3.
General Considerations. A number of factors favor use of a single exist-
ing treatment plant such as #2, instead of multiple facilities. The advantages
of centralization include:
- the concentration of all management efforts at one location should
result in better operational control and reliability of the treatment
process, and thus better long-term effluent quality and odor control;
- development of new plants would result in construction impacts, as well
as conflicts in land use if the facility were built in a non-rural
setting;
-159-
-------
- costs of treatment per unit of flow generally decrease as the total
flow increases, making large plants more economical than small ones,
especially when advanced treatment is required.
For satellite plants to be seriously considered, they need to provide
benefits which outweigh the advantages of centralization. Depending on the
specific area, such benefits might include: a substantial reduction in the
need for interceptor or force main construction; a reduction in the need to
route sewers through open space or rural areas where they could lead to undesired
development; and an increase in the potential for reuse of effluent or solids,
for example to facilitate land application by putting the plant at an irriga-
tion site.
Three large treatment facilities are considered in the Facility Plan in
addition to Plant it2. These are Plant #1; a Westside Plant; and a Southeast
Mesa plant. The latter was proposed for consideration only in the event that
large-scale irrigation with effluent proved to be cost-effective. Therefore,
it was discussed in Section 3.4.1, in terms of the overall benefits and draw-
backs of land application.
Plant itl. According to the Facility Plan, extensive rehabilitation would
be needed to permit continued use of Plant it 1. This is a slightly more expen-
sive alternative than the option of demolishing the facility and providing
equivalent capabilities at #2. When costs are expressed in terms of treatment
obtained per dollars spent, the comparative expense of operating ill is even
more apparent. The advantages of centralization, noted above, also favor
abandonment of //1.
In the past, operation of Plant it 1 has had an adverse effect on
surrounding areas, as evidenced by the razing of residences in the South
Barelas neighborhood. Thus elimination of the facility would remove a
serious land use conflict. It would probably also benefit the City's efforts
to develop a business/manufacturing center in the area. The land now occu-
pied by the plant could be used as part of the industrial complex for other
purposes, such as a park. However, the prospect for park development is
limited because local demand is small, and one facility already exists in
the area.
All the above considerations lend support to the recommendation of the
Facility Plan that Plant #1 be abandoned. However, this recommendation in
itself does not imply that expansion would take place at ill.
Westside Plant. Turney (1963) recommended eventual construction of a
treatment works in the Southwest Valley in order to handle all the sewage
generated west of the river, and save the cost of pumping it to the existing
plants on the east side. The Facility Plan considers several alternative
sites for such a plant, as well as treatment options which include extended
aeration (activated sludge), land application (irrigation or infiltration-
percolation), and advanced treatment for nitrogen removal (nitrification-
denitrification).
Based on cost estimates presented in the Facility Plan it appears that
all alternatives involving a Westside plant are more expensive than those
which instead involve an expansion of Plant it2. The cost differentials vary
according to whether or not nitrogen-removal is a treatment requirement in the
-160-
-------
future. If it is not, and all facilities involve secondary treat-
ment, then a Westside plant would involve a net increase in cost of about
$9,000,000. If nearly complete N-removal is required, the difference is
only $3,000,000.
None of the Westside sites have special advantages in terms of reducing
collection system costs, or improving the prospects for land application. If
sites at the south end of the planning area are used, then large interceptors
would be constructed through existing semi-rural areas of the far South
Valley. This action would probably be contrary to the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. In addition, several of the prospective plant sites
are in semi-rural neighborhoods; use of such sites would undoubtedly have
adverse local impacts related to land use conflicts and possible odor problems.
Small Satellite Plants. Small satellite facilities with a capacity of
a few million gallons per day or less can be considered to serve somewhat
isolated parts of the planning area. These facilities are too small to
substantially affect waste loads at Plant //2, and thus must be considered
as an addition to whatever major treatment works are constructed. The Facility
Plan investigated small plants for five locations.
Corrales. A 400,000 gallon per day satellite plant at Corrales could be
constructed for about $800,000; if land application is considered, the costs
are greater, with crop irrigation costing about $1.4 million. In comparison,
should sewer service be extended to Corrales and the wastewater treated at
Plant //2, the cost would be less than $500,000. There appear to be no special
benefits which would offset this cost differential. For example, the local
sewer system, if ever built, would be virtually the same under either alter-
native. Prospects for a profitable land application program are restricted
because of shallow water table conditions which limit the availability of
usable parcels.
Los Ranchos de Albuquerque. A treatment works for the North Valley-
Los Ranchos area was eliminated during the initial screening portion of the
Facility Plan. According to the Facility Plan, such a plant would increase
treatment costs compared to the alternative of utilizing Plant //2. It would
not reduce sewerage requirements since, like the Corrales area, the North
Valley is not really physically separate from Albuquerque. Land application
would be difficult because of the large acreage requirement and the shallow
water table. Land use conflicts would be substantial, because all available
sites lie in residential areas.
Sandia Heights. A small package plant already serves the more densely
settled portions of Sandia Heights, with remaining moderate density develop-
ment being served by septic tanks. Since the plant is privately owned and
operated, its continued use would not involve general public expense, nor
would it adversely affect management at Plant //2. As indicated in 3.3.5, no
adverse ground water quality impacts are expected to occur due to continued
operation of the package plant.
Far South Valley. If a Westside plant is not built, a number of options
exist to service the needs of the Los Padillas-Pajarito area, including ser-
vice by pressure sewers discharging to Lift Station //20 and Plant it2, or
-161-
-------
service by gravity sewers and treatment at a local plant. Based on present
land use patterns and planning goals, extensive service to the area would not
be cost-effective at this time; on-site systems are marginally adequate in most
locations. However, locally the development densities exceed those for which
OSS are desirable; the problem areas include Los Padillas and Pajarito. If the
adopted plan and zoning measures are inadequate to restrict development in
these areas, then consideration should be given to provision of some sewerage,
and construction of a small treatment plant.
Tijeras-East Mountain. The Facility Plan recommends no sewer service to
the East Mountain area because: a) existing densities are moderate to low and
soil conditions are marginally adequate for OSS, indicating that sewers are
not essential in the area; b) high nitrate levels in local groundwater are prob-
ably the result of natural causes, not sewage pollution (See Section 2.4);
and c) provision of a central water system would be a more important action
to take in the event public services are needed in the area. The possibility
exists that if public water supplies are provided, development densities could
greatly increase. In this case sewerage may some day be needed.
Should sewers be built in the East Mountain area, the costs of a local
satellite plant would be about the same as those involved in constructing an
interceptor through Tijeras Canyon and treating the wastes at Plant It2. Two
factors suggest the satellite plant would have some added benefits. First,
local treatment would avoid the prospect of very significant construction
impacts associated with laying an interceptor in canyon terrain. Second, if
the plant provided nearly complete N-removal, then the discharge of N-free
water would help reduce high nitrates and thus improve the quality of local
water supplies.
Summary. Table 3-11 indicates factors pertinent to evaluation of major
satellite alternatives for obtaining secondary treatment. Centralization of
facilities at Plant //2 results in low costs, increased reliability, and elim-
ination of construction and land use impacts at new sites. Satellite plants
are preferable only if they provide special benefits; the major satellite
plants evaluated in the Facility Plan do not have such benefits. In particu-
lar a Westside plant built in the Far South Valley would be expensive compared
to collection and treatment of westside effluent at Plant //2, and would man-
date construction of larger interceptor sewers through rural areas. Should
existing settled portions of the Far South Valley need service, a small local
facility could be constructed. The only alternative to expanding Plant it2
which would reduce dollar costs is primary treatment followed by infiltration-
percolation. This option is unacceptable because of possible odor problems.
Expansion of Plant itl appears to represent the cost-effective solution
to treatment of expanded wastewater flows in Albuquerque, provided that exist-
ing odor problems will be fully controlled, as discussed in the Facility Plan.
The decision to abandon Plant #1, which is now satellite to 112, appears to
have little effect on the long-term cost of wastewater management, but would
permit the City to concentrate all of its efforts, including odor control, at
a single facility. It would also remove a source of environmental problems
in the Barelas area.
-162-
-------
TABLE 3-11. COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS OF SECONDARY TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES. Costs Include sludge handling
facilities as described in 3.5.
ON
u>
I
Alternative:
Dollar Cost
(Present Worth
Method)
Ability To
Meet Standards
Construction
Impact
Odor Potential
Energy and
Land Use
Sludge Reuse
Potential
Reliability
and Flexibility
Activated Sludge
Plant 02
25,315,000
good
small
small
small land,
moderate energy
excellent
very good
Same as A except
01 Retained
27,732,000
good
small
moderate
moderate
good
very good
Rating
(l=best)
Activated Sludge
Plant if2 and
Westside Satellite
34,237,000
good
moderate
small
moderate
good
very good
3
Infiltration-Percolation
after Primary Pretreatment
22,641,000
good
moderate
moderate - large
low energy,
large land
good
fair-good
-------
3.5 SOLIDS HANDLING ALTERNATIVES
Sludge is the main solid to be handled during wastewater treatment, with
a projected dry output of about 17,500 tons in the year 2000. Sludge-
related alternatives fall into two basic categories: processing at the treat-
ment plant (3.5.1); and ultimate disposal (3.5.2). An unusual alternative
which has been suggested for Albuquerque is thermoradiation of sludge prior to
reuse as an animal foodstuff (3.5.3). Other solids to be considered are
scum and grit (3.5.4).
3.5.1 Sludge Processing
Elements in the sludge processing cycle may include: thickening, digestion,
gas recycling, supernatant recycling, and drying.
Thickening. Presently there is inadequate capacity for thickening of
waste activated sludge at Plant //2. This significantly increases the potential
for odor problems. No alternative exists for this problem except construction
of thickener units. Of the available technologies, air flotation has advant-
ages which include lower energy and chemical resource demands and less complex
operation and maintenance than alternatives such as centrifuging. The Facility
Plan recommends that thickeners be installed as an emergency measure. The
City intends to construct thickeners in 1977, to be operational prior to the
summer of 1978. The design and construction may begin prior to completion of
the 201 planning effort, in which case the City will fund the improvements
and subsequently request payment for items which are eligible for Federal and
State funding.
Digestion. Two-stage anaerobic digestion of sludge, with regular digester
clean-out, is an environmentally acceptable technique which can be expanded
to provide adequate capacity. However, the digestion system isapotential odor
source, and operation and maintenance must be sufficient to minimize problems.
An alternative to complete reliance on the anaerobic process would be to
use aerobic digesters to handle only the waste-activated portion of the sludge.
Primary sludge would continue to be processed as at present. Advantages of
the aerobic/anaerobic alternative, compared to the present completely anaerobic
system, include: less potential for odors; reduced problems in sludge de-
watering; higher nutrient retention in the sludge; less supernatant to be
recycled and treated; more stable and less sensitive operation; and lower
investment (Wyatt and White, 1975). The major environmental disadvantage is
that the aerobic process produces no gas which can be converted to a plant
energy supply; moreover, it will increase total power consumption. Also,
ope-ation of two different types of processes increases the complexity of the
treatment system. On balance the factor of improved odor control appears
to favor the use of aerobic digestion for waste activated sludge, when only
environmental impacts are considered. The Facility Plan recommends this
alternative, subject to review prior to implementation.
Gas Recycling. The combustion of digester gas to generate electricity
is a positive reuse of a waste product with no significant adverse impacts
-1(>4-
-------
and provides a worthwhile method of reducing energy demand (Miller, 1973).
The only problem at present is that inadequate generating capacity exists at
Plant #2. The Facility Plan recommends provision of 3 new storage tanks, and
a 600 KW generator/engine. This action would enhance resource recycling and
energy conservation, and provide a savings in power costs of $800,000 per
year. Emission of air pollutants would probably increase to slightly more than
100 tons per year, dominantly nitrogen oxides. This emission is small, and
not significantly larger than the emissions from a power plant which would
provide the alternative energy source. It is possible that research being
undertaken elsewhere could develop alternate uses of sludge gas (e.g. methanol
production) and/or means to increase gas production and energy production per
unit of sludge (Kapoor and Newton, 1975).
Supernatant Recycling. Supernatant has the potential of causing operation-
al problems when recycled through the wastewater treatment system; odor
problems may result. The Facility Plan recommendation is to utilize lime
addition and ammonia stripping for supernatant treatment, should problems
arise. On an environmental basis, this would be a priority item should the
potential odor problem occur.
Drying. The existing program of sand-bed drying is adequate for present
conditions, but has two environmental problems: odor may occur in
summer, requiring use of digesters as holding tanks instead of treatment
units; the projected increase of sludge loads at Plant //2 will require
acquisition of 24 acres to provide space for new drying beds. The Facility
Plan recommends mechanical dewatering as an alternative to sand-bed drying
for two reasons: less use of space, and greater operational flexibility.
Mechanical dewatering would be expected to provide a significant improvement
in odor control for reasons which include: elimination of drying beds, a
present odor source; elimination of operational problems associated with
sludge-handling capabilities; reduced environmental exposure time for each
unit-volume of sludge; and the prospect that the dewatering facility can be
enclosed, so that any odorous gases can be collected and treated prior to
venting to the atmosphere. As the dollar cost for mechanical dewatering
is similar to sand-bed drying, the considerations of odor control indicate
that the dewatering alternative is preferred. Indeed this option would be
essential to meet the goal of the Stipulation that Best Practicable Odor
Control Technology be utilized.
The only drawback to mechanical dewatering is increased energy use.
The best method of mechanical dewatering cannot be determined at this time,
but for a process such as vacuum filtration the energy consumption projected
in 2000 would be about 220,000 kilowatt hours per year. This is equivalent
to the present electricity use in 35 houses in Albuquerque. It is not known
what the energy use requirement is for sand-bed drying. However it is certain
that a significant portion of the vehicle use which occurs at the treatment
works is related to bed cleaning, indicating that gasoline consumption does
occur with the existing system, and would increase if sand-beds were used in
the future.
The Facility Plan makes no recommendation regarding the actual means of
mechanical dewatering, on the basis that a more informed decision can be made
when the facilities are designed (e.g. 1985). However, indications are that the
City would prefer to build these facilities at an earlier date, to achieve
Improved odor control. The major methods under consideration would be vacuum
filtration and filter pressing. The former uses less energy and would better
meet environmental goals
-165-
-------
3.5.2 Sludge Reuse and Disposal
The benefits and possible drawbacks of using sludge as a fertilizer-
dressing for City park soils were discussed in Section 2.2.10. These existing
impacts would be expected to continue and increase in the future. There are
no data on sludge characteristics from the activated sludge treatment plant.
However, the treatment process has approximately doubled the nitrogen removal
from wastewater, and also substantially increased phosphorus and metals
removal. The total volume of sludge produced has also about doubled. The
net affect is probably a sludge of a composition which is similar to that
produced in the past, although the sludge may have slightly less nutrient
and metals content than historically. Nonetheless, the value of Albuquerque
sludge in the year 2000 should be approximately $300,000/year (based on
present worth).
At present there are no readily apparent alternatives for sludge reuse
which would increase benefits and reduce impacts. This situation may change
in the future, as research into sludge recycling is intensive and likely to
develop new technologies. Moreover, nutrient loads associated with sludge reuse
can be reduced by collecting and removing grass clippings after the park lands
are mowed. The Facility Plan notes that should sludge production exceed the
demand for parks fertilizer, alternatives exist to sell the fertilizer-dressing
as a soil conditioner, or to dispose of it by landfill. Direct sale prospects
are uncertain because of possible health or aesthetic risks, and the fact that
extensive safeguards would be needed to avoid possible liability problems.
Landfill is potentially acceptable at a properly located and operated site,
but eliminates practical reuse of the sludge material. The thermo-radiation-
animal feed alternative (3.5.3) may also be considered, if sufficient data
are available to demonstrate its safety and feasibility.
Other alternatives were not considered in detail because of the low
cost and high resource value of the present recycling programs. These options
could be considered if excess sludge is produced in the future and include:
use of sludge for fertilizer/soil conditioning at the U.S. Forest Service
tree farm (proposed) near Montessa Park; use for reclaiming damaged land, such
as sand and gravel quarries and sanitary landfills; and combining with
municipal refuse for composting purposes (e.g. see Wyatt and White, 1975).
Research which has been reported in recent years indicates that additional
possibilities may develop, including: by-product recovery (e.g. metals, vitamins
and protein); conversion to heavy oil or bitumen; filter charcoal or fuel
gas; production of construction brick.
Two alternatives do not seem appropriate at this time. One is sludge
incineration; this would recover the heat value of sludge, but at a locally
unacceptable cost in air pollutant emmissions. The second is use of sludge
for fertilizer on agricultural lands, such as the MRGCD. This option runs
the risk of introducing heavy metals into the food chain and there is sufficient
uncertainty about the safety of the practice to make it unacceptable as long
as the existing reuse is successful. It is possible that research in the
MRGCD could demonstrate the safety of agricultural sludge applications, since
for many circumstances no substantial dangers exist (Hinesley et. al., 1971).
3.5.3 Use of Thermoradiated Sludge for Animal Feed
Sivinsky (1975) described a process for sludge sterilization in which
raw or digested sludge is heated to 149°F and then subjected to 200 krads of
radiation for 5 minutes. The pathogen kill is very effective, and the
sludge has the potential for various uses, such as an animal feed supple-
-166-
-------
meat. The sludge would also be suitable for public sale as a sterilized
soil conditioner. Laboratory experiments on this process are being conducted
at the ERDA facilities of Sandia Laboratories in Albuquerque, and it has
been suggested that the process could be implemented on a pilot scale at
Plant IH. The concept is very attractive on a resource management basis,
since it provides positive uses for both sludge and nuclear wastes.
At present there are insufficient data to determine if: a) the process
can be conducted at a pilot scale with complete environmental protection;
and b) if the treated sludge can be used safely and economically as a feed
supplement. On-going studies at Sandia should answer the first question,
while the second is being addressed by feeding experiments undertaken at
New Mexico State University. These tests will determine if the sludge is
palatable to sheep, goats and other ruminants and if any toxic metal buildups
occur. The results of the studies are needed before a cost-effective
analysis of the alternative can be made. Because radioactive materials are
involved, it is anticipated that a separate environmental assessment or impact
statement would be prepared prior to construction of a pilot facility at any
municipal treatment plant.
3.5.4 Comparison of Sludge Handling Alternatives
The Facility Plan recommends that primary sludge be treated by anaerobic
digestion, that waste gas be fully utilized for power generation,
that waste activated sludge be thickened and treated by aerobic digestion,
and that digested sludge be mechanically dewatered and used as a fertilizer/
dressing for City parks. As has been seen, this recommendation provides
for almost complete use of sludge energy and nutrients, is operationally
feasible and should improve odor control.
Table 3-12 compares the recommended alternative with some of the other
options already discussed - such as acompletely anaerobic digestion system
and use of sand beds for drying - as well as the thermoradiation option. The
latter is shown to be much more expensive than conventional sludge treatment,
at least partly because no forecast of possible income from sludge reuse
can be made. Thus, marketability of the sludge by-product must be demonstrated
before the thermoradiation alternative could be seriously considered on a
large scale.
3.5.5 Other Solids
Disposal to a public landfill appears to be the only sanitary process for
handling grit material. This action does not foreclose future reuse, if and
when landfill mining becomes feasible.
The Facility Plan recommends that scum from primary clarifiers be
centrally collected rather than piped to digesters as at present. This alter-
native is highly desirable as a means of improving digester operation, and
thus has secondary odor control benefits. The Facility Plan also recommends
that the scum be recycled, if a market can be found. The recycling would
involve sale to a firm which would reclaim the grease in the scum for use as
a cattle feed supplement. The gross value of the scum material is expected
to be about $30,000, for present production and price levels.
-167-
-------
TABLE 3-12. SUMMARY EVALUATION OP ALTERNATIVES FOR SLUDGE HANDLING & DISPOSAL,WITH RELATIVE RANKING All options assume wastewater
treatment by expansion of activated sludge at Plant #2 WAS * waste activated sludge
Item
Legal/Regulatory
Requirements
Dollar Cost
Methane Usable
for Fliel?
Retention of
Nutrient Value
Market for Product
Bacterial & Viral
I Safety
Suitable for Use
on Food crops
Additional Land
Required *
Odor Potential
Anaerobic Digestion
Drying Beds - Use as
Fertilizer/Dressing
Meets Requirements
3 - S6.16S.200
Yes - 1
Fair - J
Poor - 3
(oor
No - 4
Yes - 2
Some if upset - 3
Anaerobic Digestion
Thermoradlatlon and
Drying Beds - Use
as Fertilizer
Meets Requirements
5 - $10,551,100
Yes - 1
Fair - 3
Uncertain - possibly
for all of sludge -1
Good - 1
Probably - 1
Yes - 2
Some if upset - 3
Anaerobic Digestion
Mechanical Dewaterlng
- Use as Fertilizer/
Dressing
Meets Requirements
2 - $5,956,200
Yes - 1
Fair - 3
^oor - 3
Poor
No - 4
No - 1
Some If upset - 2
Anaerobic Digestion
Mechanical Dewaterlng
Thermoradlatlon - Use
as Fertiliser/Dressing
Meets Requirements
6 - $10,326,700
Yes - 1
Fair - 3
Uncertaln-posslbly for
all of sludge - 1
Good - 1
Probably - 1
No - 1
Some if upset - 2
Thermoradlatlon of
Raw Sludge & Drying
on Beds - Use as
Animal Feed
Would probably
meet requirements
6 - $11,320,500
No
Excellent - 1
Uncertaln-posslbly
for some of sludge-2
Good - 1
Probably, though
odor would be a
problem - 2
Yes ~ 3
Very high - 5
Thermoradlatlon of
Raw Sludge & Mech.
Dewaterlng - Use as
Animal Feed
Would probably
meet requirements
7 - $12,820,900
No
Excellent - 1
Uncertaln-posslbly
for some of sludged
Good - 1
Probably,though
odor would be a
problem - 2
No - 1
High - 4
Other
Overall
Environmental
Ranking 3 5 2
(1 ¦ best)
Anaerobic Digestion of
Primary Sludge, Aerobic
Digestion of WAS - Use as
Fertilizer/Dressing after
Mechanical Dewaterlng
Meets Requirements
1 - $5,676,800
Yes - 2
Good - 2
Poor *" 3
Poor - 2
No - 3
No - 1
Lowest - 1
Llquld-fiolids separation
better than combined
sludge
1
-------
3. 6 DISINFECTION AND CHEMICAL ODOR CONTROL
Presently the City utilizes chlorination for odor control and disinfection
purposes. A number of environmental concerns result from this practice, as
discussed in Section 3.6.1. This is one reason for the investigation of
alternatives to chlorination (3.6.2), and for detailed evaluations of hydrogen
perioxide for odor control on sewer lines (3.6.3), and ozone for disinfection
at the treatment works (3.6.A). Actions appropriate to solution of
existing odor problems are summarized in Section 4.2.
3.6.1 Chlorination: Environmental Concerns
Chlorination is the only widely utilized process for wastewater disinfection.
It is used because of its reasonable cost and extensive environmental benefits.
These benefits include control of odors, and especially control of disease-
causing organisms such as bacteria. Without chlorination, or an equivalent
process, Albuquerque's effluent would not comply with applicable standards,
and the frequency of excess bacterial levels in the Rio Grande would increase.
Public health problems could also increase, since the river water is used for
recreation purposes throughout the Middle Basin.
In recent years, potentially adverse environmental effects of chlorination
have been identified which could offset the above benefits in some cases.
These negative effects include: secondary impacts on water quality; incomplete
disinfection; and safety hazards. Each effect is discussed below; for further
information refer to EPA (1976).
Secondary Impact on Water Quality. Chlorination of wastewater leaves a
chlorine residual which can have a toxic effect on aquatic life (Zillich, 1972).
Before construction of a chlorine contact tank at Plant //2, Albuquerque's
wastewater discharge frequently exceeded the desirable level for chlorine
residual (see Table 2-2). However, it is unlikely that any significant adverse
impact resulted because no productive aquatic ecosystem exists in the river
immediately below the plant outfall. A rapid decline of the residual would
be expected to occur downstream (Brungs, 1973), so that no impact would be
anticipated on the nearest significant aquatic ecosystem—the drain fisheries
below Isleta Dam. It is possible that waterfowl using the river channel
between the outfall and Isleta Dam might incur some adverse effects. However,
there is little information available in the technical literature which would
permit such an impact to be evaluated. With eventual operation of the contact
tank the chlorine residual should be reduced to a level which minimizes these
risks.
Recent reports indicate that chlorination may lead to formation of
carcinogenic (cancer-causing) compounds, especially if the water being chlorinated
contains certain types of industrial waste. The significance of this impact
has been widely discussed; see, for example Ingols (1975), Genetelli, et al.,
(1975), and Rehburger (1975). Many references conclude that the link between
chlorination and cancer seems to be largely circumstantial and not clearly
demonstrated.
No data on chlorinated compounds are known to be available for the
Albuquerque area. However, at least two lines of evidence indicate that waste-
water chlorination would not increase health risks in the Middle Rio Grande
Basin. First, the river water is not used as a source of domestic or municipal
supplies, except indirectly where river water serves as a source of recharge for
ground water reservoirs. Second, most of the reported problems have occurred
from chlorination of raw water supplies which contain industrial wastes,
-169-
-------
rather than from chlorination of wastewaters. Specifically, Morris (1975)
reports that the compounds formed from chlorination of sewage readily degrade
biochemically, and are unlikely to cause problems at downstream water treatment
plants.
Incomplete Disinfection. While chlorination is effective in killing
many bacteria, it is much less effective (at normal doses) against viruses,
cysts and other, more resistant pathogens (Cramer et al., 1976). The normal
test organism for disinfection—coliform bacteria—is not a good indicator of
viral contamination. It is difficult to evaluate whether or not the public
health is affected by viruses and other pathogens in Albuquerque's wastewater.
On the one hand, the work of Pavoni et al. (1972) suggests that complete virus
removal is needed to protect water quality. However, no virus standard for
water has been established. There is probably considerable removal of
viruses by activated sludge, since this process is normally effective in
controlling 65-90% of such pathogens (Pavoni et al., 1972). Certainly
no outbreats of viral-caused waterborne disease have been reported in the
Middle Rio Grande Basin.
Safety Hazards. Chlorine gas is highly toxic, and because it is stored
under pressure, the possibility exists that it may leak to the atmosphere and
cause chlorine poisoning. The most serious problems occur at the City's odor
control station on sewer lines. While no deaths or serious injuries have
occurred to date, leakage incidents have occurred and the potential for
causing extensive injury or fatalities exists (MMC, 1977, p. 180). City
employees who service the stations are especially vulnerable should small
leaks occur. Even with improved chlorination facilities at the odor control
stations, the same hazard would remain since most stations are in residential
neighborhoods and are vulnerable to vandalism or to traffic accidents.
Summary. The most serious environmental concern about chlorination,
for the specific case of Albuquerque, Is the safety hazard at odor control
stations. This problem is substantial, and mandates that some alternative
approach to odor control be considered and, if practicable, adopted. In
contrast, the us° of chlorination for wastewater disinfection cannot be demonstrated
to result in significant problems at this time. Thus, chlorination as now
practiced at the treatment plant is an acceptable means for protecting public
health,and need not be abandoned unless a more cost-effective alternative
is available.
3.6.2 Alternatives to Chlorination
Table 3-13 provides summary information regarding the effectiveness, cost,
and secondary impact of potential alternatives for disinfection and odor control.
The table shows that chlorine is generally no more expensive, and often
much less expensive than the other options. Sodium hypochlorite, a liquid, can
be used for chlorination in the place of chlorine gas, eliminating some safety
hazards, but providing no other special benefits. This alternative was rejected
during the screening phase of the Facility Plan because of high costs. The
table lists two alternatives for dechlorination, which serves to eliminate
chlorine residual problems. These alternatives were screened but rejected
because no chlorine toxicity to aquatic life is evident in the Rio Grande.
-170-
-------
TABIC 3-13 COMPARISON" OF QXS1NFLCT101J AND1 ODOR CONTROL Al TKRNAT IVES Baj,cd nn
CPA (1576) a-nd R^bosfcy (1972). Worrls (1975), Ward
-------
Ozone is an extremely powerful agent for disinfection, is effective
against viruses, and lacks the secondary adverse impacts of chlorination.
For this reason the ozone alternative was evaluated in detail in the Facility
Plan (see 3.6.4). Bromine chloride is one of many chemicals available
for disinfection; others include bromine, chlorine dioxide, lime, silver and
iodine. All were screened out because of high costs and/or.lack of experience
in large-scale operations. Ultraviolet radiation was rejected during the
screening phase because of the potential for interference if the wastewater
is turbid. This would result in the need for expensive filtration equipment,
and much higher dollar costs than indicated in the table. Finally, hydrogen
peroxide is an attractive alternative for the purpose of odor control only;
no disinfection is obtained. Its use at odor control stations was evaluated
in detail in the Facility Plan, as discussed in the next section. The alternative
of using chlorination for disinfection only on a seasonal basis (see Genetelli,
et al. , 1975) is not available given existing water quality regulations, and was
not considered.
3.6.3 Hydrogen Peroxide for Odor Control Stations
Three alternatives for the odor control stations on the City sewer lines
are considered in the Facility Plan. One involved continued use of existing
equipment, and was rejected because it did not adequately address the safety
hazards discussed above. The two remaining choices are: chlorination using
safer vacuum-feed equipment, and use of hydrogen peroxide.
Chlorination with vacuum-feed equipment would reduce but not eliminate the
safety hazards at odor control stations. Its other advantages are lower dollar
cost compared to hydrogen peroxide, and the fact that City personnel are
familiar with chlorine use. Use of hydrogen peroxide has many advantages (see,
for example, Shepard and Hobbs, 1973; Cole et al., 1976). It is very
effective in oxidizing hydrogen sulfide, the major source of sewage-related
odors and corrosion. Its use eliminates the possibility of toxic chlorine
residuals or chlorination compounds. Rather, the only by-products are water
and dissolved oxygen; the latter may reduce BOD levels in sewage, and thus
reduce organic loading at the treatment plant.
The most important benefit of hydrogen peroxide is safety. Should the
liquid escape it is readily flushed by fresh water. Operators or citizens
coming in contact with a spill could suffer skin and eye irritation, but would
experience no serious injury. In short, use of hydrogen peroxide would
eliminate serious safety hazards at odor control stations. The only drawback
is the slight additional cost of switching from the existing system. This cost
is less than 5C per resident of the area per year, an amount not considered
significant when compared to safety benefits. Moreover, as noted in the
Facility Plan, chlorine prices have risen in recent years while hydrogen
peroxide prices have been stable. If this pattern continues, the hydrogen
peroxide option might actually become less expensive.
Based primarily on safety reasons, use of hydrogen peroxide is the
preferred alternative for odor control on the Albuquerque sewerage system. The
Facility Plan recommends immediate conversion of one chlorine station to hydro-
gen peroxide, in order to obtain experience in use of the new chemical
and to confirm the benefits described above. If the test is successful,
-172-
-------
the remaining active stations would all be converted at the same time,
in order to achieve the efficiency of using a single technique throughout
the system. This program appears to have substantial environmental benefits
and no significant drawbacks.
According to the Facility Plan a number of renovations are needed to
several odor control stations, regardless of whether or not hydrogen peroxide
replaces chlorine for odor control purposes* These actions include replacement
of skylights and other relatively minor matters, and are all necessary to
improve the function of the stations. No adverse environmental effects are
anticipated.
3.6.4 Ozone for Effluent Disinfection
The benefits of switching to ozone for disinfection are described in
many references, including Nebel et. at., (1973); Gould and Weber (1976);
and Netzer and Miyamoto (1976). The most significant environmental benefits
include the lack of secondary water quality problems and the effectiveness of
ozone against viruses, cysts and other pathogens which resist chlorine. Ozone
also improves effluent quality by reducing color, odor and taste problems,
reducing organic load, and increasing dissolved oxygen. Countering these
benefits are several disadvantages, including high dollar costs. One source
of the costs is the high energy demand for on-site generation of ozone. For
example, in the year 2000 the City would use 7 million kilowatt hours to
generate ozone for disinfection at Plant 02t whereas the commercial production
of chlorine for disinfection would require use of about 3.5 million kilowatt
hours, including transportation. A major concern regarding ozone use is uncertain
reliability for large-scale facilities; there appear to be no existing waste-
water ozonation systems successfully operating at a scale which would assure
success in Albuquerque. The operational problems relate to the equipment used,
to the need for highly skilled personnel, and the fact that filtration of
effluent may be needed to meet bacteria standards. A special problem, noted
by Hamelin and Chung (1975), is that ozone may have mutagenic effects.
On balance, the disadvantages of ozone use outweigh benefits at this time,
at least partly because there are no demonstrable problems which now occur as the
result of chlorine use. In other words, the increased cost of ozone, and the
increased energy use, would not result in any readily identifiable improvement in
environmental quality. There are indications that this situation may change in
the future, as the technology for ozone use becomes more widely established,
and costs come down. This is the basis for the Facility Plan recommendation
that ozone be reevaluated before any major investment in new chlorination
facilities is made.
The only such investment under consideration is construction of a rail
spur for delivery of bulk chlorine to Plant #2. This option is recommended
in the Facility Plan because of slight economic benefits. Environmental benefits
of rail delivery include: greater safety; less air pollutant emissions
during chlorine transport; and less energy use during transport. All these
benefits are based on the general advantages of rail freight for transport
of bulk cargos. Other bulk products„ including hydrogen peroxide, could also
be handled by the rail facility. Adverse impacts associated with the rail
line include: land requirement for an approximately 2000 foot long right-of-way;
dust, noise and other effects of line construction; the need for a crossing over
the Barr canal; and noise, diesel emissions and other effects of train operation.
-173-
-------
The small land requirement may not be a significant factor, if the land
acquired as a contingency for advanced treatment facilities is utilized.
Construction impacts can be minimized (see Section 5.1), and would be expected
to be small because of the low population of the area being affected. Train
operation impacts would be minimized by the infrequent use of the spur,
and by the fact that the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe mainline already
exists within one-half mile of the treatment plant. The adverse effects
appear to be acceptable, especially given safety benefits. However, the
tradeoffs are not conclusive, and would appropriately be reviewed at the
time when ozone and chlorination are again compared.
3.7 WASTEWATER REUSE ALTERNATIVES
The subject of effluent reuse for irrigation was discussed in 3.4.1.
Such use occurs even though there is no formal program for land application of
Albuquerque effluent. Similarly, by contributing to the flows of the Rio
Grande, the effluent is also reused downstream for recreation purposes and
for support of aquatic habitats and wildlife refuges. Reuse of wastewater
can also be considered for aquaculture, silviculture, cooling water,
recreation, open space and other purposes.
3.7.1 Aquaculture
Aquaculture is water-based agriculture, and provides a means of using
wastewater nutrients to help grow a supply of protein food. Historically,
aquaculture has often involved fairly primitive techniques for algal growth,
usually at a small scale, but active research on the subject is underway
and predictions have been made that a substantial development of aquaculture
will occur by the end of the century, as biological engineering skills improve
(Bardach, 1968).
Walrath and Natter (1976) provide an extensive discussion of aquaculture
as an alternative for nutrient removal in wastewater treatment. The major
benefit is potential recovery of foodstuffs, fuels and fertilizers. In addition,
only a small part of the water resource is consumed, so that the treated
effluent is available for further use or discharge. Thus, for Albuquerque
aquaculture has the advantage that water rights losses would be small, and the
amount of water available in the Rio Grande would not be significantly
reduced.
Aquaculture also has numerous disadvantages, including high space
requirements (10 or more acres per mgd treated), seasonal variations in
production (organisms may be killed during winter), and the .unknown
significance of heavy metals and pathogens which may contaminate the final
product. Another disadvantage is that for nitrogen:phosphorus ratios like
those in Albuquerque's wastewater, there would be little phosphorus
removal expected. Thus aquaculture could only be used for nitrogen removal
purposes. Moreover, ammonia-N removal would be dominant; organic-N could
remain in the water. Harvesting of algae may require extensive facilities
and use of energy. This problem can be partially overcome if filter-feeding
shellfish aife used to harvest part of the algae crop. Odor problems
may occur at some aquacultural sites.
-174-
-------
Because of the many disadvantages, especially the land requirements
and difficulty of harvest, aquaculture tends to be an expensive process.
It has proven most successful where a market exists for the more valuable
products of the process. Discussions with scientists at Los Alamos Scientific
Laboratory during this planning effort indicated that the costs of constructing
a large-scale aquaculture facility would be broadly comparable to building a
Southeast Mesa treatment plant and land application syfetem. No certain large-
scale markets for the resulting products could be identified. On this basis,
the option was eliminated during the screening phase.
As research into aquaculture proceeds elsewhere it is possible that
this option may become more attractive for large cities such as Albuquerque.
Nothing in the existing system or proposed improvements would preclude adding
on an aquaculture system in the future, should market benefits outweigh costs,
or should nitrogen-removal someday become a treatment requirement. An interest-
ing variation on the aquaculture alternative was discussed by Vaseen (1976) who
indicated that the microbial mass produced during the activated sludge process
might be harvested as a food source. Presumably, such a harvest could be
achieved at Albuquerque if and when the technology becomes available. Similar
conclusions would apply to such aquaculture variations as the use of water
hyacinths.
3.7.2 Silviculture
Silviculture, or tree-growing, can be practiced using wastewater. The
process is similar to land application of effluent in an irrigation system,
except that nitrogen-removal is relatively small at a tree farm. The U. S.
Forest Service is developing a tree nursery in the Tijeras Arroyo area,
several miles east of Plant #2. The prospect of recycling Albuquerque
effluent at the nursery was discussed with the Division of Timber Management
as part of this environmental evaluation. Obstacles to such a project
include: the small amount of effluent needed at the Tijeras Arroyo site (0.4
mgd); the long transport distance and pumping lift involved from Plant if2
to the site; and the availability of a low-cost supply of fresh water at
the site. Development of the project would require extensive trial runs
and pilot projects to demonstrate that no problems with toxic metals exist.
Because of these obstacles, the silviculture alternative was rejected during
the screening phase of the Facility Plan.
3.7.3 Cooling Water
Use of wastewater for cooling of boilers is the most common form of
industrial reuse, because water quality requirements for boiler-water are
less strict than for many other uses. Only one large-scale user of boiler
water could be identified in Albuquerque: Public Service Company of New
Mexico (PNM). PITM operates two gas-fired power plants, one of which occurs
less than two miles from Plant if2. As part of the environmental evaluation,
the prospect of selling City wastewater for cooling purposes was discussed
with PNM officials. Based on an evaluation of wastewater quality and a
preliminary consideration of economics, these discussions indicated that
there is no serious obstacle to such a sale. Thus the Facility Plan
recommends that such a sale be negotiated, provided that a net revenue
to the City can be obtained. The revenue will help offset treatment costs.
-175-
-------
The total amount of wastewater needed by PNM is approximately 1 mgd.
A portion of this would be consumed by evaporation at the power plant site;
the remainder would be discharged to the Rio Grande as boiler wastewater,
and would be subject to control by an NPDES permit. By using the effluent
supply, PNM would no longer have to pump wells at the power plant, thus
reducing the demand for ground water in the Albuquerque area. The effect
of this reuse on water rights will be a matter to be negotiated between
the City and PNM.
Another potential customer for cooling water would be any large-scale
solar power plant developed as part of ongoing solar energy research projects
at Sandia Lab. Discussions with Energy Research and Development Agency officials
indicated that no such reuse would be possible with existing pilot power
plants, but that reuse for larger facilities could be considered if and when
such facilities are built.
3.7.4 Recreation and Open Space
As noted above, the present practice of discharging wastewater to the
Rio Grande provides for downstream recreational reuse of the wastewater.
More direct reuse of the effluent could be accomplished through at least
three means. First, lakes could be built in major arroyos throughout the
City, and supplied by effluent. Gill (1969) discusses the possibility of
using San Juan-Chama Project water for such lakes, including a 270-acre water
body which could be built in Tijeras Arroyo near Interstate-25, about two miles
from Plant #2. The arroyo lakes were rejected as a possible use of Project
water because of siltation problems and high costs. The same obstacles
would preclude development of such lakes using wastewater.
A second use of effluent for recreation could involve impoundments in
the Rio Grande, as suggested by the City Edges Study (see 2.7.2). The
effluent could be piped to a point north of the City and used to fill the
river channel as it flows through the City. This would have some advantages
over direct use of San Juan-Chama Project water for the river impoundments, since
no water loss would occur between Albuquerque and northern New Mexico where
the Project water is obtained. Disadvantages could occur if the wastewater
were not completly suited for contact recreation. This alternative has not
been explored in detail; it would be appropriately considered if and when
the recommendations of the City Edges study are implemented regarding lakes
in the Rio Grande.
A third use of effluent has been suggested by the Corps of Engineers and
would involve a wastewater supply to man-made marsh communities created as an
off-shoot of borrow excavation and levee construction activities. This use
can be explored further as more details on the Corps proposal becomes available.
Advantages of this option include the high value of wastewater nutrients and
organics to the marshlands, the extensive treatment of wastewater which would
result, and the prospect that the wastewater could be taken directly from the
nearest sewer line and, after preliminary treatment and disinfection could be
used directly without further transport or treatment.
The potential for using wastewater to protect open space (irrigated
agriculture) was discussed in 3.4.1. Such a reuse would be difficult to
accomplish because of the shallow water table beneath the agricultural areas.
However, to the extent that the existing use of effluent-river water mixes
occur in the MRGCD, then the present practice of wastewater treatment and
discharge can be considered to contribute to maintenance of open space in
the Middle Rio Grande> Valley.
-176-
-------
3.7.5 Other Purposes
There are many other possibilities for wastewater reuse (see, for example,
Linstedt et. al., 1975). These could include industrial process water,
irrigation of parks, golf courses, cemeteries and highway medians, sprinkling
for dust control, and water for fire fighting. In all cases in Albuquerque
an existing low-cost supply of fresh water is available for these purposes.
To replace the existing supply with wastewater would required special
transportation facilities (e.g. a pipeline), and expensive, energy-consuming
pumping. Such a replacement is cost-effective only where the demand for
water is large and concentrated in a few locations. However, in Albuquerque
the demand for such water tends to be scattered widely, and to be small at
any one location. Thus reuse of wastewater for the stated purposes was
rejected during the screening phase of the Facility Plan. Only the reuse for
cooling water at the PNM power plant described above is large enough to be
cost-effective.
Recycling of wastewater for drinking water purposes is contrary to State
policy, and was not evaluated. Recycling to provide recharge of ground
water reservoirs was discussed in association with land application projects
(3.4.1).
3.8 ALTERNATIVE ORDINANCE AND MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Centralization of Management. The alternative of combining water supply
and wastewater management in Albuquerque was suggested for consideration at the
onset of the 201 planning process. The City implemented this reorganization
in 1976. hence the alternative was not included in the Facility Plan. CDM (1977a)
has recommended further reorganizations take place. These recommendations occurred
subsequent to completion of the Facility Plan and are not analyzed in detail here.
However, insofar as the reorganization will benefit operation and maintenance of
City facilities they would be essential to achievement of environmental goals.
Liquid Waste Ordinance. Enforcement of the liquid waste ordinance is
expected to have benefits such as the reduction of metals in influent,
effluent and sludge. The Facility Plan considered for evaluation the alter-
native of progressive enforcement of the ordinance, concentrating on those
industries which contribute the greatest mass of metals to the sewerage system.
Such enforcement would delay action against small industries which may
occasionally violate concentration standards set in the ordinance, but which
do not actually contribute a significant mass of metals to the system.
Presumably, under the progressive enforcement approach variances might be
granted where the benefits of metals control are minimal. Minimal benefits would
occur when the potential reduction in metals discharge would not result in a signif-
icant (or measurable) change in the amount of the metal in effluent or sludge. For
example, if a "significant" source were defined as contributing 0.01% of the total
mass of a metal, then a source discharging a few thousand gallons per day could
slightly exceed ordinance standards without being a significant source. A priority
under progressive enforcement would be to act against sources which are responsible
for large "dumps" of heavy metals, and which thus might appear to meet ordinance
standards during routine sampling runs.
-177-
-------
The alternative of progressive enforcement has the benefit that it will
focus attention on sources which contribute enough of a metals load to make
pretreatment and/or recycling a viable action. Conversely, there will be less
focus on industries which may be too small to implement a control or recycling
program, and which might be forced to close rather than conform to the
ordinance. The progressive enforcement alternative appears to have no
significant environmental drawbacks, and would not by itself be expected to
lead to unacceptable metals levels in City wastewater discharges or sludges.
However, because the ordinance reflects a specific mandate—the Stipulation—
it is not certain if variations in enfocement can be implemented legally.
It can be expected that the ordinance will be revised to accommodate the
unified national strategy for industrial pretreatment now being developed
by EPA.
Industrial Waste Disposal Site. Enforcement of the liquid waste ordinance
is expected to lead to construction of wastewater treatment systems at several
industrial sites. These systems will themselves produce concentrated waste
products which will require a disposal mechanism. In the event private
industry is not able to provide for the convenient disposal of the concentrated
wastes, the alternative exists that the City could, by itself or in cooperation
with a regional/State agency, construct an industrial waste disposal site, and
operate it on a fee basis. According to the Facility Plan, an appropriate
site would be in the Montessa Park area, near the Police Academy. No adverse
impacts can be identified which would occur if such a site were developed;
indeed, such a means for disposal of concentrated and potential toxic wastes
is essential if the benefits of the liquid waste ordinance are to be obtained.
Non-Industrial Metals. Section 2.1.3 indicates that a substantial portion
of the metals in Albuquerque sewage appears to originate from commercial and
domestic discharges. The same pattern has been observed in other cities (see
Davis and Jacknow, 1975, for example). The only effective alternative which
can be identified to control such discharges is an education program to
advise the public of the problems associates with pouring potentially toxic
and harmful substances into a sink or toilet. The City Environmental Health
Department has begun such a program (Bickel and Servis, 1975).
Service to Unincorporated Areas. Only one mechanism exists by which the
City can provide wastewater services in areas outside the City Limits, that is
through a Joint Powers agreement with the County or Village government which
has jurisdiction over the area receiving service. Because the City obtains no
tax revenues from such areas, sewer rate charges are normally higher than
within the City. However, the net tax and utility charge burden on City and
non-City residents is the same, so that no special economic costs occur
to different portions of the public.
Flow Reduction. The City of Albuquerque is committed to water conserva-
tion programs, although detailed consideration of conservation measures is
just now underway. It can be expected that the conservation programs will
initially focus on outdoor water use. This is because it is summer-season use
of water for lawn sprinkling, swimming pools, air conditioning, and other pur-
poses which accounts for peak water supply demands, and thus determines the cost
of water supply facilities (see Figure 2-14). Reductions in outdoor water use
would be expected to have no effect on wastewater flows, but would reduce the
pumping rate of City wells, and thus reduce the demand for water rights.
-178-
-------
Conservation measures can also be expected to involve indoor water use,
especially for new construction. Measures which may be taken to reduce waste-
water flows include: use of pressure-reducing valves or faucet heads in
bathroom and kitchen fixtures; use of shallow-trap toilets; use of systems
which recycle "grey-water" from bathing and washing; and restrictions on garbage
disposals. The effectiveness of most of these measures depends on the habits
of the individual — a flow-restricting faucet left on produces more wastewater
than a normal faucet which is properly used. Data provided by Cohen and Wall-
man (1974) indicate that potential flow reductions from the listed measures
could amount to 30% or more; most of the savings would be associated with use
of a grey-water recycling system. The actual effect of such a savings would
depend on the degree to which the measures were adopted city-wide. It should
be noted that the projected per capita wastewater flow of 110 gallons/day,
which was used in the Facility Plan, was based on an assumption of 5-10% effect-
iveness of water conservation measures city-wide. It would seem that flow
reduction much beyond 100 gallons/capita/day would require that the water
conservation measures noted above be used by a sizeable majority of all residents,
in both new and old construction; the mechanism for achieving such conservation
has not been identified.
Energy Conservation. Alternatives for modest energy conservation exist
as Plant //2 is expanded. Projected electricity demand for the plant is about 32
million kilowatt hours in the year 1985, and nearly 43 million kilowatt hours
in the year 2000. Approximately 10-20% of this demand can be met by on-site
generation using recycled sludge gas. The remainder will be purchased from
outside. Substantial reduction in demand is probably not practical because
the major consumption is for aeration and pumping, operations which cannot be
cut back without adversely affecting plant operation. However, small amounts of
energy savings are possible through measures such as changes in ventilation
standards and reduced plant lighting (Voegtle, 1975). Reduction in lighting at
Plant If2 would also have an aesthetic benefit for the surrounding neighborhood.
More significant steps could include use of Albuquerque's ample solar energy
for heating and power purposes. Wilke (1976) discusses the use of solar energy
to heat sludge digesters; similar measures could be explored during the next
phase of digester design and construction. The proposed administration/labora-
tory building could be heated and cooled by solar energy. Solar-powered pumps
of the type recently installed on Isleta Indian Reservation could also be consi-
dered. It is anticipated that the new City energy conservation program will
address these measures and implement those which are cost-effective.
Noise Control. Noise control alternatives at Plant //2 are discussed in
CDM (1977) and were not considered in the Facility Plan. The technically most
effective measures are considered to be acoustical treatment and direct muffling
in problem areas. The potential also exists to elevate, extend and/or landscape
the noise barrier which has been built at Plant if2. Landscaping of the barrier,
and of boundary fences, would have aesthetic benefits as well. EPA (1976a) pro-
vides further information on the technology of noise control at treatment plants.
User Charge. EPA will require that the City adopt a system for distributing
the costs of the wastewater system among the users of the system in a fair and
equitable way. The Facility Plan discusses alternative formulae for calculating
the charge. All are designed to ensure that the system pays for itself by rate-
derived income, and that sources of wastewater which are more costly to treat
than normal pay an appropriate surcharge.
—179—
-------
4. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIONS
0( the alternatives described in Section 3, those which present the most
cost-effective solutions for wastewater management in Albuquerque have been
recommended for implementation. These proposed actions are described in the
Facility Plan and summarized briefly here.
4.0 SEWERAGE SYSTEM
The major action proposed for collection of sewage is construction of
interceptor and collector sewers to serve developed and developing urban areas.
The cost of the proposed sewerage system exceeds $25,000,000; 40% of this
expenditure is projected to occur by 1981. Other proposed actions include
conversion to hydrogen peroxide for odor control, renovations of lift stations,
and improved regulation of on-site systems in rural areas.
Figure 4-1 indicates the approximate location of all interceptor and
collector lines which are proposed to be constructed in the next 20 years.
Table 4-1 describes the recommended sewerage action for each part of the
planning area and includes cost estimates. As shown in the figure and table,
sewerage facilities will be provided to the already developed areas outside
the City limits, including: the Arenal District of the South Valley; the
southern and eastern portions of the North Valley; and neighborhoods near
Plant #2. Sewerage will also be provided to developing urban areas on the
West Mesa and in the Northeast Heights. Contingency plans for providing
sewer lines have been prepared for the Corrales and East Mountain areas, in
the event that development occurs at levels beyond those now projected. All
sewer installations will utilize permanent pipe materials. Specifically,
vitrified clay pipe is to be used for lines up to 15 inches in diameter, and
treated, reinforced concrete pipe is to be used for larger lines.
Table 4-2 provides a cost estimate for the recommendation that the
City's odor control stations be converted to utilize hydrogen peroxide. The
table also indicates the cost of other renovations proposed for the stations,
including measures to be taken if the initial pilot use of hydrogen peroxide
does not prove satisfactory and chlorination facilities are retained.
Renovations and improvements are also proposed for most of the lift stations.
These improvements, which include a monitoring/alarm system and standby
power, are listed in Table 4-3 and have a high priority for safety reasons.
Two new lift stations are proposed in Mountainview and in the Candelaria
Industrial Park area.
The use of on-site systems in remaining rural areas is associated with
some environmental problems. To reduce these problems it is proposed that
appropriate government agencies, such as the City and County, adopt stricter
regulations to govern new on-site units. Such regulations would require
use of advanced systems for lots where conventional septic tanks are
unacceptable, and would establish criteria for the proper design, installation,
operation, maintenance and replacement of the systems.
-180-
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
Year
Needt
1980
1990
1980
1985
1990
1995
1980
1985-
2001
2000
1980
1990
1980
1978
1978
19 78-
TABLE 6-1 PROPOSED SEWERAGE ACTIONS. The followina course* of
action were recommended by the engineering consultants Where
no sewers are proposed, wastewater management would continue
to rely on on-site systems CP ¦ Comprehensive Plan Cost Is
estimated on a present worth basis.
Recommendation
Continue use of on-site systems, but adopt
upgraded regulations for installation
of same
Adopt contingency plan for 1) gravity
collection of existing flood plain devel-
opment and 2) treatment at an Albuquerque
plant
Cost
Comments
Conforms with Corrales Master
Plan and public hearing input
Provides course of action in case $5,383,400
of unexpected growth, would pro-
tect ground water from increased
potential of pollution
Provide interceptors as needed for growth,
size for possible Corrales flows
Conforms with CP, could relieve 3,946,000
North Valley development pressures.
Phase I Extend North Valley incerceptor
Co Alvarado School
Phase II Extend North Valley interceptor
to Chavez Ave Extend 2nd & 4th St. inter-
ceptors to Ranchicos Rd Provide collect-
Ion lines in these areas
Phase III Extend North Valley interceptor
along Guadalupe Trail to Ranchitos Rd
Extend 2nd & 4th St interceptors to
Corrales Rd Provide collectors for
adjacent existing developmant 10+ years
Phase IV Provide interceptor and collection
lines to north Edich Blvd area as needed
10+ years
Eliminates two life stations 1,106,400
Provides sewers to established 2,549,400
semi-urban area
Provides sewers to established 2,930,900
semi-urban areas, but allows CP
time to develop controls to
growth in adjacent rural areas
Anticipates in-filling of this area 1.019,600
as indicated in CP
Provide for gravity collection in Bear
Canyon Ln-Arroyo Seco Dr. area.
Would serve existing clustered
development.
362,500
Provide gravity collectors to Data Analysis
Subzone 7121.
Anticipates urban growth
according to population
forecasts.
213,700
No service before year 2000, unless inter-
vening area infills
Avoids influencing development out
or sequence with CP
Provide service to area (with lift station
and force main)
Would serve existing development,
low priority because of high
cost per connection
2,225,000
Provide gravit> service to "South Valley
Phase If Prioritv 2 area (Arena! locale^
and developed areas along Gun Club Road.
Provide interceptors west of Coors Road as
needed for growth.
Provide service to Mountalnvlew area (with
lift station and force main).
Would serve existing semi-urban 3,753,500
development
Anticipates development inalcated 2,436,000
by CP
Would serve existing semi-urban 648,800
development
No service before year 2000
Severs premature in light of
physical separation and low
densities
Extend interceptor up Tijeras Canyon to re-
lieve overloading(with East Mt capacity)
Would eliminate lift station and
serve existing development
942,500
Extend to Academy Road
Would relieve existing overloading 1,203,400
of lines
Provide replacement line for overloaded
interceptors - lines ll 25 , 103,
104, 105, 112, 113, 119, 132, 142, 142A
Lines 25, 104, 113, 119, 142A 1,227,400
to be replaced by 1980 Others
at later dates •
-183-
-------
TABLE 4-2. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR ODOR CONTROL STATIONS
Action
Cost
1. Convert stations to hydrogen peroxide
2. Renovate stations as follows:
Station No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Presently
in use?
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yea
Yes
No
Yes
Yes il
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Recommended Renovations
Correct safety problems
New chlorinator if activated
New chlorinator if activated
New chlorinator if activated
Safety problems would have to be
corrected and chlorinator rebuilt
if activated
New chlorinator if activated
New chlorinator if activated
Chlorinator should be replaced
New chlorinator if activated
New chlorinator if activated
Replace blower and corroded pipes
New chlorinator if activated
Add additional chlorinator for
increased capacity
New chlorinator if activated
Replace vent pipe
Prepare for use, replace chlorinator,
water line and blower
Renovate existing chlorinator
to provide increased capacity,
convert to ton cylinders
Correct safety problems if activated
($9,000)
Skylight and vent repair
Skylight replacement
Chlorinator repair if activated
Chlorinator repair and booster pump
replacement if activated
Provide chlorinator if activated
Skylight replacement
Repair roof
Chlorinator would have to be repaired,
hoist replaced & safety problems
corrected if activated
Repair blower
$ 209,000
Estimated
Cost
$ 800
1,700*
300
2,800*
500
3,10C*
6,500*
200
100
100
400
300
$16,800*
il Until recent leakage incident
* Required only if chlorination is continued rather than conversion of
stations for use of hydrogen peroxide as recommended. Otherwise
total estimated cost = $2,700.
-184-
-------
No
3
5
6
11
12
15
16
17
20
24
25
TABLE 4-3. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR LIFT STATION RENOVATION
Sea. Estimated Costs
Proposed Renovations Immediate 1985 1990
Replace wet well ladder and dry well door $ 800 $ $
Provide additional pump 7,000
Provide shaft guards and change access
doors 1,500
Replace wet well lighting, patch leaks
in wall 500
Refit wet well, replace ventilation blowers 1,600
Rebuild with submersible pumps 7,500
Provide wet well ladder 400
Provide access ladder extension 200
Increase capacity 190,000 200,000
Provide ladder, safety rail, belt hook;
replace pumps 41,000
Provide ladder, safety rail, belt hook.;
replace pumps 4l.ono
Sub-total $284,5 00 7,000 $200,000
Provide alarm system 57,000
Provioe standby power 80,000
Total $421,500 $7,000 $200,000
Note-
The cost of new lift stations in Mountainview and the Candelaria
Industrial Park are included in Table 4-1.
-185-
-------
4.1 TREATMENT SYSTEM
It is proposed to expand the activated sludge process at Plant it2 and
to abandon Plant it1, at a total construction cost of approximately $18,000,000.
The expansion will involve three steps, designated Phase IA, Phase II and Phase
III (Figure 4-2).
Phase IA is the already approved expansion of the plant to a capacity of
47 mgd, and should be completed by 1980. The expansion primarily involves
construction of aeration basins and clarifiers, and completion of a new outfall
line. The Facility Plan proposes that emergency construction measures for odor
control be integrated into Phase IA, including facilities for sludge thickening,
mechanical screening of raw sewage and additional sludge drying bed capacity.
Phase II would expand Plant capacity to 59.3 mgd by 1983. This is the
major construction project proposed by the Facility Plan. In addition to the
simple expansion of treatment and sludge handling facilities, Phase II would
include: construction of mechanical dewatering facilities to replace sludge
drying beds (with resultant reduction in odor problems); completion of pre-
liminary treatment facilities for raw sewage which flows to Plant it2B; con-
struction of an administration/laboratory building; provision of facilities
for scum handling; overhaul and expansion of the gas recycling system; over-
haul of trickling filter units at Plant itl\ and construction of a rail siding
for bulk delivery of chlorine. If recommended studies so indicate, aerobic
digesters would be constructed to process waste activated sludge. Plant #1
would be abandoned upon completion of the Phase II improvements at Plant it2.
Phase II probably will be implemented over a period of several years,
in order to most efficiently utilize limited financial resources. Initial
emphasis will be on improvements which achieve odor control, such as mechanical
dewatering. The general plant expansion, and razing of Plant it 1 would follow.
Phase III will expand treatment capacity at Plant it2 to 76.6 mgd. It is
programmed to be completed around 1990, but this schedule could be modified
if wastewater volume increases at a faster or slower rate than now projected.
Phase III will involve the expansion of all major aspects of the treatment
system, including pretreatment, aeration, clarifier and sludge-handling units.
Table 4-4 lists the specific facilities to be built or modified during
Phase II and Phase III, and provides cost data. Not included in the table
are the basic Phase IA improvements which, as explained in 2.1.2, preceed
the implementation of the Facility Plan. The emergency additions to Phase IA,
as proposed by the Facility Plan for odor control, are estimated to cost
in excess of $1,000,000 (MMC, 1977, Appendix G).
Table 4-5 provides a description of the proposed treatment system from
the point of view of capacity, loading rates, physical dimensions of units,
and treatment efficiencies. Figure 4-3 is an engineering schematic digram
which illustrates the detailed passage of wastewater and solids through the
treatment works. A simplified version of the flow diagram follows, on 013c
191.
-186-
-------
-187-
-------
TABLE 4-4. ESTIMATED TOTAL DOLLAR COST OF PROPOSED TREATMENT ACTIONS (MMC, 1977).
Item
Phase II (1983)
Phase III (1990)
Design Capacity
59.3 MGD
76.6 MGD
Entrance Works
$ 608,000
$
405,000
Primary Clarifiers
887,000
355,000
Raw Wasce Lift Station
700,000
200,000
Aeration System
1,180,000
541,000
Aeration Basins
510,000
935,000
RAS Pump Station
370,000
55,000
Final Clarifiers
-0-
541,000
Flotation Thickners or Centrifuges 223,000
-0-
Yard Work
5 78,000
580,000
Administration & Lab Facilities
590,000
-0-
Scum Collection & Blending
41,500
-0-
Anaerobic Digesters
659,100
-0-
Aerobic Digesters
890,000
350,000
Mechanical Sludge Dewatering
1,183,000
422,500
Gas Storage Spheres
538,200
269,000
Engine - Generators
180,400
-0-
Pump Station & Pipeline to
Public Service Co.
400,000
-0-
Rebuild Trickling Filter Plant
Bar Screens
40,000
-0-
Renovate Trickling Filter
Plant Grit Collection
75,000
-0-
Replace Trickling Filter Plant
Primary Clarifier Weirs
15,000
-0-
Overhaul Trickling Filter
Plant Primary Lift Station
60,000
-0-
Overhaul Existing Generators
50,000
-0-
Clean Digesters
160,000
-0-
Raze Plant 1 (Net after Salvage)
251,000
-0-
Chlorine Rail Car Siding
210,000
-0-
Subtotal
$ 10,399,200
$
4,653,500
Engineering, Contingencies,
etc. @ 16%
1,663,900
744,600
Sub to tal
S 12.063,100
$
5,398,100
Interest During Construction
6 1/82 of 502 of All Costs
369,400
165,300
Total
$ 12,432,500
$
5,563,400
Total Annual O&M (Net After
Power Generation)
5 1,049,500
$
1,159,2UU
-188-
-------
TABLE 4-5. DESCRIPTION OF UNIT OPERATIONS AND" PROCESSES - PROPOSED TREATMENT SYSTEM
Process
or Operation
A. Trickling Filtei Plant
Flow Rate
Phase II Phase III
1983 Expansion 1990 Expansion
Loading Rate
fhase II Phase III
Total
No. of Unite at Completion of
Phase IA Phase II Phase III
1978 1983 1990
Physical Dimensions
If Applicable
(each unit)
Removal Eff.
Z
BOD 5 SS
Parshall Flume
11-35
HGD
14-35
MGD
1
1
1
36"
throat
NR*
NR
Mechanical Bar Screen
22
HGD
22
HGD
1.1 fps
1.1 fps
2
2
2
6'
wide
SR*
SR
Mechanical Grit Chamber
22
HGD
22
MCD
1 fps
1 fps
2
2
2
6'
w x 60' lng
SR
SR
Primary Clarlflers
38.5
HGD
38.5
MCD
850 gpd/SF
1.68 hr DT
850 gpd/SF
1.68 hr DT
4
4
4
120'
dla * 8' SWD
33
58
Trickling Filters
38.5
HGD
38.5
MCD
2.21 lb BOD/cy
2.21 lb BOD/cy
8
8
8
100*
dla x 6' depth
^60
60
Secondary Clarlflers
22
MGD
22
MGD
865 Bpd/SF
2,23 hr DT
855 &pd/SF
2.23 hr DT
4
4
4
90'
dia x 10.75' SWD
S. Activated Sludge Plant
Mechanical Bar Screens
37.1
HGD
54.6
MGD
2 fps
2 fps
-
2
3
10' w x 5' SWD
SR
SR
Aerated Grit Chambers
37. 3
HGD
54.6
MCD
4 rain DT
5 cfm air/ft
4 mln DT
5 cfm air/ft
-
2
3
38' x 16.5'xll' SWD
SR
SR
Parshall Flume
13-68
HGD
20-103
MGD
-
1
1
120" throat
NR
NR
Primary Clarlflers
37.3
MCD
54.6
MCD
729 gpd/SF
BOO gpd/SF
-
3
4
227.5x75'xlO' SWD
33
60
2.46 hr DT
2.24 hr DT
3U>
4(1)
6(D
Raw Waste Pumps
13-68
MCD
20-10 3
MCD
17.23 HGD
-
-
Trickling Filter
3(1)
3d)
3(1)
Effluent Punps
14-35
MGD
14-35
MCD
17.28 MCD
-
-
RAS Pumps
7-44.5
MCD
12-57.5
HGD
3(1)
4(1)
5(1)
11 MGD Existing
12.25 MCD Proposed
-
-
Aeration Basins
59. 3
MGD
76.6
HGD
5.74 hr
5.92 hr
5
6
8
75.5'x279' xl5'SVfO 7
80
70
Final Clarlflers
59. 3
MCD
76.6
HGD
690 gpd/SF
3.38 hr DT
669 gpd/SF
3.49 hr DT
6
6
8
135' dla x 13" SWD J
Chlorine Contact Zone
110 MCD Max
135 MCD Max
20.2 rain DT
16.46 mln DT
2
2
2
Tanks 165. 75'x35'xl2
'NR
NR
2
2
Outfall 72"dta x1186
t
Blowers
86,900 ACFM
121.660 ACFM
1495 SCFM/
1517 SCFM/
7
-------
GRIT TO LANDFILL
GRIT TO LANDFILL
-41-
PLANT FLOW
(El
EXISTING UNIT
-------
(Wastewater)
Simplified Flow Design
Figure 4-4 shows the physical layout of Plant #2 as it will appear after
each expansion. The figure, which is taken directly from the Facility Plan,
does not reflect implementation of emergency odor-control measures in Phase
IA; a diagram showing the location of these improvements is given in CDM
(1977).
All expansions of the treatment works will rely upon activated sludge
and chlorination to achieve NPDES permit requirements. Table 4-6 indicates
the effluent quality that is expected to result from these processes, and
the amount of potential pollutants which will be discharged to the Rio Grande
in 2000. The proposed sale of 1 mgd of effluent to Public Service Company
will be implemented at such time as a contract is negotiated with the utility.
This action, which is expected to have a construction cost of $478,000, is
not included in a particular phase nor reflected in any of the figures or
tables.
The proposed actions involve extensive modifications to solids handling
facilities, including use of new processes such as sludge thickening, mechanical
dewatering, aerobic digestion and scum collection. As at present, dried
sludge will be used in City parks as a fertilizer/dressing. Existing facilities
for recycling of digester gas will be expanded, so that all gas is utilized
to generate electricity for in-plant use.
A number of proposed actions or alternatives are to be reevaluated over
the next 20 years, including: the use of ozone instead of chlorine for
disinfection; the use of aerobic digesters; advanced treatment for nitrogen
or phosphorus removal; and thermoradiation of sludge. As a contingency in
the event advanced treatment facilities are needed, the Facility Plan proposes
that the City acquire at least 25 acres of land adjacent to Plant #2. The prospects
for wastewater reuse, including land application, will be reevaluated as new in-
formation becomes available.
4.2 ACTIONS REGARDING ODORS, NUTRIENTS AND METALS
This section summarizes the proposed actions which are addressed to
the major environmental problems identified by the Stipulation: odors,
nutrients and metals.
-191-
-------
^south'ELM erf N-
S BASE LINE
CITr OF ALBUQUERQUE
WASTEWAT€R MANAGEMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
EXISTING AND PROPOSED
FACILITIES LAYOUT AT
TREATMENT PlANT NO Z
figuhe4—4
-------
TABLE 4-6. PROJECTED CHAKACTERISTICS OF ALBUQUERQUE'S WASTEWATER IN THE YEAS
2000 (if proposed actions are implemented). Based on engineering
analysis (MMC, 1977). Values marked bv an asterisk (*) will
exceed 1975 discharge levels—generally by a small amount.
Concentration in Concentration in Total mass discharge
Parameter
influent (ma/D
effluent
(tons/year.maximum)
BOD
142
10-15
1750
COD
466
40
4650
Suspended Solids
88
10-15
1750
Total Nitrogen
31
5-10
1200
Total Phosphorus
11
7-8
925
Dissolved Oxygen
0
2+
200+
Arsenic
< 0 01
< 0.01
1 or less
Barium
0.185
0.084
10
Boron
0.519
0.544
63*
Cadmium
< 0.003
< 0.003
< 1
Chromium
0.03
< 0.015
2
Copper
0.085
0.024
3
Lead
0.066
< 0.023
3
Manganese
0.04
0.04
5*
Mercury
< 0.002
< 0.002
< l
Molybdenum
< 0.001
< 0.001
< 1
Nickel
0.026
0.026
3*
Selenium
< 0.01
< 0.01
1 or less
Silver
0.017
< 0.007
< 1
Zinc
< 0 21
< 0.1
12*
Fecal Coliforms
(colonies/100 ai)
107 +
< 200
-193-
-------
Odors. Odor sources and controls are discussed in MMC (19 77) and
CDM (1977). Of interest are: actions taken in response to the Stipulation;
emergency operational measures; Phase IA expansion; emergency additions to
Phase IA; Phase II expansion.
Actions Taken in Response to the Stipulation. The Stipulation addressed
the need to control five major sources of odors at Plant //2 which were
significant in 1973. The City has accomplished the required controls for
some sources, and is in the process of implementing the other measures. It is
the position of the City that the odor problems identified in the Stipulation
are no longer significant, with one exception - summer pumping to sludge
drying beds. The Stipulation provided that minimal pumping would occur in
summer (May 15 - September 15), but because of the recent sludge handling
problems at Plant #2, such pumping is essential to avoid even greater odor
problems which would occur if the sludge were stored in digesters over the
summer.
Emergency Operations. In 19 77 the City will initiate or continue a
number of operational procedures which are intended to minimize the risk for
a repeat of the gross odor problems which occurred in 1976. These measures
inlcude digester cleaning, hauling of liquid sludge to a landfill, and direct
discharge of trickling filter effluent to the Rio Grande. Even with these
actions, it is expected that the potential for severe odor problems at the
Plant will remain significant.
Phase TA. Expansion of the activated sludge facilities at Plant it2 is
expected to improve on operational flexibility and decrease the volume of
waste activated sludge which requires treatment. Consequently, by the end
of 1979 a major factor contributing to the potential odor problems will be
solved.
Emergency Construction during Phase IA. The first odor control actions
specifically proposed by the Facility Plan relate to measures which should be
incorporated into Phase IA in order to resolve all the problems which
contributed to the critical odor situation of 1976. The measures include
facilities for sludge thickening and drying, and mechanical screening. The
thickener units are most important, and the City intends to initiate design
and construction of such units prior to completion of the Plan. This
should enable odor problems to be significantly reduced by the summer of 1978.
The remaining facilities will be included in Phase IA, and should further
reduce odor problems by the end of 1979.
Phase II Expansion. Phase II will implement the requirement of Best
Practicable Odor Control Technology by resulting in a Plant in which all
facilities: a) involve an aerobic or oxidation process; or b) are capable
of oxidation by chemical additions; or c) are capable of being enclosed, with
collection and treatment of odorous gases. These measure will be in accord
with odor-control technology described by EPA (1976a). In particular, Phase
II will provide for the following improvements which will have significant
odor control benefits: mechanical dewatering of sludge, and elimination of
drying beds; improved pretreatment of influent; renovations to existing
facilities; possible use of aerobic digesters for waste activiated sludge;
provision of scum collection equipment; abandonment of Plant //l. Expansion
of Plant //2 to a 59 mgd capacity will further improve operational flexibility,
and should minimize odor-causing system upsets and problems which occur when
units are taken out of service for maintenance and repairs.
-194-
-------
It is anticipated that reasonably "odor-free" conditions will exist
by about 1983, after which the only odor at Plant //2 will be a normal, mild
and musty smell which is not offensive. However, rare odor-causing upsets of
the system will always be a potential problem.
Nutrients. The analysis given in this EIS and by EIA (1976) indicates
that no benefits from nutrient removal can be identified at this time. Should
nitrogen treatment be required in the future the Facility Plan proposes that
a nitrification-denitrification system be added on the activated sludge
facilities. Should phosphorus removal become a requirement, alum precipitation
is proposed. In either case, it will be appropriate to reevaluate the
prospects for land application of effluent/river mixtures in the MRGCD.
Metals. To meet the metals standards set in the Stipulation, the proposed
action is to rely on activated sludge treatment. To reduce metals levels in
sludge, the liquid waste ordinance will continue to be enforced, with emphasis
on sources which contribute a large mass of toxic metals to the sewerage
system.
4.3 PRIORITIES
The priority schedule for implementing proposed construction is given in
Table 4-7, and indicates that total expenditures of $46,741,700 will be required
by the year 2000. It is possible that odor control actions included within
Phase II, and scheduled for completion by 1983, will be accomplished sooner if
funds are available.
4.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
EPA will take measures to assure that high standards of design and con-
struction apply to the proposed facilities. These measures will include a
value engineering analysis and inspection services of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
The design of facilities which are projected to cost more than $10 million
in total will undergo a value engineering analysis. The total cost of Albuquerque
facilities will exceed $10 million, and the EPA thus intends to require a value
engineering analysis even though the project will be phased. The analysis will
involve a review of the project design made by members of a five or six member
team. Each team member is a specialist in one of the disciplines involved in
the design of the project. The goal of the analysis is to improve the opera-
bility of the project facilities, and to reduce construction costs.
The EPA has recently entered into an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers which provides that the Corps will conduct Interim construction in-
spections for the EPA on wastewater treatment plant projects. These inspections
will be conducted at least quarterly and will include construction quality and
construction management. More frequent inspections may be conducted if necessary.
4.5 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CDM (1977a) outlined specific steps which need to be taken by the City of
-195-
-------
Albuquerque in order to achieve reliable, consistent and proper operation
and maintenance (O&M) of the wastewater system. These measures are in addi-
tion to the emergency steps already discussed. At the Public Hearing held
July 20, 1977, the City indicated its basic commitment to take the necessary
steps. The most important measures will be:
- repair and rehabilitation of all process equipment which is not
operating as desired;
- continued adjustment of the treatment process to achieve stable operation;
- increased use of laboratory data to monitor treatment process;
- probable operation of Plant //I as a primary treatment facility, until
such time as it is razed.
Even more critical are the recommendations made regarding reorganization, includ-
ing provision of additional staff and budget, improved record keeping, and
increased staff training.
EPA will take a number of positive steps to ensure that the City accom-
plishes the goal of good O&M. These include: requirements for a plan of
operation, provision of technical assistance, requirements for an operation and
maintenance manual, enforcement of the NPDES permit, requirement for an adequate
user charge, requirement for State monitoring, and provision of technical assist-
ance.
A draft Plan of Operation will be required at the conclusion of the design
phase of any major expansion of the facilities, such as the Phase II expansion.
As a minimum this plan shall include: provisions for an adequate budget and
properly trained management; operation and maintenance personnel sufficient to
accomplish proper O&M of existing and proposed facilities; provisions for respond-
ing to emergency operating conditions; provisions for proper routine reporting
of operational conditions; and provisions for laboratory testing adequate to
determine removal efficiencies. A final Plan of Operations will be required at
50% completion of facility construction. Copies of the Plan will be made avail-
able for public inspection at City offices, and EPA will release an announcement
of this availability to the press and to organizations which indicate an interest
in inspecting the document.
A detailed operation and maintenance manual will be required for all
facilities. The draft will be required at 50% of construction, the final at
90% of construction. The document will be made available for public review
under the same provisions as discussed above for the Plan of Operation.
Operation and maintenance which significantly departs from acceptable
levels can be expected to lead to violation of NPDES permit conditions. EPA
will enforce the permit, and in the event of operation-caused violations will
use its authority to see that the problems are fully resolved.
EPA will require that the City institute an adequate user charge system,
as described in Section 3.8. This will ensure that budgetary resources are
sufficient for the necessary O&M activities; wastewater management will no
longer compete with other elements of the municipal budget for operating funds.
The State of New Mexico will be required to continue its monitoring and
inspection activities. It can be expected that inadequate O&M will lead to
-195A-
-------
appropriate State inspection reports and actions.
EPA will continue to provide technical assistance, especially in the form
of technology transfer seminars and programs which will familiarize design
and operating personnel with proper operation and maintenance techniques.
Each of the above actions will address at least part of the O&M problems
which could occur in Albuquerque. The actions will ensure that O&M has ade-
quate funding, that proper procedures for O&M are spelled out in a Plan of
Operation and O&M Manuals, and that permit standards and annual State inspections
are used to enforce diligent operation and maintenance of the City facilities.
The above actions do not address all O&M measures which might be necessary
to achieve Best Practicable Odor Control. An existing mechanism for addressing
such measures is the Odor Committee formed under the terms of the Stipulation.
This committee is empowered to address any and all problems which give rise to
objectionable odors, and is considered the appropriate tool to address
odor control.
-195B-
-------
TABLE 4-7 PRIORITY t IMPLEMENTAT ION SCHEDULE FOR FACILITY PLAN RPCOMMENDATIONS
Approximate
Year of
Completion
1978
See
Construct ion
Port Ion
Eligible Costs (4)
Federal Share State Share
Total City
1980-1981
vO
o>
I
Hants)*
Cost (3)
Ineligible
75*
12-1/2Z
Slia re (4)
Phase I-A Treatment Plant Expansion
H
$
3,064,000
(5)
$
838,400
$1,669,200
$
278,200
$
1,116,600
(City CIP Project 71235)
Line 142A Capacity Increase (2nd St.
11
490,300
-0-
367,700
61,300
61,300
Interceptor from Rio Bravo to Plant 2)
Line 101 Extension (Tljeras Canyon Phase
p & q
1,203,400
-0-
902,600
150,400
150,400
V-A, City CTP Project 73239)
Four HIUb Interceptor - Line 403
N 6 0
942,500
-0-
706,900
117,800
117,800
(Ttjeras Canyon Phase II)
Northwest Mesa Lift Stations 24 & 25
J
112,000
(1)
-0-
84,000
14,000
14,000
(City CIP Project 70223-Part)
Lift Station Alarm System (City CIP
NA
57,000
-0-
42,800
7,100
7,100
Project 70223-Part)
Land for Future Plant Expansion (City
II
62,500
62,500
-0-
-0-
62.500
CIP Project 70228)
Total 1978
$
5,931,700
5
900,900
$3,773,200
$
628,800
$
1,529,700
Line 104 Capacity Increase (Near Menaul
P
$
30,800
(2)
$
-0-
$ 23,100
$
3,850
$
3,850
and Juan Tabo)
Line 113 Capacity Increase (Near Lamas
I
19,100
(Z)
-0-
14,300
2,400
2,400
and University)
Line 119 Capacity Increase (on Comanche
J
49,800
(2)
-0-
37,400
6,200
6,200
between San Pedro & Pojoaque)
1
Line 25 Relief (near 2nd & Griegos)
J
57,400
-0-
43,100
7,150
7,150
Lift Station 20 Capacity Increase
H
190,0D0
(1)
-0-
142,500
23,750
23,750
Northwest Mesa Interceptors 304 & 305
J & K
1,430,500
-0-
1,072,900
178,800
178,800
1982
I Includes CIP Project 66199-Westslde
Interceptor Phase III, Section 3A)
North Valley Phase I(includes Interceptor
380 to LS No. 19)
South Valley Interceptors i Collection Sys.
a) So.Valley Phage I, Priority 2 Area
Intercep.390,391,392,393,394 6
Collection Lines
b) Mountalnviev Area(lnterceptor 389
and Collection Lines
c) Remainder of W. So. Valley No. of
Gun Club Road(Interceptors 395,
396,397 and Collection Lines)
Lift Station Standby Power & Metering
Syatem
Conversion of Odor Control Stations
Collection System for North Industrial Park
Collection System for 46000 Central N.W.,
Crescent N.W. & Rlvervlew S-W.(Replacement)
Total 1980
Line 105 Capacity Increase (Hannett PI.
between Eubank & Parsifal)
Expand Lift Station No. 5
H 6 I
C & H
8,C & H
NA
NA
J
I
1,106,400
2,816,500
84fl,800
937,000
74,000
209,000
362,500
73.800
$ 8,205,600
79,000 (2)
13.000
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
829,800
2,112,400
636,600
702,800
55,500
156.800
271,900
55,400
$6,154,500
59,300
9,800
138,300
352,050
106,100
117,100
9,250
26,100
45,300
9.200
51,025,550
9,850
1.600
138,800
352,050
106.100
117,100
9,250
26.100
45,300
9,200
$J,025,550
$ 9,850
1,600
Total 1982
92,000
69,100
11,450
11,450
-------
TABLE 4-7 (Cont'd)
Approximate
Year of
Completion
0
1
Sue
Map(«)*
Construct Ion
Cont (3)
Portion
Ineligible
Eligible Coats (4)
Federal Share State Share
75Z
12-1/2Z
Total City
Share(A)
1983
Expand Treatment Plant No. 2
H
$11,654,500
S
478,000
$8,382,400
1.397,100
$1
,875,000
Raze & Salvage Treatment Plant No. 1
I
300,000
-0-
225,000
37,500
37,500
Facilities for Sale of Effluent to PNM
H
478,000
478,000
-0-
-0-
478.000
Total 1983
512,432,500
$
956,000
$8,607,400
$1,434,600
$2
,390,500
1985
Line 103 Capacity Increase (On Coma.iche
P
} 274,200
(2)
$
-0-
$ 205,700
$ 34,250
$
34,250
from Hoon to near Juan Tabo)
Line 112 rapacity Increase (On Eubank
0
128,600
(2)
-0-
96,500
16,050
16,050
from LaMes.i-Central)
Line 113 Capacity Increase (Near Lornn8
I
15,600
(2)
-0-
11,700
1,950
1,950
and University)
Northwest Mesa Interceptors 302, 303,
K
1,367,600
-0-
1,025,700
170,950
170,950
306 and 307
North Valley Phase II (Interceptors 381,
J & K
2,549,400
-0-
1,912,100
318,650
318,650
382,383,384,385,386 & Collection Lines)
Collection System for E. South Valley
H
483,800
-0-
362,900
60,450
60,450
Line 400 (to serve No. Albuquerque Acres)
Q
213.700
-0-
160.300
26.700
26.700
Total 1985
9 5,032,900
-O-
$3,774,900
$ 629,000
$
629,000
1990
Expand Treatment Plant No. 2
H
$ 5,563,400
-0-
' $4,172,600
$ 695,400
$
695,400
Expand Lift Station 20
H
200,000
-0-
150,000
25,000
25,000
Line 132 Capacity Increase (on 1-25 from
K
76,700
(2)
-0-
57,500
9,600
9,600
San Francisco to Palomas)
Line 142 Capacity Increase (Anderson Ave 8
ATSF RR)
I
25,000
(2)
-0-
18,800
3,100
3,100
Northwest Mesa Interceptors 308 and 309
J
569,900
-0-
427,400
71,250
71,250
North Valley Phase III (Interceptors 387,
K
2,930,900
-0-
2,198,200
366,350
366,350
388, 369, 370 and Collection Lines)
304,500
South Valley Interceptors 395,396,397,
B,C & U
2.436.000
-0-
1.827.000
304.500
398,399 and 399a
Total 1990
$11, 801,900
-0-
$ 8 ,851 ,500
$ 1,475,200
$1
,475,200
1995
North Valley Phase IV (Interceptor 371
$ 1,019,600
$ 127.450
and Collection Lines)
R
-0-
$ 764,700
$
127,450
2000
Candelarla Industrial Park Collection Sys.
J
$ 2,225,500
-0-
$1,669,100
$ 278,200
$
278,200
(1) Cost includes stand-by power
(2) Cost given is cost to parallel existing line. Cost to replace line is higher. See Facility Plan text.
(3) Costs include engineering, legal and contingencies @ 16Z of construction cost and Interest during construction 0 6-1/8Z of 50Z of all costs.
(4) Eligible costs and total City share based on existing regulations which may change & presume availability of funds.
(5) City budget amount - Estimate not presented in Facility Plan.
* Refer 1o Volume 2 of the Facility Plon
-------
5. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The environmental consequences of the actions described in Section 4
were discussed in Section 3 as part of the evaluation of alternatives. These
impacts are summarized in this Section in order to provide a concise description
of the implications of the proposed actions. Measures which may be taken to
mitigate or reduce the impacts are also identified. The discussion refers to
impacts in four categories: short-term (5.0), construction impacts (5.1), long-
term (5.2) and secondary (5.3).
5.0 SHORT-TERM IMPACTS
The proposed actions will result in two types of impacts of a short-term
nature. First, existing adverse environmental conditions caused by
wastewater management in the area will continue until such time as the proposed
actions are implemented, that is for a period of three to twenty years.
Second, construction of the proposed facilities, especially sewers, will
result in a number of localized impacts such as noise, dust, traffic disruption
and dewateringl these are set forth in Section 5.1.
Because the proposed actions are intended to provide substantial long-
range benefits with minimal adverse long-term consequences, the short-term
impacts represent the most significant negative effects of the proposed
wastewater management system.
Continuation of Existing Impacts. The lack of adequate sludge-handling
facilities at Plant //2 is largely responsible for severe odor problems in the
surrounding neighborhood. The potential for such problems to occur will
continue until 1979 when the proposed Phase IA expansion of Plant it2 is
implemented, including facilities for sludge thickening. "Odor-free" conditions
will not be achieved until completion of the Phase II expansion, in 1983. Odor
problems at Plant //I will continue until the facility is razed in 1983. Proper
operation and maintenance at the Plant should limit odors to the level now
experienced, and prevent any significant nuisance.
Ground water contamination from on-site systems which operate under
adverse density and/or soil conditions will continue in areas designated for
sewerage service, until such service is provided. For parts of the area
sewers will be provided within 5-10 years; elsewhere they may not be avail-
able until 1995. Until the service is provided, it can be expected that
chronic low-grade nitrate contamination will occur in the shallow alluvium
beneath the Rio Grande floodplain. Other problems possibly associated
with this contamination would remain, including iron and manganese pollution,
potential public health hazards, and financial disadvantages to valley-area
homeowners.
5.1 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
The process of installing wastewater facilities, especially interceptor
and collector sewers, is often a source of unavoidable adverse environmental
impacts of a temporary and localized nature. These impacts are discussed as
follows: general characteristics; problem areas; environmental protection
measures; and specific impacts and mitigation measures.
-198-
-------
5.1.1 General Characteristics
Sewer construction normally involves a sequence of actions, the most
significant of which are: surface disturbances, such as by breaking pavement;
excavation of a deep but normally narrow trench (less than 10 feet wide);
laying of pipe and refill of the trench with necessary compaction and
restoration of the original surface. Associated activities include moving
of equipment to and from the site, and on-site storage of equipment, pipe
and excavated fill. The duration of the sequence at any one site varies
according to construction schedules, from a minimum of 5-10 days to a normal
maximum of about two months. During much of this period the site is inactive.
The most intense activity occurs during the period of trench excavation and
refill, each normally accomplished within one or two working days. More
prolonged construction can occur when sewer installations are combined with
other utility installations.
Major impacts from construction include:
-dust and erosion (throughout the period of construction);
-equipment noise and emissions (during active periods only);
-traffic and utility disruption (especially during active periods);
-possible disturbance of archeological, historical and biological
resources (primarily at the time of initial surface disturbance
and/or excavation);
-dewatering (during excavation in areas with a shallow water table).
Other impacts which may be locally significant include: blasting, odors,
relocation of utilities, and acquisition of easements on private property.
In addition, construction involves impacts of a general nature, such as
consumption of resources and generation of solid wastes.
5.1.2 Problem Areas
The proposed construction activities will take place in four types of
situations, each with its own set of environmental constraints.
a) Most cf the proposed sewer lines will be installed beneath existing
streets — main thoroughfares and paved and unpaved side roads. The
vast majority of these lines occur in valley locations which are
characterized by narrow streets, many unpaved and/or dead-end streets,
relatively dense settlement, and frequently congested traffic
conditions. Thus impacts such as dust, noise and traffic disruption
are of special concern. The valley locations are also typified by a
shallow water table and many canals and drains. Dewatering is
normally necessary, and special measures must be taken when crossing
irrigation structures.
b) Most of the remaining sewer lines, especially in mesa locations,
are expected to follow an existing or proposed right-of-way along
a dedicated but unbuilt street, or along another utility easement.
It is likely that construction would precede full development in
these areas, and it is probable that in some cases construction will
alter a previously undisturbed surface. Specific impacts cannot be
identified now because detailed routes will not be determined until
each line is designed. However in general impacts such as noise or
traffic disruption would be much less than in the valley. There
-199-
-------
would be an increased potential for disturbance of archeological
or biological resources.
c) Two major interceptors will be located in arroyos. These lines,
in Tijeras and Calabacillas Arroyos, would have impacts similar to
the mesa lines but with increased special problems associated with
flood and erosion hazards, and with the local need for rock excavation.
d) In addition to sewer construction, wastewater facilities will be
added at Plant #2 and razed at Plant //l. All activity will be
within the existing plant sites, and thus relatively minor impacts
on the general public would be expected, with the exception of possible
local dewatering effects. Impacts associated with renovation of odor
control and lift stations would be very localized and minor.
For the planning area as a whole, approximately 103 miles of new sewer
lines will be installed by the year 2000. About half of this amount would
be built in the 1980's; the maximum rate of construction would thus
be about 5 miles per year.
5.1.3 Environmental Protection Measures
Construction impacts will be significantly reduced by careful planning
and selective use of measures which control or eliminate potential problems. The
City will develop a site-specific environmental protection program during the
design of each construction project. This approach will enable the program to
be responsive to specific site problems, and will allow the latest environmental
control technology to be utilized (Riggins et. al., 1975).
There are several steps which will be taken to develop and implement the
environmental protection measures. First, the proposed project will be
evaluated to determine the significance of the various impacts. For example an
archeological survey may be performed to identify sites to be salvaged or
avoided; or a traffic survey may identify an area where disruption is of special
concern. Second, if practicable the siting of the proposed sewer or other
facility will be adjusted in order to minimize adverse impacts. Third, guide-
lines to be followed during the construction project will be set forth in bid
specifications and the construction contract. Fourth, the selected contractor
will develop any environmental protection plans required by the contract guide-
lines. Finally, inspection procedures will be utilized to ensure that the
guidelines are followed out. A special step appropriate to Albuquerque will
be to utilize the municipal excavation ordinance as a mechanism for reviewing
and improving contractors detailed plans, and for enforcing any provisions of
those plans.
Throughout the process outlined above, it is important to determine that
the measures being taken are cost-effective . This can be accomplished by using
flexible contract specifications which establish performance criteria for the
contractor, but allow discretion in the selection of control techniques.
Also, the extent of protection must be adjusted to the project, with the most
stringent regulations being applied to large projects and/or those located
in especially sensitive areas.
-200-
-------
Specific impacts and mitigation measures are reviewed in the following
sections. A control technique which applies to almost all impacts is to
manage the extent of construction to limit the duration of impacts at any
one site. This is commonly accomplished by restricting the length of an
open trench to the distance between manholes (a maximum of 400-500 feet); in
some cases the length of disturbed areas ahead of and behind the trench may
also be specified. Since the trenching phase of a project is relatively brief
and tends to move rapidly along the line, these restrictions normally ensure
that the nuisance impacts of construction are short-lived at each particular
location. Another useful technique is the provision in the excavation ordinance
which calls for penalties when a street cut is reopened within a three-year
period. Over the long term, this should minimize the amount of construction
activity at any one location. Another technique is to parallel sewer construct-
ion with the activities of other agencies. For example, the proposed interceptor
capacity increase on Juan Tabo south of Menaul in about 1980 (line 104, Table
3-5) should be coordinated with the upcoming highway project M-4065 (1) for
the reconstruction of Juan Tabo Blvd.
5.1.4 Dust and Erosion
Dust may be generated at a construction site by soil disturbances and
vehicle movement, by wind erosion of excavated material, and by operations
such as concrete mixing and blasting. Construction dust is a nuisance
material which causes annoyance, soiling and, in some cases, impaired local
visability. Albuquerque has a relatively dusty environment so that in some
cases no special dust control measures will be needed. However, if a large
dust source is created near a residential area or major thoroughfare, positive
dust control will be obtained through: a) spraying loose and erodible material
with water during construction; and/or b) mulching and reseeding of a surface
which had a natural plant cover prior to construction. Where reseeding is
deemed necessary, it is generally preferable to use native grasses which do
not require significant amounts of irrigation, and which will flourish
once established. If dust control measures are not specified in a construction
contract, they will be required as part of the dust control plan which is
prerequisite to issuance of an excavation permit in Albuquerque.
Erosion is generally not a problem at most Albuquerque sewer construction
sites because of gentle natural slopes. However, lines which lie in or cross
an arroyo may be affected by storm runoff, with resulting erosion damage.
Because the normally dry arroyos are naturally silt-laden during floods, the
eroded material would not be expected to cause special environmental impacts
but would add to the aggradation or clean-up associated with flooding in the
area. The potential erosion will be limited by siting lines outside flood-
prone areas to the extent feasible, and by eliminating any activity which
would lead to unnecessary damage to an arroyo bank. If prolonged exposure to
runoff hazards is anticipated during the summer thunderstorm season, it may be
necessary to build small temporary structures for diverting flows around a site and/
or for collection and desilting of flows from a site. After construction it is
conventional practice to grade a slight mound along any line which is not
in a street right-of-way. This provides positive drainage away from the bare
area, and reduces the potential for erosion. If this is not considered
adequate at a particular site, mulching and/or reseeding may be required.
Refer to DWR (1972) and EPA (1973) for further information on erosion control
planning.
-201-
-------
To avoid erosion damage to a completed sewer in an arroyo crossing, it
is generally necessary to provide positive protection against flood flows.
Measures such as sheet piling and encasement in concrete will be used to stabilize
the sewer line and prevent undercutting. None of the dust and erosion control
measures noted above,nor the original construction activities, would be
expected to lead to any significant long-term alterations in the landscape,
or to a change in the character of a natural drainageway.
5.1.5 Noise and Vibration; Equipment Emissions
Noise levels typically found at a sewer construction site were discussed
in Section 2.2.5. Within 50 feet of active equipment, levels of 65-80 dBA would
be expected to occur throughout the work day, with peaks to 85-90 dBA. These
levels would be lowered by at least 6 dBA with each doubling of distance from
the site and a greater amount where the site is screened by vegetation or
buildings. Vibrations could be associated with use of some equipment and
operation of pumps for dewatering may involve noise generation during night-
time periods. The noise will be experienced for only a few days at any one
location, and will normally occur along roadways where traffic noise already
occurs. The primary impacts will be an increase in public annoyance, possible
interference with speech (e.g. at a school), and possible interference with
daytime sleeping. Based on present plans, there would be no significant
impact on any major medical facility.
Enforcement of Albuquerque's excavation and noise ordinance will
be effective in controlling noise problems by restricting work to the hours
between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. under normal circumstances, and by requiring that all
construction equipment utilize noise control equipment equivalent to that
installed at the factory. More strict requirements could be considered for
construction in sensitive areas, such as where houses are sited near a
narrow street. For example, a contractor could be required to meet Federal
standards for new equipment, such as the standard for air compressors of 76
dBA, or to provide air-exhaust mufflers for pneumatic tools. References such
as Schomer & Homans (1975), contain additional information on noise control.
The exhaust from gasoline or diesel-powered equipment is the main source
of air pollutant emissions at most construction sites. Emissions will
be small compared to regional quantities, and would mainly have a localized
impact during periods when air ventilation is poor. Fumes and odors might
reach an annoyance level, but strict enforcement of OSHA (Occupational
Safety and Health Administration) standards to protect construction workers
should protect area residents against health impacts, although annoyance
and irritation may occur. An additional measure which could be considered
for sensitive sites would be to specify that all equipment used by a
contractor be subjected to an exhaust inspection by the City and adjusted
or retrofitted to meet pertinent exhaust standards.
-202-
-------
5.1.6 Traffic and Utility Disruption
Sewer construction generally restricts traffic flow when lines are placed
in street rights-of-way. Street closings commonly occur, especially during
excavation period. Impacts resulting from traffic disruption include:
inconvenience to those who use the affected street, especially if the street
is used to provide access to homes or businesses; a temporary decline of
business at commercial establishments; and increased noise and vehicle
emissions on nearby streets which receive rerouted traffic.
A variety of measures will be used to maintain traffic patterns near
normal levels, and minimize these impacts. The most important is to control
the size of the affected area by limiting trench length. Other measures
include: restrict equipment movement to only a portion of the roadway, and
use flagmen to aid traffic movement; restrict active construction so that
no more than one intersection is crossed at one time, and for no more than one
day at a time; if necessary, cross major intersections one-half at a time;
block dead-end streets for no more than one day at a time, or cross one-half
at a time; bore beneath major thoroughfares, such as state highways; provide
pedestrian crossings at intervals of no more than 300 feet; mark all sites
with adequate signals, barriers, signs and lights, especially if a trench
segment is left open overnight; and develop a public relations program to advise
the public of the anticipated traffic disruptions.
When excavated trenches cross underground utilities, such as gas and
water lines, it may be necessary to interrupt service for a brief period, or
to relocate tne other utilities. To minimize the effect of utility disruption,
contractors are normally required to determine all utility locations along the
sewer right-of-way, and to take steps to ensure coordinated activity at the
construction site. Only utility owners are permitted to undertake relocations.
5.1.7 Disturbance of Archeological and Biological Resources
A review of the National Register of Historic Places indicates that no
properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the register will be
affected by the proposed action. Museum and library records were reviewed
and it was found that some sites might be disturbed by project construction,
but that the nature of such disturbances could be determined only at such
time as a particular project reached the detailed planning and design phase.
Additional historical and archeological resources may be found in the area,
and also potentially disturbed by construction activity.
EPA will require the City to perform an archeological reconnaissance
survey during the design phase of each construction project to determine if
any archeological and/or historical resources will be affected. The survey
shall be performed as soon as the tentative right-of-way of the construction
is known, in order to permit rerouting, if necessary. When any identifiable
archeological and/or historical resources are discovered, they will be
evaluated in accordance with the "Procedures for the Protection of Historic
and Cultural Properties", as published in the Federal Register (36 CFR, Part
-203-
-------
800). This requirement will be a grant condition; the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation will be allowed to comment on this grant condition.
Some archeological resources not identified during project design may
become evident during construction, especially when they are buried, and are
found only upon excavation of a trench. Should any resources be discovered
during construction, work will be halted until the cultural significance of
the materials can be determined and compliance with all applicable laws and
regulations can be assured. Copies of the archeological clearance of each
project will be filed with the State Historic Preservation Officer, Santa Fe.
His letter regarding the overall project, as now planned, is provided in
Appendix A to this EIS.
It is not expected that proposed construction would significantly affect
biological resources. Sewer lines outside of street alignments would
generally cross areas characterized by low-quality grass and shrub vegetation
which is presently utilized for grazing purposes or as open space. None of
the lines proposed are expected to cross an area of woodland or bosque, or to
alter a significant terrestrial or aquatic habitat. The areas which are
affected by construction would be expected to be small, and to have little
effect on long-term productivity. However, the unaesthetic scars of vegetation
removal would be likely to remain for many years, as recovery of the native
plant cover would normally be very slow.
A number of measures will be taken to minimize the amount of vegetation
removed, and to restore the disturbed land where necessary. These may include:
careful marking of the construction site, with prohibition of activity or
storage outside designated areas; selection of routes to minimize tree-
cutting, and protection of trees outside of the right-of-way; storage of
topsoil, and replacement of same atop the completed trench; use of removed
vegetation as a mulch on the bared soil, to help protect it from erosion and
to provide seeds and nutrients for regrowth; use of sludge on all sites
to provide a fertilizer and soil amendment which will improve the potential
for long-term regrowth; no use of pesticides, herbicides or defoliants; arid
reseeding of sites with native grasses which can be readily established
without substantial outside sources of water.
In the past the option of reseeding sewer construction sites has not
generally been taken. However, in recent years the technology for reseeding
disturbed sites has greatly improved, and the need for expensive seeding and
irrigation operations has been reduced. Reseeding with native grasses is now
a cost-effective alternative for many construction sites. Merkel and Herbel
(1973) provide detailed information on the techniques involved, including
selection of species, seedbed preparation and seeding, fertilization, and
management. Among the more likely species to be utilized are the following:
Indian ricegrass (Oryzopsis hymenoides), several types of wheatgrass
(.Agropyron sp.), bluestem grasses (Andropogon sp.), grama grasses (Bouteloua
s£.), buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides). After a short growing season
there should be minimal problems associated with wind or water erosion; in
general the reseeded area will be as aesthetic and productive as surrounding
areas, if not more so.
-204-
-------
Some construction in the valley may affect agricultural lands where
irrigated pasture grasses are grown. For such greenbelt sites, the protective
measures noted above will be mandatory, and complete restoration of the
original ground cover will normally be required. This will be facilitated
by stockpiling of topsoil, and immediate reseeding upon completion of
construction.
5.1.8 Dewatering
Trenches excavated in the valley will generally intercept the water
table. To prevent water from standing in the trenches during construction,
it is general practice to pump the water to an irrigation drain or storm
sewer. Two types of impacts result. First, the pumping lowers the water
table in the vicinity of the trench. Shallow domestic wells near the trench
may experience a drop in water levels; in extreme cases the wells may dry
up for a short period, and it is possible that pumps could incur permanent
damage. Second, the pumped water is normally taken from the contaminated
upper portion of the shallow flood plain aquifer. It may contain high
amounts of iron and manganese or other dissolved solids, and may also have
a slight odor. If the trench is near a cesspool or saturated drainfield,
excess bacteria may be found in the water. Finally, the pumping process
can result in the water being turbid, with an excessive silt load.
To avoid the adverse impact of water table lowering, it will be
necessary to evaluate the extent of water table decline near a trench and
to identify all wells along a construction route which may be affected. Well
owners will then be advised of the problem, and instructed to utilize pumps
on a manual basis only. If a serious water level decline is observed, the
contractor will be required to provide an alternate supply until the water
table recovers.
The discharge from trench dewatering normally requires permission from
the MRGCD, if a drain or canal is used, or the City, if a storm sewer is used.
Problems of sediment quality are managed by utilizing sand-point wells which
are relatively protected against the influx of silt. Where appropriate, the
outfall from dewatering can be designed to minimize erosion from the discharge
by minimizing discharge velocity and turbulence. Other water quality aspects
of the discharge water are not normally regulated, since the ground water
would naturally flow to irrigation drains and the river. Dewatering also
requires permission from the State Engineer, but because the pumping is of a short-
term nature, no water rights need to be obtained.
5.1.9 Other Construction Impacts
In addition to the effects discussed above, the following are associated
with wastewater facility construction:
-Resources will be utilized, including construction materials (pipe,
asphalt), energy for equipment operation, labor and capital. Minor
amounts of water may also be consumed during dewatering or for dust
control and plant reseeding. Overall, this impact has the positive
feature of providing a stimulus to the economy, by requiring material
production and providing construction jobs.
-205-
-------
- A construction site may be unaesthetic, because of the disturbance of
the normal scene, the presence of equipment, and the distribution of
stored materials and spoil stockpiles. This impact is minimized by
following requirements set forth in the excavation ordinance and other
regulations, such as by maintaining a trim site, by providing proper
facilities for handling of solid and liquid wastes, and by thoroughly
cleaning up the site as part of the restoration activity at the end of
the project.
- Solid wastes may be generated at a construction site, especially old
sewer pipe and excess soil. Where possible, this material will
be recycled; the pipe may be used as rip-rap, and soil of good quality
can be used as fill. If recycling is not feasible, the material will
be disposed of in a sanitary landfill.
- Special care must be taken to avoid spills of any fuels or chemicals
stored or used at the construction site. Provision of site security is
also necessary, especially where the safety of children would be
jeopardized by access to heavy equipment or open trenches.
- Very small and localized blasting may be needed along portions of the
two arroyo interceptors, and if the East Mountain contingency plan is
implemented. Impacts will be minimized by using matting over the blast
site, thus restricting noise, dust and debris. Security measures will
be required throughout the period that explosives are being used or stored
at the sice.
- Construction in valley areas will require that sewers cross irrigation
canals and drains. MRGCD requires that such crossings not interfere
with flows. Canals can be crossed by cuts in winter, with the hydraulic
section being built after construction is complete. During other periods
for canals and throughout the year for drains, it is normally necessary
to bore beneath the irrigation channel in order to install the sewer
line. Proper construction procedures, such as use of jacks and/or
concrete encasement, will be used to avoid either short or long-term
impacts.
- Bypassing of sewage will be prohibited during construction. Refer to
the Facilities Plan for discussion of this matter. Open burning will
be prohibited.
5.1.10 Summary
Construction of sewers and other facilities in the Albuquerque area has
the potential to lead to significant short-lived adverse environmental
impacts, including dust and eroision, noise, vehicle emissions, disruption of
traffic and utility service, disturbance or loss of archeologic and biologic
resources, dewatering, and others. All the potential impacts will be minimized
or eliminated through use of mitigation measures of the type discussed in this
document. The City and its contractors will develop site-specific environ-
mental protection plans on a project-by-project basis. These plans will be
effected through careful route selection, specifications in construction
contracts, and use of procedures outlined in the municipal excavation ordinance.
-206-
-------
With proper controls to ensure that the construction impacts are minor,
the short-term effects of the proposed action should represent an acceptable
environmental cost which must be incurred in order to obtain the benefits of
improved wastewater management. Further, construction involves substantial
economic benefits by providing jobs and increasing the demand for products
such as pipe material and heavy equipment.
5.2 LONG TERM IMPACTS
The direct long-term effects of the proposed improvements to the waste-
water management system in Albuquerque are expected to have benefits in
terms of improved water quality, odor control, resource use, and other
factors. Of special significance is the benefit of providing necessary
facilities for the collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater which
is projected to be generated in the planning area through the year 2000.
These benefits are the justification for the proposed actions. Some
possibly unfavorable impacts also occur in the long-term; these include
the consumption of resources by the proposed facilities, the generation of
wastes, some of which are not recycled, and the fact that not all waste-
water problems in the area will necessarily be fully resolved by the
proposed actions.
The discussions of long-term impacts concerns effects on water quality
and water supply (5.2.1), odors (5.2.2), resource reuse and conservation
(5.2.3), health, safety and welfare (5.2.4), and ecology and recreation
(5.2.5).
5.2.1 Water Quality, Water Use and Water Rights
Water Quality. Based on Table 4-6, it is reasonable to expect that the
proposed treatment system provides considerable protection of water quality
in the Rio Grande. There are no adverse water quality impacts which can be
reliably predicted to result from the discharge of Albuquerque's waste-
water. However, as discussed in 3.1.2, some long-range water quality problems
may exist in the Middle Rio Grande Basin, and may require additional analysis
in the future. These potential problems are as follows:
- The river standard for fecal coliform will probably continue to be
exceeded in the future due to non-point source discharges. As noted
below, the extension of sewers and elimination of on-site systems
(OSS) may reduce bacteria discharges from the non-point sources, and
could result in reduced bacteria levels in the river.
It is not known at this time whether or not water quality problems
in Elephant Butte Reservoir would occur because of nutrients dis-
charged in Albuquerque. The evidence now available does not demon-
strate any such problem now or in the future, but continued study of
the situation could modify the evidence and lead to a requirement for
nutrient control at Plant #2. If so, the facilities can be modified
to meet any specification for nitrogen and/or phosphorus removal.
-207-
-------
It should be noted that total nitrogen discharges from Albuquerque
in the year 2000 will probably be less than in 1975; however,
phosphorus discharges will be greater. It is possible that the
reduction in nitrogen discharged by Albuquerque will reduce nitrogen
in the Elephant Butte Reservoir sufficiently to adversely affect
aquatic productivity.
As discussed in Section 3.1.2, the possibility exists that some
contaminants in Albuquerque's effluent may interfere with irrigation
use of Rio Grande water during low-flow periods when the ratio of
effluent to river water is high. This matter requires further study
to determine which contaminants are of concern, and how irrigation
practices and/or wastewater treatment can be altered to minimize
problems.
- As noted in Section 3.1.2, a long-range potential exists that Albuquerque's
wastewater discharge could be associated with salinity problems in
the future. The nature of such problems, and any need for treatment,
cannot be forecast at this time. The source of the problem is
the concentrating effect of beneficial water use in Albuquerque—
wastewater is nearly always more saline than the original water
supply. Under present State policy, normal increases in salt
concentration from beneficial water use are considered an
acceptable degradation of water quality, and would not be subject
to a treatment requirement.
The proposed actions should improve ground water quality by reducing
water pollution caused by on-site systems. The extension of sewers will
cause many OSS to be eliminated. By 1985 it is projected that only 11,500
OSS will remain in the planning area; this will reduce to 9,000 in the year
2000. Moreover, stricter controls over the OSS which remain should lead to
an upgrading of on—site treatment. Most of the OSS which occur in the year
2000 will be installed after the Facility Plan recommendations become effect-
ive. Thus all should meet modern standards as to construction, installation
and lot size. If adequate upgrading is not accomplished, then consideration
would be given to adoption of more stringent regulations to control OSS.
The major effect of reducing pollution from OSS is that the present
pattern of increasing contamination of shallow ground water beneath the
Rio Grande floodplain should be slowed or reversed. This will not mean
that the shallow ground water will become uncontaminated in a short time,
because ground water quality recovery is a slow process, and other sources
of pollution remain a concern. However, the deeper aquifer, which is the
source of Albuquerque's municipal supply, should be protected from the
gradual downward migration of the upper polluted zone. With time, some
improvement in shallow ground water quality would be expected. This should
be reflected in improved surface water quality in irrigation drains and in
the Rio Grande.
A substantial benefit of extending sewers and regulating OSS is that
existing unsanitary situations should gradually be eliminated. The in-
cidence of health problems related to unsanitary conditions would be expected
to decrease, and the improvement in public health would be expected to
reap many socio-economic benefits (see 5.3.2). Another benefit is that the
overall discharge of pollutants to the environment will be decreased. This
-208-
-------
is because the degree of treatment obtained by cesspools and septic tank
drainfield systems is small in situations such as Albuquerque, where lots
are often small and the soil is saturated by a shallow water table. Conversely,
activated sludge treatment followed by disinfection is very effective in
removing the pollutants which would not be controlled by OSS.
Other elements of the proposed actions are not expected to affect water
quality. The best available data indicate that nutrients and metals which
occur in sludge used on City parks will be used by park grass and/or taken
up in the soil, without leaching to ground water. Application of the sludge
in winter or early spring, as at present, should protect the freshly applied
sludge from storm runoff. Sewers are to utilize permanent materials; leakage
is expected to be negligible.
The proposed actions are in accordance with recommendations
made by appropriate State and Federal agencies regarding water quality.
Specifically, they are compatible with recommendations made by the New Mexico
Water Quality Control Commission in its Basin Plan (NMWQCC, 1976a), and the
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency in its study of Elephant Butte
Reservoir (EIA, 1976). The action also will meet standards set forth by the
Federal and State governments in the City's ptoposed NPDES permit, and those
specified in the Stipulation. The total mass discharge of pollutants to the
Rio Grande is expected to be less than in the past, primarily because activated
sludge will be used in place of trickling filter treatment and because the
extension of sewer lines will substantially reduce the number of cesspools
and septic tanks in the planning area.
Water Use. The high level of wastewater treatment achieved by activated
sludge should improve the potential for use of Rio Grande water into which
Albuquerque effluent will be discharged. With time, the percentage of efflu-
ent in the river will become an increasingly important component of the water
supply of the Middle Rio Grande Basin. The river/effluent mix will be fully
consumed downstream for irrigation purposes, wildlife watering in Federal
and State refuges, support of aquatic habitats and recreation at Elephant
Butte Reservoir, support of phreatophyte vegetation and associated habitats,
and generation of hydroelectric power. Sale of a small amount of wastewater
(1 mgd) to Public Service Company of New Mexico will be offset by reduced
pumping of company wells, thus reducing the demand on Albuquerque's reservoir
of fresh underground water.
The discharge of wastewater to the Rio Grande will tend to increase
river flows, especially in summer when the river might otherwise be dry. The
potential for year round aquatic life in the river may slightly increase as
a result, although physical problems such as high sediment loads will pre-
clude the river's being a significant fishery. The increased flows will
probably have an aesthetic value for those who view the river, and may lead
to increased recreational use of the river for swimming and boating during
warm summer months. The increased flows will also increase the amount of
river water which seeps into the channel and recharges ground water beneath
the adjacent floodplain. Indirect reuse of effluent for drinking water
purposes may result, and should not be adversely affected by any aspect of
wastewater quality. The river flows and recharge should benefit the rare
wetland habitats along the river, and any threatened species which utilize
those habitats. The flows will also augment the pool in Elephant Butte
Reservoir, especially during dry periods.
-209-
-------
The reduction in OSS use in the area will reduce recharge in the Rio
Grande floodplain of Albuquerque by a small amount, perhaps 2,000 acre feet
per year. Over time, this could result in a lowering of the water table in
the valley area, by perhaps one foot over 20-30 years. However, the lower-
ing might be offset in areas which receive City water lines, since local
pumping of wells would be reduced at the same time local discharges to OSS
are eliminated. In any case, regional drawdown from pumping of the City well
fields would have a much greater effect on water levels throughout the
planning area, an effect compounded by reduced irrigation recharge as valley
lands become urbanized.
Water Rights. Through implementation of the proposed actions, the Citv
would be expected to retain the water rights credit associated with waste-
water discharge to the river. With projected flow increases, this credit
would exceed 85,000 acre-feet in the year 2000, and reduce Albuquerque's water
rights needs in that year by 50%. A small water rights loss could occur
through sale of wastewater to Public Service Company. It is assumed that this
loss would be compensated for in the sale contract or by a transfer of water
rights from the company.
5.2.2 Odors
The proposed actions are designed to eliminate nuisance odors associated
with normal operation of wastewater collection and treatment facilities, and
to provide sufficient flexibility in the treatment process that odor-causing
upsets and breakdowns will be eliminated under all but the most exceptional
circumstances.
Plant It2. The critical odor control problems at Plant //2 are expected
to be solved primarily by emergency operational actions taken in 1977 and
1978, construction of sludge thickening facilities by the summer of 1978, and
completion of the Phase IA expansion by 1979. Remaining problems are expected
to be relatively minor, and will be solved by the continued upgrading of
plant operation and maintenance, and by the Phase II improvements to the
Plant. Phase II, which will include odor-control measures such as mechanical
dewatering, increased treatment capacity, improved pretreatment facilities,
and renovation of existing units, will lead to an "odor-free" facility by
1983. By that date, Best Practicable Control Technology for odors will be
effective throughout the wastewater system. It must be realistically anti-
cipated, however, that on some occasions there may be a malfunction which
results in a short-term odor problem. With proper operation and maintenance
these occasions should be rare.
It is important to recognize that control of odors from Plant It2 will
not result in an odor-free environment in surrounding neighborhoods. Existing
odors from animal confinement facilities and other sources would not be
affected by the proposed actions, and would be expected to continue to cause
complaints at some times and places in the southern part of the planning area.
The area most benefiting from the improvements at Plant #2 would be that
immediately adjacent to the plant, that is Mountainview community. In this
community the odor problems attributed to Plant It2 should be greatly reduced,
and eventually eliminated.
-210-
-------
Plant it 1. The razing of Plant ill in or after 1983 will eliminate a
significant odor source in the South Barelas neighborhood. As at Plant it2,
complete odor protection for the area will not be provided, because of the
existence of other sources such as the packing plant south of #1. However,
odors in the immediate vicinity should be reduced, and the working and
living environment will be improved. In particular, the potential for
development of the City's industrial park north of the Plant ill site should
be significantly enhanced.
Sewerage System. Continued operation of odor-control stations using
hydrogen peroxide is expected to provide a safe, effective means of elimin-
ating odors at critical locations along the sewer lines. New stations will
be constructed if and when additional problems arise. The design of inter-
ceptor and collector lines to maintain an adequate minimum flow will
minimize the prospect of septic conditions. In some cases this odor-control
measure has resulted in lines which have a large capacity compared to project-
ed flows. The reduction in on-site liquid waste disposal will reduce odor
problems of on-site systems, including odors which occur when sewage is
discharged near the surface in an anaerobic soil, and odors which occur when
septage is pumped from tanks and disposed of to the City sewer system.
Parks. Use of digested, ground sludge as a fertilizer dressing in City
parks could result in slightly detectable odors under some circumstances. If
the sludge is properly dried, stored and applied, no significant problems
would be anticipated.
5.2.3 Resource Use and Conservation
The proposed actions are generally intended to increase the amount of
waste materials which are recycled, and to restrict resource use for waste-
water management to a level as low as is reasonably compatible with an
effective collection and treatment system. This section itemizes the
resources produced or used by the proposed facilities, and indicates any
major benefits or adverse impacts associated with those resources. Where
quantitative information is readily available and of interest, projections of
resource production or use are given for 1985 (following Phase II expansion
of Plant it2, and most major extensions of sewer service to already developed
areas), and for 2000 (following implementation of all the proposed actions).
Water. The projected wastewater discharge from Albuquerque is 50.7 mgd
in 1985 (serving 443,300 persons) and 76.5 mgd in 2000 (serving 674,200 persons).
As indicated in 5.2.1, discharge of this wastewater to the Rio Grande will augment
the water supply of the Basin, especially during low-flow periods. The waste-
water will be fully utilized downstream for many purposes. In addition, 1 mgd will
be recycled by Public Service Company for boiler-cooling purposes. Because
ground water is generally available at low cost throughout the area, there are
no other municipal or industrial markets for reclaimed wastewater which
could increase the value of the resource. The fact that surface water is in
short supply could indicate that the wastewater might be sold to the MRGCD for
use in an irrigation program. Limitations to this option include: presently
MRGCD already reuses much effluent by diverting river-effluent mixtures
at Isleta Dam; any more formal reuse would require study to minimize problems
of land application on numerous private farms in a shallow water table area.
Continued study of irrigation with effluent is recommended by the Facility Plan,
and could lead to an upgrading of wastewater recycling.
-211-
-------
The proposed actions do not foreclose any reasonable program for recycling
of wastewater, if and when cost-effective options are developed. Thus reuse for
aquaculture, recreation lakes and other purposes could be implemented if
desired. Minor water resources may be utilized by the management system for
purposes such as landscaping, reseeding of construction lands, and watering for
dust control.
As noted in 5.2.1, recharge in the valley area will be reduced as OSS
are eliminated. This water instead will be discharged directly to the Rio
Grande for reuse downstream. New regulations are likely to increase the use
of evapotranspiration (ET) systems in the areas which remain unserved by
public sewerage, and further reduce local recharge.
Sludge. Sludge production is projected to equal about 11,000 dry tons/
year in 1985, and 15,500 dry tons/year in 2000. Sludge quality is expected
to improve with the elimination of Plant //I {which produces subpar material)
and with improved sludge handling facilities at Plant H2. The proposed use
of the sludge as a fertilizer-dressing on City parks will recover most, if
not all of the nutrient value of the material. Other benefits include: a
reduced demand for commercial fertilizer; support of biologic productivity and
recreation in the parks; and improvement in overall soil condition
(higher organic content; greater water-holding capacity} greater fertility;
higher cation exchange capacity; greater resistence to soil erosion). The
dollar value of the sludge, based on the cost of equivalent fertilizer (1976
prices) will be $220,000 in 1985 and $310,000 in the year 2000.
As indicated in Section 3.5.2, no adverse impacts from sludge reuse can
be projected. However, over the long run it is possible that metals could
build up in park soils to the point that the cation exchange capacity would
become exhausted, and additional sludge application would lead to leaching
of metals to ground water. It is projected that the metals levels in sludge
will be about 95 per cent of those experienced in 1975 because of the increased
removal of metals from effluent by activated sludge, and the offsetting factors
of increased sludge production and decreased influent metals (due to progressive
control of industrial and other sources). This reduction in metals content should
ensure that no metals problems will occur over the planning time frame.
Based on the literature, it appears that no health problems should result
from the proposed reuse program. However, it should be noted that numerous
organisms have been identified which survive in the Albuquerque sludge
(Brandon and Langley, 1976). These organisms are not known to cause any
danger to the public. Further study of the organisms is being undertaken as
part of Sandia's .analysis of thermoradiation sludge treatment.
Sludge produced by OSS (septage) will be reduced in amount. This should
lessen the influx of organic solids to Plant //2 (on a per capita basis), with
consequent reduction in odor and sludge-handling problems.
Gas. The thermal resources of digester gas will be fully recovered
by recycling it to gas-powered turbines for electricity generation.
The projected gas production is about 160 million cubic feet in 1985,
and 250 million cubic feet in 2000. The gas is expected to average 640 BTU's
-212-
-------
per thousand cubic feet and to provide for the generation of 15,500 kilowatt
hours/day in 1985 and 24,000 kilowatt hours/day in the year 2000. At a value
of 3c per kilowatt hour, the electricity so produced will be worth about
$70,000 in 1985, and $250,000 in the year 2000. The cost of electricity for
the wastewater facilities would be reduced by this amount.
The most significant adverse impact of gas recycling is that the com-
bustion will result in emission of some air pollutants. Natural atmospheric
constituents such as nitrogen and water vapor and carbon dioxide will be
emitted, but particulates, nitrogen oxides and other contaminants will also
be discharged to the air. For the year 2000 the total emissions were estimated
using standard factors provided in EPA (1975a) and should be approximately:
100 tons of nitrogen oxide, 4 tons of particulates, 25 tons of carbon
monoxide, 10 tons of hydrocarbons, and one ton of sulfur dioxide. These
emissions will represent an extremely small addition to the total pollutant
burden of the planning area, and will have no significant effect on air
quality in Albuquerque.
Grit. The projected production of grit is approximately 3000 cubic yards/
year in 1985 and 4700 cubic yards/year in 2000. This material will be disposed
of by landfill; the capacity of City landfills will thus be reduced by the
indicated amounts. No recovery of any resources which might be associated
with the grit is intended; however, if landfill mining becomes practical in
the future, such resources would be recovered.
Scum. The projected production of scum is approximately 8600 tons/year
in 1985, and 13,000 tons/year in 2000. The grease in the scum material
will be recycled if a buyer can be found. If sold, the value of the scum
resources would be about $40,000/year in 1985, and $60,500 in the year 2000.
The benefit of scum collection and recycling is that operation of anaerobic
digesters is expected to be considerably improved, enhancing the potential for
odor control.
Land. It is proposed that at least 25 acres of land be acquired adjacent
to Plant #2 to provide room for expansion in the event advanced treatment
facilities must be constructed at a later date. This land would undoubtedly
come from one of the farms which border the site, and would be obtained by
purchase or condemnation. The productive value of the land need not be lost
over the short run, if it is utilized as an experimental farm to determine
the optimum practices for managing mixtures of effluent and river water for
irrigation purposes in the MRGCD.
Approximately 25 acres of land at Plant //I will become available for
alternate uses when the plant is eliminated. The most likely use would be
for expansion of the City industrial park now being developed north of the
plant site. The land could also be developed by the City for recreation
purposes, or sold. In either case, the availability of land for productive
purposes would increase. No productive land is to be permanently taken for
construction of sewerage facilities; the restoration of any farmland or grazing
land used for sewer lines would be expected to restore productivity to pre-
construction levels.
Energy. The proposed action will increase the demand for electricity.
Assuming generation of on-site power as described above, the net demand for
-213-
-------
Plant //2 will be approximately 39,000 kilowatt hours/day in 1985, and 117,500
kilowatt hours/day in 2000. Two-thirds of the total power demand of the
plant is for the blowers used in the activated sludge process. The other
major demands are for pumping, with some use for mechanical dewatering,
aerobic digestion, and plant lighting. As indicated in 3.8, this demand
can be lowered only a small amount by implementation of energy conservation
measures. The decision to forego advanced treatment at this time results in
a substantial lowering of energy needs when compared to alternatives which
would involve such treatment.
The per capita electricity consumption at Plant #2 will be 40-50
kilowatt hours/year. This is an increase of approximately twofold compared to
energy use in 1976. The increased energy use reflects the shift to activated
sludge treatment, and is necessary in order to adequately renovate a large
quantity of wastewater in a reliable and effective manner. The consumption is
slightly larger than reported to occur at other activated sludge plants (Smith,
1973), probably because trickling filter units and additional pumping occur
in Albuquerque. The net electricity demand of the facility is very small when
compared to energy use for society as a whole. For example, the demand for
outside electricity is equivalent to that which would be required to operate
one 100-watt light-bulb for one hour each day for each citizen who is served
by the system.
Natural gas use at the proposed facilities will reach a maximum of
220 million cubic feet per year in 2000. This is a small amount of the demand
experienced in the area as a whole. Utilization of solar energy for build-
ing heat and/or digestion might lower this demand by a significant amount.
Energy use by the on-site systems industry (e.g. for installation and
pumpage) will be reduced. However, new regulations are likely to increase
the number of aerobic systems in use, increasing per unit consumption slightly.
Chemicals. The major chemicals utilized by the proposed system will be
those used for odor control and disinfection. Chlorine use will be approximately
500 tons/year in 1985 and 765 tons/year in 2000. Hydrogen peroxide use
will be 20 tons/year in 1985 and 30 tons/year in 2000. Supply of these chemical
will, of course, involve consumption of energy and materials by manufacturers
(as well as provide manufacturing jobs). No other chemicals are available
for the designated purposes which would substantially reduce the secondary
impacts of manufacturing. Chemicals for advanced treatment are not proposed
for use at this time. Toxic chemicals such as pesticides and herbicides are
also not proposed to be used.
Materials. The proposed actions will consume numerous materials, such as
more than 100 miles of pipe for sewers, and 15,000 cubic yards of concrete
and 2000 tons of steel for expansion of Plant //2. As with chemicals, there
are secondary effects associated with the supply of these materials. Material
consumption for production of OSS will decline.
Labor. The wastewater management system will provide 160 permanent
jobs in 1985, and 240 jobs in the year 2000. This will be offset in part
by a decline in jobs in the on-site systems industry (firms which supply
and/or maintain septic tanks and other units). The proposed modifications of
lift and odor control stations and to Plant if2, and the elimination of Plant if 1,
-214-
-------
should improve safety conditions throughout the system, and result in a
reduction in man-hours lost to accidents. It was noted in Table 3-9 that
the spraying of wastewater may result in the spreading of disease by aerosols.
The impact of such spraying on workers who function near trickling filter or
aerator units is not known, but is presumed to be not significant, as no
history of health problems among system workers has been established. EPA
(1976a) summarizes studies indicating that there is no evidence linking health
problems to aerosols from aeration system facilities.
Funds. The proposed actions will require a capital investment of
approximately $45,431,000, and an annual operation budget of $1,049,500 in
1985, and $1,159,200 in the year 2000. This represents a sizeable investment
of public funds, and reduces the funds available for other purposes. However,
such investments are mandatory if wastewater produced in the area is to be
effectively treated to permit further use, and if odor control and other measures
are to be implemented.
The cost of wastewater management per citizen is expected to increase
with resultant increases in sewer service charges. Rate hikes of at least
10% per year are envisaged from 1979 through 1984. However, costs to
residents who now have OSS and who will obtain access to sewerage service
should decrease, when compared to the alternate of maintaining an adequate
on-site system. The distribution of charges to the public is expected to be
more equitable as the result of developing a user fee which provides for a
surcharge to industries which contribute large amounts of organics or other
pollutants to the system. Similarly, the adopted practice of imposing sewer
standby charges to owners of vacant land will lead to a wider sharing of costs
among those who benefit from the wastewater system. Enforcement of the
liquid ordinances, with emphasis on large contributors of heavy metals, will
require investments by and increased costs for those industries and institu-
tions affected.
5.2.4 Public Health, Safety and Welfare
Previous sections of 5.2 have discussed many impacts to public health and
welfare, such as those associated with protection of ground water and improved
odor control. Substantial benefits will accrue where sewers replace OSS and
localized sanitation problems are eliminated. Reduced use of OSS will be
reflected in a lower incidence of water-borne disease in the affected areas,
as well as fewer odor and mosquito problems. A significant improvement in
public safety will result from the use of hydrogen peroxide in place of
chlorine for sewerage odor control. The risks of chlorine leakage from odor
control stations or from supply vehicles will be eliminated by this action.
Potential problems of sewerage malfunctions should also be reduced by pro-
vision of an alarm system and standby power for all lift stations.
The public will also be protected by measures such as: control of access
to treatment and other facilities; the increased regulation of on-site systems
to reduce unsanitary conditions; routine operation and maintenance procedures
designed to minimize vector organisms and other nuisances at Treatment Plant
§2 and other facilities. The proposed action involves no relocations of
businesses^, homes, or other private property (except, locally, utility lines).
-215-
-------
No special hazards related to seismic activity have been identified. Existing
flood control structures—such as the levee system along the Rio
Grande and the South Diversion Channel on the East Mesa — protect the facil-
ities at Plant #2 from floods which have less than a 100-year recurrence
frequency.
The aesthetic environment will be improved by the proposed actions due
to increased dry-season flows in the Rio Grande (see 5.2.1); reduced odors
from Plant //2; and elimination of Plant #1. It is expected that the lab-
oratory/administration building at Plant //2 will be designed to blend in with
other buildings in the Mountainview area, that is it will have a low profile
and be finished with materials and colors typical of the valley (e.g. stucco,
muted colors such as earth tones). Plant landscaping will have aesthetic
benefits. Plantings at the boundary line and on the acoustical berm will also
help screen noises and mask odors.
A potentially significant adverse impact to public welfare could be noise
levels from Plant #2, which might exceed 50-55 dBA immediately adjacent to
the property line. Such levels could exceed the background noise in surround-
ing neighborhoods by more than 10 dBA, and could interfere with sleep and other
quiet-time activities. Measures to improve soundproofing at Plant it2 will be
included as part of the Phase IA expansion.
5.2.5 Ecology and Recreation
The proposed actions will provide continued protection of existing ecologi-
cal and recreational values in the Middle Rio Grande Basin. In particular, by
contributing discharges to the water-short Basin, the actions will help maintain
water-dependent ecosystems in downstream areas, especially those in wildlife
refuges and Elephant Butte Reservoir. The numerous rare and endangered species
which utilize the area will benefit, since almost all rely on the wetland habi-
tats for survival. Recreational opportunities associated with the refuges and
reservoir will be sustained as well. No direct adverse impacts on any signifi-
cant habitat or species can be identified.
Because factors other than wastewater management are responsible for the
limited productivity and recreation potential of Basin waters, the proposed
actions by themselves will not produce a river-reservoir system which meets the
goals of P.L. 92-500. However, recreational opportunities in the Albuquerque
area will probably be improved due to swimming, boating and viewing opportunities
afforded by a permanent river flow above Isleta Dam.
5.2.6 Summary of Long-Term Impacts
The proposed actions are intended to provide for the management of
municipal wastewaters in and near Albuquerque through phased construction
of facilities for collection and treatment of urban wastewaters and through
effective management of on-site systems in rural areas. Most of the improvements
are proposed to be constructed prior to about 1985. These initial actions are
primarily to serve existing development in the planning area, by providing an
adequately sized treatment plant which can operate in a reliable, flexible
manner, and by extending sewerage service to already developed areas where
unsanitary waste disposal practices and/or low-grade ground water contamination
are common. Much of the subsequent construction is primarily to serve projected
growth in areas such as the West Mesa, and is needed only to the extent growth
actually occurs.
-216-
-------
The long-term beneficial impacts of the proposed action relate especially
to the pre-1985 improvements, and the subsequent maintenance of adequate facili-
ties. These benefits include:
- protection of water quality in the Middle Rio Grande Basin for all
existing beneficial water uses;
- reduction of on-site waste disposal in valley areas where conditions
are adverse to such disposal;
- protection of ground water quality in areas where on-site disposal is
eliminated;
- improvement of public health at sites where unsanitary on-site systems are
eliminated;
- augmentation of flows in the Middle Rio Grande, especially during
low-flow seasons;
- improvement of aesthetic values, recreational use, and support of
wetland and aquatic habitats because of the increased surface water
flows;
- reduction of nuisance odors and other adverse effects of operation of
Plant it2;
- elimination of odors and other adverse impacts of Plant #1;
- provision of land at Plant //I for an alternate use;
- elimination of safety hazards associated with chlorine use at odor
control stations;
- recycling of waste products such as sludge, sludge gas and scum.
Minor adverse long-term impacts will result from the proposed actions, including;
- consumption of energy, materials, chemicals and financial resources;
- generation of small amounts of non-recycled wastes and pollutants;
- some loss of recharge in valley areas, contributing slightly to
water table lowering;
- commitment of 25 acres of farm land for treatment facilities at
Plant #2;
Potentially more significant long-term impacts may occur, and will require
reanalysis in the future as additional information becomes available. These
include:
- the continued discharge of wastewater from on-site systems, which could
lead to local contamination of ground water;
- the possible adverse effect of nutrients on aquatic productivity and
recreational use in Elephant Butte Reservoir;
- the possible adverse effect of using mixtures of effluent and river
water for irrigation in the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District;
- possible water pollution associated with salts, fecal coliforms and
other contaminants which arise from many sources, one of which is
Albuquerque wastewater.
The proposed actions do not foreclose any future decisions which might be
needed to reduce these impacts, if and when they occur.
-217-
-------
5.3 SECONDARY IMPACTS
Secondary impacts of the proposed actions include the furthering of
land use and environmental policies set forth in the City/County Comprehensive
Plan (see Section 5.3.1) and a general improvement in socio-economic conditions,
especially in the valley area (5.3.2).
5.3.1 Impacts Related to the Comprehensive Plan
The goals of the Comprehensive Plan (CP) were used extensively in the
screening of alternatives, especially those related to extension of sewer
lines into non-urban areas (3.3). As a result, the provision of sewerage
service is carefully coordinated to conform to population projections which
in turn are based on land use policies and densities set forth in the CP.
Specifically, the following land use patterns will be supported by the
proposed actions.
- Rural areas such as the far North and South Valley will not receive
urban-type sewerage facilities, thus helping to maintain their
character.
- Open space and greenbelt areas will not be affected by any major
expansion of wastewater facilities.
- Already developed urban areas will obtain expanded facilities such as
a larger treatment plant and replacement of overloaded interceptors;
this is necessary to promote infill of population within the
urban sector.
- Areas on the mesas which are considered capable of accommodating
growth will receive service, thus providing facilities which will permit
the orderly development of Albuquerque on land which is less sensitive
to such development than valley or mountain regions.
The relationship of the proposed actions to the CP is more complex in other
parts of the planning area, specifically the near North and South Valleys,
Corrales and East Mountain.
Extension of City sewers to the North and South Valleys does not directly
conflict with the CP, since these areas are no longer rural and low-density
in character, and have sanitation and ground water contamination problems
which cannot be readily solved except by provision of an urban type of sewerage
system. However, the extension of sewers has a major land use implication
in that it removes a constraint to high-density development. That constraint
exists at present because of minimum lot size restrictions in areas where
on-site systems are used for liquid waste disposal. These restrictions
generally limit development in the valley to lots of one acre or larger, thus
preventing the area from high-density land uses. With sewers, development at
any density is technically possible, including apartment complexes, condominiums
and mobile home parks. The provision of sewerage service does not mandate
growth. Rather, it increases the need to use zoning, subdivision and
other regulations to achieve the land use goals of the CP. Without strict
enforcement of regulations, the land use patterns in the valley could change
in a manner which conflicts with the CP.
There appears to be no acceptable sewerage alternative which can guarantee
-218-
-------
fulfillment of the CP in the valley areas. For example, the option of restricting
sewer sizes so that only the existing population would be served is not feasible.
Large lines are needed to provide adequate sewage flow velocities in pipes
laid in flat terrain, in order to avoid odor problems associated with sluggish
flow. The option of denying sewer service would sacrifice ground water quality
in order to use an imperfect mechanism for lot-size controls. Direct controls,
such as zoning, are more appropriate for this purpose.
In the Corrales and East Mountain areas sewerage contingency plans have been
formulated in the event these areas develop beyond their present rural character.
As the plans would be implemented only after development had reached a semi-
urban level, no conflict with the CP would be anticipated. However, as with the
valley situation, the provision of sewers in these areas would eliminate a
constraint to even more intensive development, and would increase the pressure
on government agencies to strictly enforce land use regulations which will
achieve the goals of the CP.
Overall, the Drooosed actions generally conform to the land use policies
and goals of the City/County Comprehensive Plan, and will tend to lead to com-
pact urban areas in which most new growth is accomodated by infill and develop-
ment on selected portions of the West and Northeast Mesas. This urban form will
improve the environmental quality of the planning area, as illustrated by the
following:
- growth in valley areas will be restricted, resulting in less
problems of air quality, flood damage, and water contamination
in those areas;
- the more compact urban form will result in less vehicle travel,
exhaust emissions and energy use;
- the emphasis on infill will increase the use of existing infrastructure,
rather than requiring the expensive development of new facilities and
services; the costs of growth will thus be reduced;
- open space and greenbelt areas will remain undeveloped.
The proposed actions also conform to other aspects of the CP, for example by:
upgrading on-site systems in rural areas; promoting the recycling of waste
materials; providing sludge-fertilizer for use in maintaining park recreation
sites; augmenting low flows in the Rio Grande and thus improving the aesthetic
quality and recreation potential of the river; and in general providing a
necessary public service which minimizes environmental stresses associated with
wastewater management, and which supports orderly growth and development in the
Albuquerque area.
5.3.2 Socio-Economic Impacts
The proposed actions will involve substantial public investments in the con-
struction and operation of wastewater management facilities,as well as some private
investments by industries which discharge heavy metals. These investments will
provide a stimulus to the local economy, for example by providing construction
and maintenance jobs. They will also stimulate the regional economy, through
use of materials, chemicals and energy produced elsewhere. These primary
economic impacts will have associated secondary effects, as the stimulation
of the investments passes through the community and multiplies. The monies
committed for wastewater management will not be available for other purposes;
this will reduce to some extent the ability of governments such as the City
of Albuquerque to expand facilities and services which might otherwise use
-219-
-------
these funds. Increased sewer service bills can be expected for most citizens.
The provision of sewerage service to areas which now utilize on-site
systems will have a significant impact on conditions in those areas. These
impacts include:
- elimination of restrictions on mortgage and home improvement loans
imposed because of unsanitary OSS, improving the access of home-
owners to such loans;
- increases in property values probably averaging about $500 per
dwelling unit as the result of replacing OSS with public sewers;
- slightly higher taxes and increased property tax revenues when properties
are reassessed;
- elimination of costs for maintaining and replacing OSS, reducing waste
disposal costs for most households;
- marked reduction in demand for OSS,adversely affecting the many firms
which construct and service on-site installation, with resulting loss
of some jobs and closure of some firms.
A particularly significant impact is that unsanitary conditions will be
eliminated at many sites which presently experience water supply contamination
from improperly constructed OSS and wells. With the improvement in local
sanitation will come a reduction in rates of enteric disease, a reduction in
the number of school and work days missed by local residents because of
illness, and a better potential for a higher quality of life and better
economic conditions.
Improvements in quality of life and property values should also be
experienced near both treatment plants. The increased odor control and reduced
noise levels at Plant if2 should make it a better neighbor to the Mountainview
dommunity and remove a significant factor impairing the outdoor lifestyle of
that area. The elimination of Plant //I will remove a facility which is
disagreeable to many nearby businesses and residences, and improve
the potential for redevelopment of the South Barelas area.
The proposed actions will have the general effect of benefitting productivity
in the planning area and downstream. For example, the discharged effluent will
be fully consumed downstream by irrigated agriculture, wetland and aquatic
habitats, and recreation, while solids such as sludge and scum will be used to
support plant and/or animal growth.
Another general effect will be the increased involvement of government
in matters which were once in the private and individual domain. This
effect will be felt particularly in rural areas as on-site system regulations
are formulated which provide for more centralized control of OSS construction,
operation and maintenance.
-220-
-------
6. ADVERSE IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
Construction impacts which cannot be avoided include noise, dust, equipment
emissions, terrain and vegetation displacement, dewatering, traffic disruption,
and possible disturbance of archeological resources. Mitigation measures
specified in Section 5.1 will be used to restrict these impacts to acceptable,
minimal levels. Most of the impacts will be temporary and localized in
nature. The most significant disruptions will occur in the already developed
portions of the valley which will receive sewerage service. For the most part
persons inconvenienced by construction will also be those who benefit
directly from the sewerage extensions.
Existing problems of odors and ground water contamination will persist
in the area until the proposed actions are fully implemented. Thereafter,
ground water contamination will occur at a reduced level from the operation
of on-site systems in areas not served by sewers. Nuisance odors may occur
under exceptional operating conditions at Treatment Plant #2 after 1983.
Most long-term impacts are beneficial and relate to improved wastewater
management and decreased environmental pollution. Potential long-term
adverse impacts include:
- increased salinity in the Rio Grande as a result of beneficial water use
and wastewater discharge in Albuquerque;
- possible interference with irrigation water use as the percentage of
wastewater in river flows increase;
- possible adverse changes in the nutrient balance at Elephant Butte
Reservoir as nitrogen and phosphorus discharges change in the future;
- a slight lowering of the water table in the valley due to decreasing
use of on-site systems, possibly resulting in release of soil-stored
pollutants;
- possible saturation of City park soils by metals from sludge applications;
- minor increases in air pollutants from combustion of recycled sludge-
digester gas;
- possible noise levels in excess of 50 dBA near Plant #2;
- increased costs to industry for control of waste discharges with continued
enforcement of Industrial Liquid Waste Ordinance;
- reduced employment in the on-site systems Industry;
- possible overdevelopment of valley areas which receive sewer service,
if land use control measures are not implemented to enforce the
Comprehensive Plan;
- increased costs of wastewater treatment, including increased expenditures
for energy and chemical resources;
- the commitment of extensive public funds for wastewater treatment.
Many of these impacts are small and an unavoidable result of providing
wastewater services to an urban and urbanizing area. Others, such as those
related to long-term water quality degradation, are speculative at this time.
Ongoing studies will help determine if these impacts are likely to develop
to serious levels; if so, the proposed actions are flexible enough to be
modified to achieve almost any practicable level of wastewater treatment to
meet a future discharge standard. In all cases, the proposed actions have fewer
adverse environmental impacts than any other available alternative, and are far
less objectionable than the no-action alternative.
-221-
-------
7. SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The purpose of the proposed actions is to promote long-term productivity
by protecting surface and ground water for its designated uses, by providing
sewerage service to all developed areas in conformance to the Comprehensive
Plan, and by reducing odor, safety and other problems which adversely affect
the public well-being. These long-term gains are to be obtained with relatively
small losses in environmental quality over the short and long-term, as summarized
in Section 6. The most significant long-term problem likely to result from the
proposed actions is that very substantial capital investments and operating
budgets will be required to achieve a properly sized and maintained system.
Public funds and bonding capacity for other purposes will be reduced as
a result. However, provision of adequate wastewater facilities
is essential to avoid gross pollution or land use problems, and no reasonable
alternative to the public expenditures is available. To minimize the effects
of the funding problem, the proposed actions will be developed in phases, with
the full Facility Plan being implemented only when and if needed. Phased
development preserves long-term options in the event that changing conditions
dictate alternate uses of available resources.
No aspects of the proposed actions have been identified which will
significantly lessen long-term productivity. Should increased effluent
discharges adversely impact downstream water uses, additional treatment of the
effluent would provide control of any potential problem. The increased capacity
of Treatment Plant #2 is particularly beneficial, in that it reduces the long-
term risk of treatment system breakdowns, and resultant odor and water quality
problems. All viable options for reclamation of wastewater, reuse of sludge,
or other improved management of waste products remain available and can be
implemented, if and when they become cost-effective.
-222-
-------
8. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
Resources to be utilized by the proposed actions were itemized in Section
5.2. Construction will utilize considerable capital, man-power, materials and
energy. Except for salvage of materials, these commitments are irreversible.
Similarly, funds, labor, chemicals and energy will be required to operate the
facilities on an on-going basis. No alternative to such resource use exists
if adequate collection and treatment of municipal watewaters is to be provided
in Albuquerque.
The proposed actions will maintain or increase the diverse and beneficial
resource values of wastewater, sludge, sludge gas and scum. The actions also
reduce the needs for energy and other resources needed to support the manage-
ment system when compared to other alternatives. Should technologies develop
to substantially improve such resource reuse and convervation measures, the
proposed facilities would probably be capable of modification. For example,
the proposed actions do not foreclose use of effluent for irrigation or
aquaculture purposes, and they provide no physical limitation to thermo-
radiation of sludge for purposes of providing supplemental cattle feed.
-223-
-------
9. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
9.0 PLANNING PROCESS
There have been extensive opportunities for public involvement in the
facility planning process, through direct communication, attendance at
Steering Committee meetings, and input at public hearings.
Direct communication involved interaction on a personal level between
those preparing the Facility Plan and environmental documents, and members of
the public who represented public agencies, environmental organizations or
other interests. The communication, both written and oral, was directed to
obtaining information regarding environmental conditions and wastewater
management options pertinent to the Albuquerque situation. A list of persons
and organizations who were contacted during the planning period is provided in
Section H-l of EPA (1977).
Steering committee meetings provided a more structured but still informal
arena for public comments on the Facility Plan and environmental documents.
The Committee was a task force established by the City to guide the consultants
charged with preparation of the plan; it held eight meetings, all open to the
public, from November 1975 through November 1976. Local and regional government
organizations with direct interests in the plan were represented on the
Committee as follows: City of Albuquerque (four representatives, from the
Public Works, Environmental Health, Planning and Legal Departments); City
Environmental Planning Commission; Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments;
and New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency. Members of environmental
organizations who expressed an interest in the plan were issued written
invitations; the meetings were also listed in the weekly calendar published
by the Albuquerque Journal. Section H-2 of EPA (1977) lists members of the
Steering Committee, the dates of all meetings, and the names of persons who were
routinely notified of the meetings by mail. As all major environmental issues
raised at the meetings were also discussed at the public hearings, the public
input on these issues is presented below.
Public headings were held by the Albuquerque Environmental Planning
Commission on 18 December 1975, 5 August 1976, 14 October 1976 and 21 December
1976. At each hearing the consultants responsible for preparation of
engineering and environmental studies presented their conclusions and/or
recommendations. Public comments on and input to the plan were solicited
through formal oral testimony and subsequent written statements. The
public was notified by use of a mailing list, publication of an official
advertisement in the City's daily newspapers thirty days prior to each
hearing, and some media coverage. The complete record of the public input
is provided in the hearing transcripts which are published as Volume 4 of the
Facility Plan; Volume 4 also includes the mailing lists. These transcripts
are briefly summarized below.
18 December 1975. The first public hearing was held to discuss the
work program, schedule and general objectives of the planning process. Specific
issues discussed by the public at the hearing included the need to:
-224-
-------
- consider areas other than the South Valley for treatment plant sites;
- analyze summer odor problems;
- provide adequate information to the general public prior to hearings
which could be held throughout the community;
- provide more opportunity for public comment during the period
in which goals and objectives (selection criteria) are developed
and alternatives undergo the initial screening process;
- reduce pollution in the shallow water table areas;
- study pre-plant chlorination alternatives;
- provide a transcript of hearings for public inspection;
- control toxic substances and possibly construct a regional toxic
waste facility.
At this hearing the Environmental Protection Agency provided assurances that
all elements of the Facility Plan subject to Federal funding would be reviewed
by EPA and stated that: the only non-point source to be studied in depth would
be septic tanks; there would be no detailed sewerage plans developed for
unpopulated areas other than lines necessary to assure adequate capacity for
projected growth; and EPA would not fund a metals removal facility if the source
of the metals was industrial. The consultants explained that: the cost-
effectiveness study would be used to aid selection of alternatives; well
water quality and point sources would be studied; wastewater pollution sources
would not only be analyzed, but treatment alternatives suggested as well;
the sewer use ordinance would be checked for compliance with P.L. 92-500;
and the environmental consultant would work closely with the engineers.
5 August 1976. The second public hearing was held to discuss the
alternatives \.liich had been developed, to receive information and opinions
on these alternatives, and to identify any other alternatives the public
felt should be considered. At this point the alternatives had been developed
for discussion purposes only and no recommendations were made regarding the
most cost-effective course of action. Issues raised at this bearing by the
public included the need or desire to:
- provide greater publicity for upcoming public hearings and steering
committee meetings and to actively encourage the public to participate;
- provide more readable summaries of the consultants' reports with
sufficient time for the public to review them prior to the hearings;
- protect the ground water quality by providing sewer collection
Specific areas mentioned were the far South Valley, Corrales, North
Valley, and Los Ranchos de Albuquerque)
- research Corrales sewerage alternatives more carefully;
- not sewer the East Mountain area (Tijeras), but provide a water
supply system first;
- provide alternative plans for areas such as Sandia Heights and North
Albuquerque Acres which might undergo zoning changes;
- not build a westside treatment plant;
- abandon Plant ill and consider using the site for a neighborhood park
rather than as an industrial area;
- give more consideration to land application, infiltration-percolation
and aquaculture, possibly as a demonstration project;
- study whether the San Juan-Chama allocation could provide the necessary
water rights for land application or other projects;
-225-
-------
- enforce the liquid waste ordinance to reduce COD and metals in the
wastewater influent, and not relax the Stipulation standards for
heavy metals;
- develop methods to effectively measure industrial contributions;
- ensure that metals in applied sludge would not adversely affect plants
and/or the food chain;
- consider aerating sewage in the collection system to reduce BOD loads
entering the plant;
- look closely at ozone and hydrogen peroxide for disinfection and odor
control, i-e., attempt to eliminate chlorine use;
- solve the treatment plant odor problems;
- analyze the effect of feedlots on the sewerage system and ground water
quality;
- use sand beds rather than mechanical dewatering to dry sludge, in
order to reduce energy consumption;
- reconsider aerobic digestion and a pure oxygen activated sludge system;
- implement water conservation measures, including a rate structure
which discourages heavy water consumption;
- designate the Rio Grande as a primary contact recreation area and
treat the wastewater accordingly;
- consider a North Valley treatment plant to serve northern Albuquerque
in order to reduce the load at Plant //2 and increase citizens
awareness of the effects of wastewater;
- possibly use a computer weighted model to choose between alternatives;
- put effluent into the canals, rather than the river, in order that
the effluent be applied more directly to fields.
The EPA explained that an NPDES discharge permit for the City of
Albuquerque had been proposed, but was being held in abeyance until the results
of an adjudicatory hearing became known. The EPA, under P.L. 92-500, can provide
funds to bring the plant up to permit standards. There would be no
objection to additional treatment, but it could not be funded by EPA at this time.
14 October 1976. This public hearing was held to discuss the consultants'
recommendations for selection alternatives. It was the most widely attended
and lengthy healing. The primary issue raised by the public was that of odors,
particularly those emanating from Plant //2. It was pointed out that these
odors interfere with the sleep, health, appetite, and recreation of South
Valley residents and reduce property values. Concern was expressed that
adequate odor control would not be included with expansion of Plant //2
facilities. A request was made that odor control be made the top priority
for the 201 plan.
The engineers summarized a report they had prepared on the odor situation
and indicated that effective odor control at Plant //2 awaited cleaning
of digesters and expansion of the plant to its original design capacity. A
good deal of the discussion and testimony at the hearing related to ascertaining
when the facilities needed for odor control would be installed and how they would
be funded.
-226-
-------
Other issues and recommendations presented by the public included
concerns that:
- chlorination might not be effective agains viruses, and that the South
Valley might be virally contaminated;
- Mountainview be a priority area for sewerage, due to the problem of
high nitrates in that region;
- the noise from the aeration blowers interfered with sleep;
- a new treatment plant should be built away from all residential areas;
- provision be made for control of odors at Plant //I until it is
abandoned.
21 December 1976. This public hearing was held to gain any final
comments from the public concerning the proposed Facility Plan. Public
input was brief. Objection was made to the abandonment of Plant //I and expansion
of Plant //2, and to potential hazards of chlorine transportation. EPA explained
that South Valley sewer connection charges would be established after the construction
contract was let and the costs established. They also stated that the grant
increase for Phase I-A was expected to be approved by the end of 1976.
9.1 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
The draft of the Environmental Impact Statement was distributed to all
interested agencies, public groups and officials on June 14, 1977 (see Part 6
of Summary for distribution list). A notice of availability of the draft
statement appeared in the Federal Register dated June 24, 1977. The Council
on Environmental Quality's due date for receipt of comments on the draft state-
ment was August 8, 1977. A public hearing on the draft statement was held July
20, 1977 in City Hall, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Appendix A contains a copy of all written comments which were received on
or before August 8, 1977. The Appendix also contains EPA's responses to these
comments, either in detail or by reference to sections in this final statement
which have been revised, rewritten or otherwise altered from the draft statement.
Appendix B contains a copy of the transcript of the public hearing held
July 20th. Also included are EPA's specific responses to public comments made
at the hearing. These responses are given either in detail or by reference to
revised portions of the final statement.
Written communications which contained no substantive comments (except in
some cases, approval or endorsement) were received from the Federal Highway Ad-
ministration, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Cibola National Forest,
Soil Conservation Service, Federal Aviation Administration, New Mexico State
Planning Office and State Historical Preservation Office.
Substantive comments were received from the Southwest Research and Informa-
tion Center (SRIC) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Comments from
SRIC concerned operation and maintenance, cost-effectiveness, odor, metals and
conservation. In addition to the specific responses to these comments in
Appendix B, several sections of the EIS have been revised or added in order
to reflect the comments (see 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 3.6, 4.4, and 4.5). Comment from
-227-
-------
COE primarily addressed points needing clarification or expansion. The most
substantial revision resulting from these comments appears in Section 3.3.4
(regarding sewerage for low-income neighborhoods) and 3.7 (regarding an addi-
tional alternative for wastewater reuse).
The major thrust of comments received at the public hearing was:
a) the wastewater treatment facilities were responsible for considerable
environmental stress (especially odors in the South Valley);
b) the stress resulted from problems which included design, construction,
operation and maintenance of facilities; and
c) the City of Albuquerque had not responded adequately to resolve these
problems.
These comments essentially addressed the concern that given past problems there
was insufficient assurance that the proposed actions would in fact be imple-
mented in a manner which would achieve the stated goals.
Other comments dealt with concerns such as: enforcement of the liquid waste
ordinance; the definition of cost-effectiveness; nitrate levels in ground
water; odor problems along a force main in the South Valley; the impact of de-
watering, the high cost of sewer service to low-income residents; and the
failure to hold meetings in the neighborhoods actually impacted by the proposed
actions.
-221k-
-------
List
of
References
-227B-
-------
REFERENCES CITED
ABC, 1975. Albuquerque/Bernalillo County comprehensive plan-policies plan.
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Planning Department, Albuquerque, NM.
ABC, 1975d. East Mountain area district plan, Part 3: Land use plan.
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Planning Department, Albuquerque, NM.*
ABCPD, 1972. Albuquerque/Bernalillo County comprehensive plan-metropolitan
environmental framework. Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Planning
Department, Comprehensive Planning Division, Albuquerque, NM.
Adcock, Larry, and James McCormick, 1974. Recreation. In: North Central
New Mexico environmental survey, Public Service Company of New Mexico,
p. 229.
Anderson, Donald Melvin, 1972. Technology, public administration, and
quality of groundwater. Masters thesis, University of New Mexico,
Albuquerque, NM.
Algermissen, S. J., and D. M. Perkins, 1976. A probabilistic estimate of
maximum acceleration in rock in the contiguous United States. U. S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 76-416.
Antonucci, David C., and Frank D. Schaumburg, 1975. Environmental effects
of advanced wastewater treatment at South Lake Tahoe. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol.47, No. 11, pp. 2694-2701.
Bardach, John E., 1968. Aquaculture. Science, Vol. 161, pp. 1098-1106.
Battelle-PNL, 19 74. Evaluation of municipal sewage treatment alternatives.
Prepared for Council on Environmental Quality by Battelle-Pacific
Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.
BBER, 1976. Economic and demographic forecasts and projections, Bernalillo
County and City of Albuquerque: 1975 - 1980 - 1985. Bureau of Business
and Economic Research, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
BCHD, undated. Bernalillo County Health Dept., Enteric diseases (for 1971).
Bernalillo County Health Dept., one page monograph, file report.
Beckel, Charles L. (editor), 1970. Factors pertinent to water quality in
the Albuquerque metropolitan area. Albuquerque Urban Observatory,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, November, 1970.
Bickel, V., and J. Servis, 1975. Toxic substances down the drain.
Albuquerque Environmental Health Department, Citizen Information Program.
Publication No. 3.
Bjorklund, L.J., and B. W. Maxwell, 1961. Availability of ground water in the
Albuquerque area, Bernalillo and Sandoval Counties, New Mexico. New Mexico
State Engineer Technical Report No. 21.
* 1975a, b and c are cited in the Technical Reference Document (EPA, 1977).
-228-
-------
BOR, 1975. Draft environmental impact statement, operation and maintenance
program of the Rio Grande ~ Velarde to Caballo Dam, Rio Grande and middle
Rio Grande projects, New Mexico. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department
of the Interior.
BOR, 1975a. Appendix to draft environmental impact statement: Operation and
maintenance program for the Rio Grande — Velarde to Caballo Dam.
Bureau of Reclamation, U. S. Department of Interior.
Bouwer, Herman, 1973. Land treatment of liquid waste: the hydrologic system.
In: Proceedings of the joint conference on recycling municipal sludges
and effluents on land, Champaign, Illinois, July 9-13, 1973, p. 103-111.
Brandon, J. R. and S. L. Langley, 1976. Inactivation of bacteria in sewage
sludge by ionizing radiation, heat, and thermoradiation. Report No.
SAND 75-0168, Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM.
Brungs, William A., 1973. Effects of residual chlorine on aquatic life. Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 45, No. 10,pp. 2180 - 2193.
Caraveo, Raymond J., 1976. Sound level survey in new pump building, liquid
waste plant #2. Interoffice correspondence to Robert P. Lowe, Chief
Liquid Waste Engineer, January 27, 1976.
CCIC, 19 75. The Rio Grande in the Albuquerque metropolis. The City Edges
Study, prepared for the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Planning Department,
by Chambers-Campbell-Isaacson-Chaplin, Inc., Albuquerque, NM.
CDM, 1977. Sludge handling, noise reduction and odor control. Report to
Liquid Waste Division, Water Resources Department, City of Albuquerque;
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Denver, Colorado, February 21, 1977.
CDM, 1977a. Plant operations and maintenance, sludge handling and odor control,
management and staffing. Part II Report to Liquid Waste Division,
Water Resources Department, City of Albuquerque; Camp Dresser and
McKee, Inc. Denver, Colorado, August 8, 1977.
Chaney, Rufus L., 1973. Crop and food chain effects of toxic elements in
sludges and effluents. In: Proceedings of the joint conference on
recycling municipal sludges and effluents on land, Champaign, Illinois,
July 9-13, 1973, pp. 129-141.
Clayton, Cubia, 1966. Summary of chemical analysis of water from private
wells in Bernalillo County. Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Environmental
Health Department, file report.
COE, 1974. Selected chemical characteristics of soils, forages, and
drainage water from the sewage farm serving Melbourne, Australia.
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers.
Cohen, S. and H. Wallman, 1974. Demonstration of waste flow reduction from
households. Contract No. 68-01-0041, General Dynamics, EPA-670/2-74-071,
Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory, National Environmental
Research Center, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
-229-
-------
Cole, Charles A., Paul E. Paul, and Harold P. Brewer, 1976. Odor control
with hydrogen peroxide. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
Volume 48, No. 2, February, 1976, p. 297-306.
Coppedge, Robert 0. and James R. Gray, 1968. Recreational use and value
of water at Elephant Butte and Navajo Reservoirs. Agricultural
Experiment Station Bulletin 535, New Mexico State University, Las
Cruces, MM.
Cramer, William N., Kazuyoshi Kawata, and Cornelius W. Kruse, 1976.
Chlormation and iodination of poliovirus and f^. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 61-76.
CWC, 1976. Example comparisons of land treatment and advanced waste
treatment. Design seminar for land treatment of municipal waste-
water effluents, Culp/Wesner/Culp, El Dorado Hills, California.
Dauchy, J.W., 1976. A selected trace metal profile of the Rio Grande in New
Mexico, M.S. thesis, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology,
Socorro, N.M.
Davis, James A., and Joel Jacknow, 1975. Heavy metals in wastewater
in three urban areas. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol.
47, No. 9, pp. 2292 - 2297.
DCEO, 1974. Pressure sewer systems. Douglas County Engineer's Office,
Roseburg, Oregon.
Dean, R. B., and J. E. Smith, Jr., 1973. The properties of sludges.
In: Proceedings of the joint conference on recycling municipal sludges
and effluents on land, Champaign, Illinois, July 9-13, 1973, pp. 39-47.
DWR, 1972. Guidelines for erosion and sediment control planning and
implementation. Report No. EPA - R2-72-015, prepared by The Department
of Water Resources, Annapolis, Maryland, for Office of Research and
Monitoring, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
EIA, 1976. Assessment of the impact of Albuquerque wastewater on the
trophic status of Elephant Butte Reservoir. Environmental Improvement
Agency, Water Quality Division, New Mexico Health and Social Services
Department, November 29, 19 76.
Elston, Wolfgang E., 1967. Summary of the mineral resources of Bernalillo,
Sandoval, and Santa Fe Counties, New Mexico. New Mexico State Bureau
of Mines and Mineral Resources, Bulletin 81, New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology, Socorro, New Mexico.
EPA, 1971. Transportation noise and noise from equipment powered by internal
combustion engines. Publication Number EPA NTID 300.13, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
EPA, 1973. Ground water pollution from subsurface excavations. Report //EPA-
430/9-73-012, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and
Water Programs, Water Quality and Non-Point Source Control Division,
Washington, D.C.
-230-
-------
EPA, 1974. Water quality management planning for urban runoff. EPA 440/
9-75-004, Office of Water Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.
EPA, 1975. Water quality strategy paper. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
EPA, 1975a. Compilation of air pollutant emmission factors, second edition.
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EPA, 1975c. Evaluation of land application systems. Technical bulletin,
EPA-43/9-75-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Program Operations, Washington, D.C.
EPA, 1976. Municipal sludge management, environmental factors. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Federal Register, June 3, 1976, pp. 22532 -
22544.
EPA, 1976a. Direct environmental factors at municipal wastewater treatment works—
evaluation and control of site aesthetics, air pollutants, noise and
other operation and construction factors. Publication Number EPA-430/
9-76-003, Office of Water Program Operations, Municipal Construction
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
EPA, 1977. Technical reference document for Albuquerque wastewater treat-
ment facilities, Project number C-35-1020-01, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VI, Dallas, Texas.
Epstein, Eliot, 1973. The physical processes in the soil related to sewage
sludge application. In: Proceedings of the joint conference on
recycling municipal sludges and effluents on land, Champaign, Illinois,
July 9-13, 1973. pp. 67-73.
Fair, G. M. and Geyer, J. C., 1965. Elements of water supply and wastewater
disposal. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1965.
Foster, Ray W., and Philip R. Grant, 1974. The future of New Mexico's oil
and gas resources. Resource Map 3, New Mexico Bureau of Mines and
Mineral Resources, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology,
Socorro, NM.
Genetelli, Emil J., S. A. Lubetkin, and J. Cirello, 1975. Let's be sane
about chlorination. Water and Wastes Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 10,
pp. 46-50, 62.
Gill, James L., 1969. Water recreation for Albuquerque, a preliminary report
(revised). Albuquerque Planning Department, Albuquerque, NM, December
1969.
Gould, J. P. and Weber, W. J., 1976. Oxidation of phenols by ozone.
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 48, No. 1.
Hamelin, C., and Y. S. Chung, 1975. The effect of low concentrations of
ozone on Escherichia coli chromosome. Mutation Research, Vol. 28,
No. 131.
Herkenhoff, 19 73. Management and policy studies. Prepared for the Middle
Rio Grande Conservancy District, by Gordon Herkenhoff and Associates,
Albuquerque, NM, August, 1973.
-231-
-------
Hinesly, J. D., 0. C. Braids, and J. E. Molina, 1971. Agricultural benefits
and environmental changes resulting from the use of digested sewage
sludge on field crops. Environmental Protection Agency report No.
SW-30d.
Ingols, Robert S., 1975. Chlorination of water — potable, possibly:
wastewater, no! Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 122, No. 2, pp. 82 - 83.
Jester, Douglas B., 1971. Effects of commercial fishing, species introductions,
and drawdown control on fish populations in Elephant Butte Reservoir,
New Mexico. In: Reservoir fisheries and limnology, special publication
//8, American Fisheries Society, Washington, D.C.
Kapoor, Surinder K., and Donald Newton, 1975. Utilization of methane
from sludge digestion. In: Proceedings' of the 1975 national conference
on municipal sludge management and disposal, Anaheim, California,
August 18-20, 1975, pp. 227-234.
Katzenelson, Eliyahu, Itzhack Buium, and Hillel I. Shuval, 1976. Risk of
communicable disease infection associated with wastewater irrigation in
agricultural settlements. Science, Vol. 194, No. 4268, pp. 944-946.
Kelley, Vincent C., 1974. Albuquerque, its mountains, valley, water and
volcanoes. Scenic trip No. 9, second edition, New Mexico Bureau of
Mines and Mineral Resources, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology,
Socorro, NM.
KNMB, 1975. Beautification survey. Keep New Mexico Beautiful, Inc., mimeo
report.
Lansford, Robert R., Shaul Ben-David, Thomas G. Gebhard, Jr., William
Brutsaert, and Bobby J. Creel, 1973. An analytical interdisciplinary
evaluation of the utilization of the water resources of the Rio Grande
in New Mexico: middle Rio Grande region. Partial technical completion
report, Project No. A-045-NMEX, New Mexico Water Resources Research
Institute, December.
Larson, W. E., J. R. Gilley, and D. R. Linden, 1975. Consequences of waste
disposal on land. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 30,
No. 2, pp. 68-71.
Linstedt, Daniel K., and Edwin R. Bennett, 1975. Research needs for the
potable reuse of municipal wastewater. Proceedings of a workshop
sponsored by U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, The American Water
Works Association, The Water Pollution Control Federation, in cooperation
with the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
Mallory, Gloria G., 1976. A citizen opinion survey: how Albuquerqueans
feel about their city. Albuquerque Urban Observatory, Albuquerque, NM.
Matotan, 1974. Western Albuquerque metropolitan area drainage management
plan for the Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority.
William Matotan and Associates, Albuquerque, NM.
Matotan, 1975. Facility plan, South Valley phase 1, priority 1, sewer project,
City of Albuquerque, New Mexico. William Matotan and Associates,
Albuquerque, NM, April 1975. Includes also Volume 2, Environmental
Assessment, prepared by Lee Wilson and Associates.
-232-
-------
Merkel, Daniel L., and Carlton H. Herbel, 1973. Seeding non-irrigated lands
in New Mexico. Report No. 10, New Mexico Inter-Agency Range Committee,
published by Agricultural Research Service, Las Cruces, NM.
Miller, Robert H., 1973. Soil microbiological aspects of recycling sewage
sludges and waste effluents on land. In: Proceedings of the joint
conference on recycling municipal sludges and effluents on land,
Champaign, Illinois, July 9-13, 1973, pp. 79-90.
MMC, 1977. City of Albuquerque Areawide Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Facilities Plan. EPA/NMEIA Project No. C-35-1020-01-0, William Matotan
& Associates and Molzen-Corbin & Associates, Consulting Engineers,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, four volumes.
Morris, J. C., 1975. Formation of halogenated organics by chlorination of
water supplies. Report No. EPA — 600/1-75-002, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
MRGC0G, 19 74. Soil data handbook: decision-making guide for land use
planning, #1. Middle Rio Grande Council of Governments, Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
Nebel, C. et. al., 1973. Ozone disinfection of industrial-municipal secondary
effluents. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 45, No. 12.
Netzer, A., anrf H. K. Miyamoto, 1976. Selected bibliography on ozone
disinfection. Research Report No. 29, Research Program for the
Abatment of Municipal Pollution under Provisions of the Canada-Ontario
Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality, Environment Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.
NMU, 1974. University of New Mexico. Business establishments by size and type
in New Mexico. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Business
Information Series, No. 51.
NMWQCC, 1975. Water quality in New Mexico. New Mexico Water Quality Control
Commission, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
NMWQCC, 1976. The State of New Mexico continuing planning process for water
qualtiy management. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission,
Santa Fe, NM.
NMWQCC, 1976a. Middle Rio Grande basin plan. New Mexico Water Quality Control
Commission, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Northrop, Stuart A., 1961. Check lists of minerals for mining districts and
other localities near Albuquerque. In: Guidebook of the Albuquerque
Country, New Mexico Geological Society, Twelfth Field Conference, p.
172-174.
Patterson, Calvin C., 1970. An analysis of the impact of the wastewater
effluent of the City of Albuquerque on the water quality of the Rio Grande.
Report prepared for the New Mexico Municipal League, Inc., December
17, 1970.
-233-
-------
Pavoni, Joseph L., et. al., 1972. Virus removal from wastewater using ozone.
Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 119, No. 2, pp. 59-67.
Rabosky, Joseph G., 1972. Disinfection of water and wastewater. Pollution
Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 9, pp. 25-28.
Reeder, H.O., et. al., 1967. Quantitative analysis of water resources in
the Albuquerque area, New Mexico. New Mexico State Engineer Technical
Report No. 33.
Reeve, Frank D., 1961. History of the Albuquerque region. Guidebook of
the Albuquerque Country, New Mexico Geological Society, Twelfth Field
Conference, October 1961.
Rehberger, Glenn W., 1975. Chlorination: the current dilemma. Water &
Sewage Works, Vol. 122, No. 11, pp. 62-65.
Riggins, R. E., et. al., 1975. Environmental protection guidelines for
construction contract specification writers. Interim Report E-72, Army
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, 111.
Sanford, A.R., Robert Ward, and Tousson Toppozada, 1974. Seismic. In:
North Central New Mexico environmental survey, Public Service Company
of New Mexico, pp. 85-110.
Schomer, P. D., and B. L. Homans, 1975. Construction noise specification,
control measurement, and mitigation. Technical Report E-53/ADAO 10629,
Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois.
SCS, 1973. General soils map of Bernalillo County and parts of Sandoval and
Valencia Counties. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Albuquerque SCS field office, Albuquerque, NM, December
1973.
SCS, undated. Soil survey of Bernalillo County and parts of Sandoval and
Valencia counties, New Mexico, unpublished manuscript. Soil Conservation
Service and Forest Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Albuquerque,
NM, 449 pp.
SEO, 1974. Possible future quality of New Mexico surface water. Draft
report, New Mexico State Engineer Office, Santa Fe, NM.
Shepherd, John A. and M. Floyd Hobbs, 1973. Control of sewage hydrogen
sulfide with hydrogen peroxide. Water & Sewage Works, Volume 120,
Number 8.
Sherman, Stephen A., M.D., 1973. Enteric diseases: Bernalillo County, 1972.
New Mexico State Health Agency, 4 page monograph.
Sivinski, H. D., 1975. Treatment of sewage sludge with combination of heat
and ionizing radiation (thermoradiation). In: International Atomic
Energy Agency symposium on the use of high level radiation in waste
treatment — status and prospects, Munich, Germany.
-234-
-------
Small, Maxwell H., 1976. Marsh/pond treatment plants. U. S. Energy Research
and Development Administration, contract No. E(30-l)-16, Department of
Applied Science, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York.
Smith, Robert, 1973. Electrical power consumption for municipal wastewater
treatment. Report No. EPA-R2-73-281, Environmental Protection
Technology Series, National Environmental Research Center, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Spyridakis, Demetrios, and Eugene B. Welch, 1976. Treatment processes and
environmental impacts of waste effluent disposal on land. In: Land
treatment and disposal of municipal and industrial wastewater, Robert
L. Sanks and Takashi Asano, editors, Ann Arbor Science Publishers,
Ann Arbor, Michigan pp. 45-83.
Tabors, Richard D., Michael H. Shapiro, and Peter P. Rogers, 1976. Land
use and the pipe. Lexington Books: Lexington, Massachusetts.
Titus, Frank B., 1974. Ground water in the varied geologic terranes of the
Sandia and northern Manzano Mountains, central New Mexico. Draft report,
United States Geological Survey, Albuquerque, NM.
TRW, 1973. Transportation control plan to attain NAAQS by 1975 within the
Albuquerque-mid-Rio Grande AQCR. Prepared for the Environmental
Protection Agency by Transportation and Environmental Operations of
TRW, Inc., 7600 Colshire Drive, McLean, Virginia.
Tumey, W. F. and Associates, 1963. Long-range master plan for sanitary
sewers and sewage treatment works. Albuquerque, NM, 2 vols.
USDI, 1975. Critical water problems facing the eleven western states.
Westwide study report prepared by the U. S. Department of Interior and
Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colo.
Vaseen, V. A., 1976. Protein from wastewater — a source of food? Water
and Wastes Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 38-39.
Voegtle, John A., 1975. Energy conservation: practice and philosophy.
Water and Sewage Works, Vol. 122, No. 1, pp. 62-63.
Walker, W. H., 1975. Effluent for irrigation — a need for caution?
Ground Water, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 11-16.
Walrath, David, and Alan S. Natter, 1976. Aquaculture — new broom cleans
up wastewater. Water and Wastes Engineering, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 38-41.
Ward, Ronald W., Randall D. Giffin, G. Michael De Graeve, and Richard A.
Stone, 1976. Disinfection efficiency and residual toxicity of several
wastewater disinfectants, Volume I, Grandville, Michigan. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
-235-
-------
West, S. W. and W. L. Broadhurst, 1976. Summary appraisals of the nation's
ground water resources — Rio Grande region. I). S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 813D, Arlington, Virginia.
Wilke, Douglas A., 1976. There i^s something new under the sun. Water and
Wastes Engineering, March-1976, pp. 18-22.
Wilson, 1974. Fugitive dust from subdivisions. Study prepared by Lee Wilson
& Associates, Inc., for New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency,
Air Quality Division, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Wilson, 1976. Wastewater management goals and criteria for selection of
alternatives. Lee Wilson & Associates, Inc., Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Wyatt, J. Michael and Paul E. White, Jr., 1975. Sludge processing,
transportation and disposal/resource recovery: a planning perspective.
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Planning Division, Washington,
D.C.
Youngblood, Walton, 1974. Water and liquid waste survey for Corrales. Letter
report prepared by Environmental Improvement Agency, Albuquerque, NM,
December 30, 1974.
Zillich, John A., 1972. Toxicity of combined chlorine residuals to fresh-
water fish. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 44, No. 2,
pp. 212-214, 219-220.
-236-
-------
APPENDIX A.
WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
Responses are numbered to refer to particular comments for the letters
submitted by the Southwest Research and Information Center and the U. S.
Corps of Engineers. No responses are required for the remaining letters.
-237-
-------
Southwest Research and Information Center
P.O. Box 4524 Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106
Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
Please acceDt these comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Albuaueraue Wastewater Treatment Facilities.
These comments are not indeed to jeopardize Albuquerque's
opportunity for grant acceptance by October 1, 1977.
August 4, 1977
Sincerely,
* n ! ¦
fd^JC/Cc
Paul Robinson
Research Associate
PR/jm
Enclosure
-238-
-------
Comments on the
DRAFT Environmental Impact Statement
for Albuquerque Wastewater Treatment Facilities*
These comments are loosely arranged in five sections:
Operation and Maintenance, Cost-Effectiveness, Odor, Metals
and Conservation. Many particular points overlap, since, the
impact of complex systems on their surroundings are interwoven.
-239-
-------
SRIC COMMENTS
- Operation and Maintenance -
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) section on
the "Proposed Action" (section 4) barely mentions either Operations
and Maintenance considerations or staffing and budgeting improvements
Without such discussion there can be no basis for an assumption of
"proper operation and maintenance" (DEIS p.210) for the Albuquerque
Wastewater Treatment operation
In the "Environmental Sett1ng"-section we find only limited
mention of Albuquerque's present problems. OEIS p.23 simply notes the
present staffing and budgetary inadequacies and their impact on plant
operation. This brevity Is inappropriate considering the "past 15
years of problems" (DEIS p 36) at Treatment Plant 12 and the extent of
knowledge as to the causes and Impacts of such problems
2
Two United States General Accounting Office (GAO) reports on
Wastewater Facilities across the country point out that the magnitude
of problems at Albuquerque plants Is not unique. Other regions also
find treatment plants not meeting performance requirements for several
reasons. Including poor operation and maintenance and faulty design work
Local and Regional decision-makers seen aware that these problems are
part of the Albuquerque experience They must assure the people that
such concerns are reflected in the planning process Part of this
assurance must be a fully adequate Final Environmental Impact Statement
Without any more status than a one line budget Item, see OEIS p 188, we
have no guarantee that "continued upgrading plant operation and
maintenance"(DEIS p 210) can or will occur
While we are aware Operation and Maintenance costs are not an
integral part of the grant proposal the DEIS assesses, the complex
EPA RESPONSES
1) EPA agrees with the basic thrust of these comments The I-inal EIS is
revised accordingly
2) A new section, 4 S, has been written to outline anitcipated lmproveaents
with regard to operation and maintenance Further detailing of these
improvements will come when the required Plan of Operation is submitted
at the completion of facility dcii
-------
construction project can only work when sufficient qualified staff and
an adequate budget are part of the system
Other documents such as Camp, Dresser and McKee's Sludge
Handling, Noise Reduction and Odor Control^ and the Facilities Plan^,
In Appendix G, detail the present situation to a greater extent than
the DEIS Camp, Dresser and McKee are also contracted to prepare a
report, due May 2, 1977 but as yet unavailable, dealing with operational
problems and needed changes before and after phase IA^ Such a report
may offer concrete solutions to present Inadequacies
Me feel these documents focus on the problems at hand and should
be used more, along with the GAO reports, to fill out the description of
the "Environmental Setting " In that way we can get a clearer picture
of the needs of the present plant
As it Is, the DEIS fails to mention Operation and Maintenance
options as "alternatives" or "proposed actions." While there are no
good alternatives to good operation and maintenance, there are alternatives
to the present system Good Operation and Maintenance holds the key to a
qualitative change 1n future nlant performance and must be a well developed
part of the "proposed action " While the DEIS assumes proper operation and
maintenance, there are no specific operational changes in the "proposed
action." Such plans are surely brewing - they could be Included in the
Final EIS The discussion needs to include detailed staffing and budget
projections for the proposed plant expansion at each step of growth
Other points needing more work for a systematic environmental
statement include plant design and performance. The Albuquerque system
could use major improvements in these areas as well DEIS p 200
recomnends "guidelines to be followed during the construction project will
S) The two documents prepared by Camp, Dresser and McKee are considered to
provide the greatest detail regarding the specific problems experienced at
Albuquerque facilities, and have been used in making the revisions noted
above
6) Sec response *3, above The GAO reports have not been referenced directly,
because of their general nature However all the types of problems
described by GAO which occur in Albuquerque have been discussed in the
final EIS
7) Section 4 5 addresses certain operation and maintenance measures which
will take place Section 4 5 also describes the requirement for a Plan
of Operation prior to the next major funding of plant construction There
are no options discussed regarding these actions since, as noted in the
comment, there are no good alternatives to good operation and maintenance
8) Section 4 4 addresses a quality assurance program intended to provide for
good design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed faci-
lities The performance guidelines cited in the comment (page 200 of DEIS)
refer to environmental protection safeguards, and do not directly address
questions of facility design and construction They therefore are not
intended to address the types of problems described in these comments,
and have not been modified
-------
be set forth in bid specifications and the construction contracts .. the
selected contractor will develop any environmental plans required by
contract guidelines Inspection procedures will be utilized to Insure
that the guidelines are followed out " This DEIS passage correctly
Implies that there are problems with contractors and the enforcement of
contract guidelines Unfortunately, there are no specific solutions
stated, other than the assurances just listed. Given the performance of
plant 12 and the GAO reports, this paragraph should be expanded Details
are necessary, not simply to pinpoint the culprits, but to properly
describe background problems and to Integrate contractor monitoring 1n
future planning design and construction
The city bas been involved in several lawsuits resulting from
poor plant operation and has just signed a $1,000,000 plus contract**,
partially funded by city taxes, which calls for redesigning components or
correcting oversights of several elements from phase 1 design and
construction. Camp, Dresser and McKee find severe problems with sizing
and function of key components In the Waste Activate Sludge plant,
specifically blower capacity, dlffusor capacity and the pressurized air
manifold' The computer facility, designed to "reduce manpower (sic)
8 9
requirements" remains "essentially nonfunctional"
These examples point to serious problems with the contracting and
construction aspects of Albuquerque's Wastetreatment Facilities Such
poor performance needs to be watched Though Camp, Dresser and McKee say,
"ultimate responsibility for costs and performance of the system will rest
with the design engineers"'", the ultimate costs are born by the
environment and the taxpayers
Because of the Importance and depth of contractor related problems,
more than a paragraph ought to be devoted to them For an adequate Final
EIS, we recoumend detailed discussion of guidelines in contracts
outlining quality control criteria 1n both construction and design phases
of the contracts He recomend the Final EIS details a regular inspection
and monitoring program, by qualified independent engineers, to assess
construction progress and quality
9) Problems such as those with the air supply system are discussed in the
revised Section 2 12 According to the City of Albuquerque the computer
facility is operating adequately with regard to aost of its intended
functions
10) Quality control will be obtained by use of the value engineering analysis,
and by regular inspection and monitoring of construction by the !l S Army
Corps of Engineer*; Refer to Section 4 4 for a discussion of these measures.
-------
- Cost-Effectiveness -
"It is proposed that additional actions be reevaluated during the
next 20 years and recomnended that they be implemented if changing factors
lead to a favorable cost-effectiveness analysis" (DEIS p.viH) We
support and encourage these revaluations The DEIS never defines cost-
effectiveness and falls to provide Quantitative cost-effectiveness analyses
for alternatives considered We hope the recomnended reevaluations can
provide the detailed study missing in the DEIS. Several examples
substantiate this comment and recormtendation
Section 3 6 4. (DEIS p 173) purports to evaluate ozone as an
alternative to chlorine for disinfection There Is no way to balance the
value of the "effectiveness" of ozone on cysts, viruses and pathogens over
chlorlnation versus the "high" dollars cost of ozonation While numbers
are given for power requirement for production of ozone and chlorine,
they are misleading Chlorine appears to use one half of the energy for
production as ozone but chlorine will not be produced on site The
"proposed action" calls for building a rallspur to bring chlorine to the
plant. The costs for this are not added into power requirements leaving
a misleading, or at best incomplete, conclusion Environmental Health
costs are also dealt with superflcially In the disinfection discussion.
The consequences of the city's excess discharges of chlorine are not
assessed (the chlorine contact chambers, though completed, are not
presently in use at plant §2) The text fails to consider impacts of low
concentration chlorine compounds** on wildlife in the bosque bordering
the R1o Grande, especially during low natural flow periods There are
11) The definition of cost-effecilve should have appeared in the DEIS
A discussion of cost-effective anl>sis has been included in Section 1 3
of the FEIS Note that the discussion states clearly that cost-effectiveness
analyses are not intended to resolve all factors into quantitative terms
Techniques are not now available for converting all environmental values
into fixed members It is questionable if such techniques will ever be
available, and debatable if they arc even desired, given the highly
intangible value of concepts such as wilderness, beauty, endangered
species, and the like. The evaluations given in the DFIS are quite detailed,
notwithstanding the fact that only some of the factors are quantified
Where quantitative detail is available and pertinent it has been supplied
Elsewhere qualitative statements have been utilized An example of the
level of detail is Table 3-13, which involves extensive information on 8
different disinfection and odor control alternatives in a manner which
permits fairly straightforward comparison of the options This table was
prepared especially for the DL1S, although only four references were cited,
the information was checked against 60 references to ensure its accuracy and
comprehensiveness Similar detailed information was developed for the
other cost-effective analyses
12) We agree that there is no way to balance "effectiveness" versus "cost"
This is exactly why cost-effeetiveanalysis does not try to resolve all
factors into quantitative terms The cost of ozonation would presumably
not be a major consideration if the following were true the process was
completely reliable at large scale, the superior effectiveness of ozone
could be shown to benefit public health; and side-effects (such as
Mutagenesis) could be shown to be unimportant However, debate exists
as to the validity of all three of these statements This is the basic
reason for rejection of ozone at this time, however, Its potential remains
high, hence the recommendation for reevaluation at a later date
The FEIS has been rewritten to clarify the significance of process
reliability In the evaluation of ozone
13) The TE1S has be-n revised to Mate that the cnerg) cost of chlorine includes
transportation Rail transport of chlorine involves an energy use of 1630
BTU/ton-mile (R Bczdek and B Hnnnon, Science, 185 (4152), 1974) For
the year 2000, with a transport of 765 tons/year, and assuming the present
source of supply at a distance of approximately 300 miles, the energy for
transport would be about 37S million BTU/year This represents about 1}
of the tola! energy cost for chlorine The statement in the DEIS regarding
energy costs was incomplete, but not misleading
14) The environmental health costs were stated in the paragraph on incomplete
disinfection, and in the discussion of secondary impacts on water quality
Specifically, no health lirpa-ts can be attributed to pathogens which arc not
controlled by chlorine (e g viruses) No data are available regarding
possible effects of chlorinated compounds, but as stated in the DEIS,
situations elsewhere where adverse effects have occurred do not parallel
the Albuquerque setting
15) The consequences of the city's chlorine discharges were stated in the
discussion of secondary impacts on water quality Specifically the combined
effect of a decline in chlorine residuals downstream, plus the lack of a
viable aquatic ecosystem in the river reach below the treatment plant out-
fall, appears to limit the prospect of any adverse effects As far as we
can determine, no other water quality study of the Albuquerque area (e g
the Basin Plan) has ever reported such effects, and no observations of
damage to aquatic organisms are on record with any Federal or State Agenc>
-------
no comparisons of the relative health effects of chlorine and ozone, such
data Is necessary for a full evalu* 1 'n of these options The OEIS data
Is 1nconq>1ete and the advisability of continued chlorine dependence has
yet to be firmly established
The DEIS (on p 173) says "on balance," but we can find no useful
balancing, just phrases to list on the cost and benefit side Clearly,
detailed quantitative analyses are required for a fi.ial decision The
DEIS calls for reevaluation of ozonation before any major chlorine
Investment We agree, the expenditure for the chlorine railspur must
not preclude a further reevaluation of ozone and chlorine
We also recomnend future reevaluation of the "Wastewater Reuse
Alternatives," discussed in Section 3 7 (OEIS p 174) While five
alternatives are listed, no quantitative comparisons are made or attempted
In this key resource use area Without a cost balancing or an attempt at
evaluating advantages versus disadvantages, we have no clear idea of the
factual bases underlying the prose discussions How are we to understand
the advantages of the $400,000 - 1 mdg pump line to PHM (DEIS p 18C)
without costs for other options to compare it with'
. This non-quantitative bias stands out most in the evaluation of
land application Though corrmonly, a wastewater reuse option, land
application is dealt with as a Nitrogen Removal Alternative (Section 3 4.1
p 144).
The treatment of this alternative centers on the water rights
Impact of land application Strangely, this section considers impacts to
the year 2020, though elsewhere the planning extends only to the year
12
2000 We feel assumptions underlying this discussion are suspect, as
we have no population figures, water cost projections or even facility
plans for 40 years hence
The DEIS listing of costs and benefits includes a survey of the
There Is no literature or other Information which appears to permit
ready Identification of any wildlife Impacts of chlorinated compounds
In the Middle Rio Grande, primarily because the river does not have
a viable aquatic community which could be easily studied The re-
ferences cited In the comments do not appear to contain information
not found In the references cited by the DEIS
The statement regarding the chlorine contact chamber operation was
correct at the time the conments were written, however, as of early
August the chambers were in operation
16) The discussion of ozone and chlorine clearly indicated that ozone
appears to be superior In killing disease-causing organisms. However,
the factors noted in response 11, above lead to the evaluation of ozone
to be unfavorable at this time. Disinfection Is mandated by the
terms of the NPDES permit, and by the stream standards set by the State
of New Mexico, both of which require control of coliform bacteria as
an indicator organism. Chlorine is the only proven method of achieving
the necessary control on a reliable, large-scale, cost-effective basis
at this time. However because of questions about side-effects of chlorine
use, the recommendation to reevaluate disinfection methods was made.
17) Cost-effective analysis _ls the listing of "phrases" on cost and benefit
sides Quantitative analyses are not required for a final decision
18) As recommended by the Draft EIS, future reevaluations will occur
Quantitative comparisons will be made at such time as the reuse
alternatives can be more clearly defined The existing discussion
presents definite balancing statements regarding advantages and
disadvantages of each type of alternative. To summarize* aqua-
culture is not feasible on a large scale at this time; no users in
need of water for silviculture or cooling purposes have been identified
(except PHM); no other use can be identified which is really worth
detailed consideration at this time. The advantage of the line to PNM
is simple, the City will sell effluent for a price which exceeds the
cost of effluent treatment, while at the same time reducing the
pumping of ground water in the Albuquerque area.
19) Land application is dealt with as a nitrogen-removal alternative before
being discussed as a reuse option because of mandates which appears
In State documents and the Stipulation. These mandates, either
explicitly or Implicitly, make the nitrogen-removal aspects of land
application a prime consideration. Had the evaluation of land application
for nitrogen removal indicated that the alternative was cost-effective,
the subsequent analysis of land application for reuse would have been
unnecessary
20) The use of data to the year 2020 was made because a fixed-size land
application project may have decreased water rights impact over time.
In the case of the Southeast Mesa project, this approach produces B
more favorable evaluation of land application than would otherwise
occur. The projections through the year 2020 assumed that continuation
of Facilities Plan policies through that period. Population figures
underlying the projection to the year 2020 are given in Section D-4
of the Technical Reference Document; this reference was cited on
page 148 of the EIS.
21) The cited listing is not intended to be a "favorable" cost effectiveness
analysis; it Is a list of factors which were used by EPA to provide
a background for the site-specific analysis of Albuquerque conditions
EPA's use of these factors in balancing land application and advanced
treatment was given on page 164 of the DEIS
-------
of the literature on land application, but contains no attempt to balance
the worth or relative importance of each phrase A long list of descriptive
phrases does not constitute a favorable cost-effectiveness analysis
The value of maintaining irrigated land, greenb?1t, in light of
Herkenoff's prediction and the goals of the Albuquerque/Bemal 11 lo County
Comprehensive Plan noted on DEIS p 85, would be considerable. When
offset with the value of water we might find a fair balancing If we
approximate the value of land, with water rights, at $3*5,000^ per acre,
then Herkenhoff's lost 200 acres per year might be worth some $600,000 -
$1,000,000 annually Water, worth 36 50 per acre foot'^ at ?5,000 to
46,600 acre feet per year (DEIS p.150), could cost $912,500 to
$1,700,900 per year Just these rough calculations show the abstract
resources of land use and water rights might be valued within a factor
of less than two, and that the cost of water rights may not be as
insurmountable as the DEIS Implies Were general crop values to offset
the cost of operation'"', we might find an option opening where part of
the sewage treatment plant pays for Itself independently.
The DEIS says on p 152, "The disadvantages of this (land
application) alternative are reflected 1n dollar costs, which are
several million dollars higher for land application than for an equivalently
effective, advanced treatment plant " We don't have this detailed analysis
referred to, only a flat statement of unsubstantiated fact. Clearly land
application offers more than just advanced treatjnent (crop value and
greenbelt, see above) By not considering land application rigorously, or
In conjunction with other wastewater reuse options, we have no firm basis
on which to evaluate the relative merits of each alternative's actual case
We support the DEES call for revaluation of land application
Hopefully that study will offer a rigorous analysis detailing all the
costs and benefits involved in such decisions The city needs to have
such options open as costs change and new information comes out A well
developed reevaluation should provide such data
22) We are unable to respond Co this comment directly. As described the
value of water Is the annual cost of 5rm Juan-Chana water which would
be used to offset a lend application project This Is a type of
operating cost The value of land as cited le a capital cost which
reflects the worth of the land for productive use* and which Is not Its
value as greenbelt. (On a pure open market basis, land which was by
convenent maintained In green beLt would probably be les9 valuable than
land which could be developed; In this context the "value" of greenbelt
would be a minus quantity, which Is yet another reason why cost-effective
analysis does not rely strictly on monetary considerations). We do
not understand how the capital cost of land can be compared to the annual
cost of water, even If the land cost did reflect greenbelt values Re-
gardless, the DEIS (page 152) stated that "the direct water rights
Impact of a moderately-sized land application project might be within
acceptable Units" and pointed out (p 151) that San Juan-Chatna water
could be used without actually increasing costs associated with water
rights The statement that Ln effect the DEIS Implies the cost of water
rights to be an insuraountable obstacle to land application Is therefore
net valid The Final E1S has been rewritten to cast the appropriate
statements in unmistakable teras.
23) The assumption made In this comment is explicitly stated to be Incorrect
In the Draft EIS Crop values exceed co9ts of operation only for
situations In which water is extremely cheap, and no return on Investment
is required The cost of localLy grown alfalfa versus the cost of
growing and trucking alfalfa into the area (see footnote 15) is broadly
comparable, since the selling price of the Imported alfalfa is only
moderately above the price of the local alfalfa* yet comes ftorn large-
scale cocnerclal sources whpr«» return on investment is included In
the price
2M The detailed analysis referred to appeared in the paragraph above the
referenced statement, which In turn references the Facility Plan The
consideration of land application given here rigorously followed all
guidelines and produced a firm basis for concluding that the alternative
was not cost-effective at this time.
-------
- Odor -
There is a strong citizen distrust1® of the city and its promises
for odor-free treatment plants This feeling stems from the 15 years of
odor problems at plant 12 and the continual unfulfilled promise of odor-free
operation The city must deal honestly^with the public for support in its
renewed effort for odor-free operation.
A specific DEIS problem regarding odor includes the statement on
p.36, concerning the Stipulation's requirement of Best Practicable Odor
Control Technology. EPA, in section 261(g)(2) of the Federal Hater
Pollution Control Act, PL 92-500, require Best Practicable Technology
(BPT) in grants for the acquisition of plants discharging into the
25) nation's water Wherever the goal of BPT gets credited to the Stipulation
the Final EIS should also say EPA requires BPT on all its projects.
26) Another incongruity can be found between the "many square miles"
(DEIS p.35) of odor impact area and the absurdly small odor areas on
figure 2-5 (between page 20 and 23) Such discrepancies must be remedied
in the Final EIS For this point we recormend an odor map based on a wind
rose as the measure of odor dispersal rate and distance
27) The Evaluation of Sludge Drying Alternatives on DEIS p 165 requires
clarification The sludge beds are a prime source of odor now and have
been at least since the time of the stipulation, 1973 The OEIS
acknowledges mechanical dewatering to be BPT now for sludge drying
The DEIS at page 165 doesn't envn.on the Mechanical Dewatering being
designed until 1985, while the iu.im.iry of the proposed action (DEIS p vin)
expects Mechanical Dewatering U .n the phase II expansion, to be on
line in 1983 We recomnend the ma EIS clear up this point, for the
Mechanical Dewatering system n"H tr on line at the earliest possible
date.
Because the "odor rights" lawsuit has been the subject of much
coimient at public meetings one clarification should be made One frequent
misunderstanding is how many people were affected by the suit. The DEIS
properly observes that it only applied to fourteen persons Additionally,
please note that while persons were compensated for past and future damage
to property, they are not barred by the settlement from damages for future
25) The goal of BPT for odor control Is specifically mandated by the Stipulation,
and la not en EPA requirement. EPA requires BPT with regard to waste-
water treatment. In practice the EPA requirement will lead to good
odor control, however. It doe9 not extend as far as the requirements
set forth In the Stipulation For example, the replacement of sludge
drying bedB by mechanical dewatering is a requirement for BPT to achieve
odor control; It would not be a universal requirement of BPT for waste-
water treatment.
26) The odor areas on Figure 2-5 are sources of odor problems; they are small
to Indicate that odors come from very Bpeclflc locations within the
wastewater system. The referenced statement (page 35) Is in a separate
section, and Is accompanied by Figure 2-6 which shows the regional
extent of the odor problem In a conceptual manner The Final EIS
has been revised to make explicit reference to the figure No wind
rose was Included because the only reliable long-term wind data
available for the Albuquerque area are from stations located on the
mesa, the data do not reflect the microclimate conditions which typify
the valley area In which the odor sources are located. Therefore, no
wind rose can be drawn which actually shows the distribution of odors
from the treatment plant
27)
This statement has been clarified to Indicate that the proposed facilities
will in fact probably be constructed well before 1985
-------
personal damages, such as sleeplessness and discomfort
Odors are the perceptable signals of poor operation and the aspect
of the plant most obvious to the public Priority for reduced odors could
alleviate the present citizen outcry against Albuquerque's Wastewater
Treatment system
- Hetals -
The action proposed in the DEIS and the Facility Plan to meet the
metals standards of the Stipulation Is reliance jn activated sludge
treatment. In addition the liquid waste ordinance 1s to be enforced, with
emphasis on large contributors of metals
The proposed alternative quite properly rejects the course of simply
meeting effluent limits by means of activated sludge treatment. Instead the
proposed action acknowledges the need for minimizing metais levels in sludge
It is noted in the DEIS that "the activated sludge facilities have not yet
operated in a fully effective manner" (DEIS p 25) Should the sludge begin
to exhibit high levels of metals more pretreatment measures will have to be
considered Therefore this strategy should be among those actions which
must be reevaluated
28) The discussion of this alternative suffers from a rosy view of
reality. The City of Albuquerque has been committed to enforcement of
metals limitations on industries since August of 1973 by virtue of the
Stipulation Ordinances dealing with metals discharges have been on the
books for many years Nonetheless the City's data reveals frequent
violations of the ordinance, and a seemingly lackadasical attitude towards
monitoring and other enforcement measures17 The only mention in the DEIS
of the existing problems with enforcement of the ordinance are found in
the Surmary where it is noted that a problem related to wastewater management
In Albuquerque is " .the discharge of heavy metals by some industries in
amounts which violate the City Liquid Haste Ordinance" (DEIS p iv)
29) Given the gap between an ordinance on the books and enforcement,
the DEIS and the Facility Plan should have required specific coimiitments
from the City regarding enforcement Two excellent "suggestions" in the
Section 2.1 3 haq been revised to Include additional statements regardlnR
the past Lack of enforcement of the ordinance
The City made such a commitment at the Public Hearing (see Appendix B).
in its adoption of the Facilities Plan, the City Council has made a
commitment to the cited suggestions
-------
Facilities Plan should have become specific pledges by the City requiring
%
installation of sampling manholes, and the construction of a toxic waste
facility by the City18
The proposed action of "progressive enforcement" lacks sufficient
clarity While the exact numbers will have to be arrived at as an amendment
to the Stipulation, and following City legislative action, a disturbing
Inconsistency appears In the DEIS and the Facility Plan The Facility
Plan speaks of enforcing the Ordinance against contributors of declining
amounts, to the point where no further significant reductions 1n plant
Influent concentrations can be attained." The DEIS, on the other hand,
seems to Interpret the purpose of progressive enforcement as preventing
industrial "dumps" (DEIS p.159). Clarification in the DEIS that
progressive enforcement would not mean abandoning concern over metals
levels in sludge should rectify this confusion.
- Conservation -
While the city of Albuquerque appears to be coiimitted to water
conservation measures (see OEIS p 178), we find no proposed actions or
detailed discussion of actual conservation measures Possible actions
are only listed and not evaluated, a severe short-coming found In many
areas of the DEIS The reader has no real idea which measures would
have what Impact on Albuquerque water use Such measures merit
reevaluation as more concrete ideas of conservation options for the city
are developed Such revaluations need to be a part of the proposed
action. For example, p 178 mentions the insignificant impact of high
sumner waterwaste on treatment plant flows While this appears to be
valid on the surface, some aspects of this relationship break down
under closer scrutiny. Were the 3,600,000,000 gallons or (at 3 acre feet
per million gallons) 10,000 acre feet per month (DEIS p 93) reduced
significantly, the water rights question so important to land application
would again be less overwhelming Less wastewater flow would be needed
to offset less groundwater pumping, and the precious groundwater resources
would be maintained for future use
Section 3 8 has been revised to clarify the concept oF progressive
enforcement
The discussion of water conservation measures has been expanded to
Indicate the amount of Elow reduction which might be accomplished by
a conservation program, and to state the additional water rights benefits
of Indoor or outdoor conservation.
-------
32) Again, were serious consideration given to low water toilets,
significant wastewater flow reductions would result Given the high cost
of treatment plants, such options merit consideration m depth Composting
toilets, or closed loop oil flush modifications on regular toilets offer
minimal water waste solutions not mentioned in detail in the DEIS, though
such options could significantly affect the wastewater flow In Albuquerque
There and other low water or water reuse options (e g graywater
reuse on lawns and gardens) deserve more than passing mention Such
alternatives are likely to be mandated in the future EPA shouldn't allow
Albuquerque's decisionmakers to slough off such solutions simply because
they are new, or radical ( relating to the root) solutions to a
problem The energy and water conservation Issues will heat up rapidly In
the future, and radical solutions may be the only answers As new
information comes 1n,reevaluation of conservation will be In order
Albuquerque should not close Itself off to such options should further
33)
study establish their worth
( Another problem of wastewater reduction measures open is in
K»
reference to sewering the South Valley, and by analogy other areas being
sewered In the near future Sewer facilities will perhaps be prohibitively
3*0 expensive (what will hook-up and monthly costs be?) for low income South-
Valley residents and will further increase control of the city outside its
boundaries Were Individual waterless toilets considered, possible
advantages would include relatively low costs, elimination of sewer lines,
and SouthValley residents owning their own system and not being required
to purchase city services. There Is a chance fitting these and other
existing homes with waterless toilets would pay for itself 1n reduced flow
benefits Such scenarios deserve reevaluation in the future as more become
known about their costs These options are no more outlandish than
35)
requiring low-income people to fork over $5-7,000, plus $20 per month, for
sewerage After making them suffer 15 years of odor nuisances in their
neighborhood, they will likely now pay for and contribute to future
nuisances
32) In general these options are not now technically feasible. For example,
there Is considerable uncertainty about the long-terra reliability of
composting toilets Graywater reuse on lawns and gardens may be practiced
on a small scale by willing Individuals; It has not been demonstrated
that such reuse will be accomplished voluntarily on a large scale, or
that a government agency nay reasonably impose such reuse without
additional research regarding health, aesthetic and other ivpacts
33) All those facilities proposed as part of Fhase II need to be built within
the next few years to handle increases oE flow resulting from population
growth and sewer line extensions It is unlikely that any feasible
conservation programs would eliminate the need for this construction.
On the otherhand the expansion known as Phase II depends entirely on
future increases of wastewater flow, and will not be brought on-line
until about 1990 Should the City determine that particular conservation
measures are worthwhile, the resulting flow reduction would postpone
or possibly eliminate the need for Phase 111. Thus the City retains
all option*? now available with regard to conservation
34) Section 3 3 4 has been revised to address the question of hookup expenses
for valley residents Waterless toilets are not considered a demonstrated
technology at this time, nor do they eliminate the need for wastewater
disposal They do not overcome the fundamental problems associated
with use of septic tanks and cesspools on snail Lots where the water
table is shallow, and they would not have the benefita of sewers with
regard to Increasing property values, increasing access to bank loans,
and elimination of wastewater-related water-borne enteric diseases.
35) Personal cocumm lcatlon with Hr Robinson indicates that this comment
contains a typographical error and should refer to a charge of $500-700.
See 3 3 4 for discussion of time payment procedures for connection charges
The anticipated monthly charge (exclusive of time payments) is not expected
to exceed $10 in the next few years
-------
36) He reconmend the Final CIS include the following summary,
developed hy Lee Wilson, of the water quality criteria for the
11 metals listed Such data is essential to understanding the
importance of maintaining mininal metal concentration in aquatic
sys terns
FOOTNOTES
1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Albuquerque Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
Project No C-35-1020-01, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region VI, Dallas, Texas June, 1977
2. US GAO, "Federal State Local and Public Roles in Construction of
Wastewater Treatment Facilities," RED-76-45, December 5, 1975
U.S. GAO, "Continuing Needs for Improved Operation and Maintenance
for Municipal Waste Treatment Plants," CED-77-49, April 11, 1977
3. COM 1977, in DEIS.
4. HMC 1977, In DEIS.
5 CDM 1977, cover letter, signed John Rattray, VP, CDM
6 Supplemental Agreement No 4, dated June 10, 1977 between City of
Albuquerque and Wrn. Matotan and Associates
7. COM 1977, p 1-8
8. DEIS, p 23
9. MMC 1977, Appendix G
10. CDM 1977, p 1-5.
11. See Jolley, Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, 47-601
(1975)
See Glaze, Jolley et al "In Identification and Analysis of Organic
Pollutants in Water," Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc , Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
See Glaze and Henderson. JWPCF 47,2511 (1975)
See JHPCF, Literature Reviews June 1976, and June 1977, "Disinfection "
12 This data marks the furthest population projection and no actions are
proposed pist 1995, DEIS executive surrwry
36) The cited material is attached. Two points of clarification are required
The material was prepared by Ann Claassen of Lee Wilson and Associates,
Inc The material van prepared early in the process of environmental
analysis, and parts may have been rendered out-of-date by subsequent
investigations which are reported in Section D-5 of the Technical
Reference Document.
13 Bernalillo County Assessor's Office
14 MMC 1977, p 76
15. What is the cost of local grown alfalfa versus the cost of growing and
trucking alfalfa into the Albuquerque area Charles Diebold's $30/
acre profit on 4,500 acres yields $135,000
16 "Residents Criticize City Sewaqe Treatment," Albuquerque Journal,
July 22, 19/7, p A-9
17 The reference to the City's "intensive industrial samplying program"
at vol I, pg 95, is curious in light of the data available from
the City
18 MMC 1977, p 95-6
19 HMC 1977, p 96
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Standards and existing levels in Albuquerque for Arsenic, Barium, Boron, Cadmium
Chromium, Copper, Lead, Manganese, Mercury, Molybdenum, Nickel, Selenium, Silver
and Zinc
-------
ARSENIC
WATER USE AGENCY
drinking water EPA (1)
EIA (2)
E1A (3)
general Alb. stipu
lation (4)
irrigation EPA (1)
EIA (2)
livestock EPA (1)
EIA (2)
STANDARD (concentration not to RATIONALE (effects expected if limit
be exceeded) exceeded)
0-1 mg/1 Adverse physiological effects on humans:
gastrointestinal, kidney, liver, neural, bone
marrow, and skin disorders and injury; fatigue
0.05 nig/1 May be harmful to human health.
0.01 mg/1 (PHS '62)* A considerable proportion is retained by the
body even at low intake levels.
0.05 mg/1 from a non-residential
point source
0.05 mg/1 in treatment plant ef-
fluent; 0.075 mg/1 for sure
0.10 mg/1 for continuous use on Accumulation of arsenic to toxic levels in the
all soils soil. Reduction of the rate of growth of plants.
2 mg/1 for use up to 20 yrs. on
fine textured neutral to alkaline
soils
0.05 mg/1
0.2 mg/1 Toxicity to animals. This level provides the
necessary caution.
0.05 mg/1
* United States Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards, 1962
-------
ARSENIC - EXISTING LEVELS
LOCATION
PERIOD
AVERAGE
(tog/1)
HIGH
LOW
% TEST RESULTS OVER
.05 mg/1 and .1 mg/1
No. OF
plant #1 influent
5/74 -
7/74
-.028
.100
-.010
4% and 0Z
50
effluent
11/74 -
6/75
-.012
-.030
-.010
0% and 0%
20
plant it2 influent
6/74 -
7/74
-.022
.860
-.010
2% and 2%
44
effluent
12/74 -
6/75
-.012
-.030
-.010
0% and 0%
18
Rio Grande at Barelas
12/74 -
5/75
-.010
.010
-.010
0%, and 0%
8
bridge (above plants)
Rio Grande at Isleta
12/74 -
5/75
-.010
.010
-.010
0% and 0%
7
diversion (below plants)
Albuquerque wells (3)
1974
-.0262
.180
negative
3% and 2%
62
New Mexico drinking
1962 -
1963
-.010
water sources (5)
Major Albuquerque contributors: Sunbell Corporation
discussion
Arsenic is notorious as a poison. It is present in all living tissues in inorganic and organic forms. It has
been used medicinally and is considered to be a safe feed additive (as a growth stimulant) for certain domestic
animals. The toxicity of arsenic depends on its form. Inorganic oxides are much more toxic than organic forms.
The trivalent ion is considerably more toxic than the pentavalent species. The pentavalent inorganic form is
probably the most prevalent in drinking water.
Arsenic is poisonous to microorganisms and acutely toxic to invertebrates. The acute toxicity of inorganic ar-
senic to domestic animals ranges from 0.05 grams per animal for poultry to 30 g per animal for cattle. 130 mg
can be lethal to humans. 27 ppra is acutely toxic to young salmon and trout; 20 - 250 ppm is chronically toxic to
minnows. The hazard of arsenic is that it can accumulate faster than it is excreted. A succession of small
amounts taken in from the air, water, and food can add up to a lethal dose.
There has been some concern that arsenic may be carcinogenic, but the evidence is not strong. In fact, one study
found a significant decrease in tumor incidence when sodium arsenite was fed to mice and rats.
Sources for arsenic in the water include industry,mining, laundry detergent, and pesticides. Natural waters
seldom contain more than 0.2 mg/1 arsenic.
-------
BARIUM
WATER USE
general
AGENCY
drinking water EPA (1)
EIA (2)
EIA (3)
Alb. stipu-
lation (4)
STANDARD (cone exit rat ion not to
be exceeded)
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
1.0 mg/1 (PHS '62)*
RATIONALE(effects expected if limit exceeded)
Adverse physiological effects: cardiovascular and
nervous systems affected. Standard based on the
barium-in-air standard, plus a safety factor, since
there is no study on the amounts of Ba that can be
be tolerated in drinking water.
May be harmful to human health.
Toxic effect on the heart, blood vessels, and nerves.
5.0 mg/1 from a non-residential
point source
1.0 mg/1 in treatment plant
effluent
EXISTING LEVELS
LOCATION
PERIOD
AVERAGE
(mg/1)
HIGH
LOW
%TEST RESULTS OVER
lmg/l
No. OF
plant #1 influent <
i 7/74
.29 3
.820
.030
0%
29
effluent
t1/75 -
¦ 5/75
.260
.370
.160
0%
9
plant Hi influent
<7/74
.224
.310
.010
0%
29
ef fluent
' 1/75 -
¦ 5/75
.210
.310
.110
0%
9
Rio Grande at Barelas
1/75 -
- 5/75
.235
.310
.120
0%
10
bridge (above plants)
Rio Grande at Isleta
diversion (below plants)
1/75 -
¦ 5/75
.284
.370
.170
0%
10
Albuquerque wells (3)
1974
-.580
1.000
-.500
0%
58
New Mexico drinking
1962 -
- 1963
.050
.025
water sources (5)
Major Albuquerque contributors: no industrial samples tested exceeded 5.0 mg/1.
discussion
Barium in the water comes largely from ores. It is used for paper manufacturing, fabric printing and dyeing, and
synthetic rubber manufactering. All water-soluble barium compounds are poisonous; however, its solubility is
limited by sulfates and carbonates, with which barium rapidly precipitates. Barium does not accumulate in the
t¦ - f ig < >e It mai
-------
BORON
WATER USE
AGENCY
drinking water EPA (1)
STANDARD (concentration not to
be exceeded)
More information is needed befor
for physiological reasons.
EIA (3)
1 mg/1 (PHS '62)*
irrigation
livestock
EPA (1) 0.75 mg/1 for sensitive crops
on all soils
1 mg/1 for semitolerant plants
2 mg/1 for tolerant plants
2 mg/1 on neutral and alkaline
fine textured soil for 20 yrs.
EIA (2) 0.75 mg/1
EPA (1) 5.0 mg/1
general Alb. stipu- 1.0 mg/1 from a non-residential
lation point source
.75 mg/1 in treatment plant ef-
fluent
RATIONALE (effects expected if limit exceeded)
: deciding if specific limits on boron are needed
Ingestion of large amounts can affect the central
nervous system. 1 mg/1 provides a good factor of
safety and considers the use of water for home
gardening
Boron is essential for the growth of plants, but
toxic at high enough levels. Toxicity depends
on plant species and type of soil (how absorptive).
These limits should prevent boron from accumulating
to toxic levels.
Small possibility of toxicity. This limit pro-
vides for a large margin- of safety.
-------
BORON - EXISTING LEVELS
(mg/1)
% TEST RESULTS OVER
LOCATION
PERIOD
AVERAGE HIGH
LOW
0.75 mg/1
NO. OF
plant # 1 influent '
[ 6/74,7/74,12/74
-.614 -1.000
.090
34%
44
effluent
U/75,4/75,5/75
-.570 -1.000
.080
20%
10
plant // 2 influent
C6/74,7/74,1/75
-.493 -1.000
-.100
24%
41
effluent
<- 2/75,4/75,5/75
-.600 -1.000
.110
33%
12
Rio Grande at Barelas
r1/75,2/75,4/75
-.320 -1.000
.020
25%
8
bridge (above plants)
t 5/75
Rio Grande at Isleta
c1/75,2/75,4/75
-.316 -1.000
.030
25%
diversion (below plants)
*-5/75
Albuquerque wells (3)
1974
-.332 -.500
-.250
0%
59
New Mexico drinking
1962 - 1963
.090
.030
water sources (5)
Major Albuquerque contributors: Sunbell Corporation, Sparton Southwest, University Heights Hospital, G.T.E.
Lenkurt
discussion
Boron is an essential element for plants, but is not required by animals. It has a low order of toxicity,
and there is no evidence that it accumulates in the body tissues. In most natural waters, the concentration of
boron is well below 5 mg/1.
There is only meager evidence of boron toxicity to animals. 2500 mg/1 in the drinking water will inhibit ani-
mal growth. 250 - 330 mg/kg is lethal to humans. 2000 mg/1 had no effect on trout; 18,000 to 19,500 mg/1 is
the minimum lethal dose for minnows. (The figures for fish are of boron as boric acid.)
The accumulation of boron in the soil is an adsorption process; the adsorptive capacity of the soil must be
saturated before soluble boron levels of 1 to 2 mg/1 can exist. Levels above 4 mg/1 are unsatisfactory for
nearly all plants.
Sources of boron in the water include chemical, petroleum, pottery and porcelain, wood preservation, glass, and
textile industries. Sodium borate is used in herbicides.
-------
CADMIUM
WATER USE
aquatic life
(freshwater)
i
N>
general
irrigation
livestock
AGENCY
EPA (1)
drinking water EPA (1)
EIA (2)
E1A (3)
Alb. stipu-
lation
EPA (1)
EIA (2)
EPA (1)
EIA (2)
STANDARD (concentration not to
be exceeded)
.03 mg/1 in waters with a total
hardness greater than 100 mg/1
and .004 mg/1 in waters with a
hardness 100 mg/1 or less
.003 mg/1 for hard water
.0004 mg/1 for soft water
.010 mg/1
.01 mg/1
.01 mg/1 (PHS '62)*
.02 mg/1 from a non-Tesidential
point source.
.01 mg/1 in treatment plant ef-
fluent; .015 mg/1 for sure
RATIONALE (effects expected if limit
exceeded)
Toxicity to aquatic life, such as rainbow trout,
fathead minnows, and Daphnia magna.
Toxicity to crustaceans,
vae of salmon.
Death of eggs and lar-
Adverse physiological effects: cardiovascular dis-
ease, hypertension, violent nausea, Itai - Itai
disease.
May be harmful to human health.
Interference with the metabolism and arterial
changes in humans. Cadmium is non-essential, non-
beneficial, and has high toxic potential.
.01 mg/1 for continuous use on
all soils
Phytoxicity to plants, decreased yields, accumu-
lation in plants. There is a lack of soils infor-
.05 mg/1 on neutral and alkaline mation in relation to Cd. Potential problems in
fine textured soils for 20 yrs. foods and feeds grown with high Cd concentrations.
.01 mg/1
50 ug/1
01 mg/1
Toxicity to animals: accumulation in body tissues.
This level is not likely to be exceeded in natural
waters.
-------
CADMIUM - EXISTING LEVELS
LOCATION
plant #1 effluent
influent
plant #2 influent
effluent
Rio Grande at Earelas
bridge (above plants)
PERIOD
9/72 - 7/73
1/74 - 6/75
7/72 - 7/73
7/74 - 6/75
11&12/72 ,
2-9/73,1&2/7A
12/74 - 5/75
same as
Barelas
1964
(®g/l)
AVERAGE HIGH LOW
-.005
-.006
-.004
-.00 k
- .003
.110
.170
.120
.050
.012
-.001
-.001
-.001
-.001
-.001
-.003 .020 -.001
%TEST RESULTS OVER
0.01 mft/1
3Z
5%
1%
1%
5X
5%
KO. OF TESTS
200
548
737
232
189
184
Rio Grande at Isleta
diversion (below plants)
Albuquerque wells (3) 1964 -.007 .010 -.010 0% 64
New Mexico drinking water 1962 - 1963 013 -.006
sources (5)
Major Albuquerque contributors: Brother's Plating, Kaenr Plating, Alamo Radiator, State Lab(EIA), Sanitary
Laundry, University of New Mexico, Bataan Hospital, Aladdin, General Electric,
Duke City Bumper, Bumper and Supply, Pour Hills, Royal Crown Cola
dis cussion
Cadmium is a biologically nonessential and nonbeneficial element with a high potential for toxicity. In mammals
and fish it causes an insidious, progressive chronic poisoning, because there is almost no excretion of the metal.
The toxicity of cadmium is determined by its concentration, rather than an absolute amount. Equivalent concen-
trations are more toxic in water than in food. Only a small part of ingested cadmium is absorbed; that which is
is accumulated in the liver and kidneys and has a very slow turnover rate. However, most major animal products,
including meat and milk, are well protected against cadmium poisoning. Cadmium will act synergistically with
other metals. No-effec.t levels have not been established for humans.
Cadmium is obtained as a by-product of zinc smelting. It is also found in superphosphate fertilizers and pesti-
cides. Water carrying pipes, food, electroplating plants, and ore processing are other sources of cadmium in
the water. Cadmium is present in nearly all drainage waters, though usually at very low levels.
-------
CHROMIUM
WATER USE AGENCY
aquatic life EPA (1)
(freshwater)
STANDARD (concentration not to
be exceeded)
0-05 mg/1
drinking water EPA
EIA
EIA
(1) 0.05 mg/1
(2) 0.05 mg/1
(3) 0.05 mg/1
general Alb. stipu-
lation
5 mg/1 from a non-residential
point source
0.01 mg/1 in treatment plant ef-
fluent
irrigation
livestock
EPA (1)
EIA (2)
EPA (1)
0.1 mg/1 for continuous use on
all soils.
1.0 mg/1 on neutral and alkaline
fine-textured soils for 20 yrs.
0.05 mg/1
1.0 mg/1
EIA (2)
0.05 mg/1
RATIONALE (effects expected if limit exceeded)
Toxicity to aquatic life. This level protects
Daphnia and certain diatoms which are particu-
larly sensitive.
Potential toxicity to humans. Causes lung tumors
when inhaled and induces skin sensitization. No-
effect levels not established.
May be harmful to human health.
Effects not known. 0.05 mg/1 set by the U.S,
Public Health Service based on the lowest amount
analytically determinable at the time the stan-
dard was established.
Toxicity to corn. Causes reduced growth and
iron deficiencies in plants. Little is known about
the accumulation of Cr in soil relative to its
toxicity.
Up to 5 mg/1 is believed to not be harmful to
livestock. 1 mg/1 provides for a margin of
safety.
-------
CHROMIUM - EXISTING LEVELS
(mg/1)
% TEST RESULTS OVER
LOCATION
PERIOD
AVERAGE
HIGH
LOW
0.05 mg/1
NO. OF TESTS
plant //I influent
9/72 - 7/73
.050
.290
-.010
32%
549
effluent
1/74 - 6/75
.030
.090
.010
5%
198
plant ill influent
9/72 - 7/73
.070
12.500
-.010
34%
737
effluent
1/74 - 6/75
.040
2.000
-.010
14%
271
Rio Grande at Barelas
11&12/72,2-9/73
-.020
.200
-.010
2%
107
bridge (above plants)
1&2/74,12/74-5/75
Rio Grande at Isleta
same as Barelas
-.020
.100
-.010
2%
92
diversion (below plants)
Albuquerque wells (3)
1974
-.030
-.050
-.010
0%
60
New Mexico drinking
1962 - 1963
-.006
-.005
water sources
Major Albuquerque contributors: Bumper and Supply, Brother's Plating, Aladdin Plating, Duke City Bumper,
Kaehr Plating, Bataan Hospital, Alamo Radiator, General Electric, UNM
discussion
Chromium can be detected in most biological systems and there is reasonable evidence that it plays a biological
role. 5 mg/1 of Cr+3 in the drinking water of mice and rats has beneficial effects, including increases in
growth rate, survival, and longevity. Small additions of chromium to the soil can give increased crop yields.
Chromium has a rather low level of toxicity. The hexavalent form (Cr"*~6) is much more toxic than the trivalent
form (Cr+3). Trivalent chromium is not likely to be found in waters with pH above 5, because its hydrated oxide
is not very soluble. Up to 25 mg/1 in drinking water has no known ill effects on humans, other than possibly
some nausea and vomiting at higher levels. Up to 25 mg/1 is not toxic to rats. Chromium is not readily absorbed
by animals, and does not tend to accumulate in the tissues at levels below 5 mg/1.
There is a great range of sensitivity to chromium among different aquatic species. Some lethal levels were found
to be: 17 -118 mg/1 for fish, 0.05 mg/1 for invertebrates, and 0.032 to 6.4 mg/1 for algae.
Sources for chromium in the water include plating wastes, blowdown from cooling towers, and circulating water in
refrigeration equipment. It is rarely found, in natural waters; most waters contain less than 0.05 mg/1 of Cr"^.
-------
COPPER
WATER USE
aquatic life
(freshwater)
general
irrigation
livestock
AGENCY
EPA (1)
drinking water EPA (1)
EIA (2)
EIA (3)
Alb. stipu-
lation (4)
EPA (1)
EIA (2)
EPA (1)
STANDARD (concentration not to
be exceeded)
RATIONALE (effects expected if limit exceeded}-
The 96-hr LC50# determined using Toxicity to fish, such as minnows and brook trout,
the most sensitive important spe- and particularly to algae and mollusks.Detrimental
cies in the area as test organism,effects on reproduction and growth,
multiplied by a factor of 0.1
1 mg/1
1 mg/1
3.0 mg/1 (PHS 162)*
1.0 mg/1 from a non-residential
point source
0.1 mg/1 in treatment plant ef-
fluent; 0.2 mg/1 for sure
0.20 mg/1 for continuous use on
all soils
5.0 mg/1 on neutral and alkaline
fine-textured soils for 20 yrs.
1 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
Taste problems.
Above this is undesirable for reasons other than
human health.
Taste problems.
Toxicity to plants,
by liming the soil.
A safety margin may be added
Toxicity, especially to sheep. Few natural waters
should fail to meet this standard.
EIA (2)
1 mg/1
// The 96-hr LC50 is the concentration which will kill 50% of the test organism within 96 hours.
-------
COPPER - EXISTING LEVELS
(mg/1)
% TEST RESULTS OVER
LOCATION
PERIOD
AVERAGE
HIGH
LOW
.1, .2, and 1.0 mg/1
NO. OF TESTS
plant #1 influent
9/72 - 7/73
.149
3.100
.020
72%, 13%, 1%
554
effluent
1/74 - 6/75
.091
.750
.030
34%, 3%, 0%
201
plant it2 influent
7/72 - 7/73
.202
1.200
.010
87%, 42%, 0.1%
741
effluent
7/74 - 6/75
.137
.900
.030
60%, 12%, 0%
238
Rio Grande at Barelas
11,12/72
-.016
.110
.005
0.5%, 0%, 0%
190
bridge (above plants)
2-9/73;l,2/74
12/74 - 5/75
Rio Grande at Isleta
same as Barelas-.018
.120
.005
1%, 0%, 0%
184
diversion (below plants)
Albuquerque wells (3)
1974
-.020
-.050
-.025
-78%, -78%, 0%
63
New Mexico drinking
1962 - 1963
.020
.003
water sources
Major Albuquerque contributors: G.T.E. Lenkurt, Sparton Southwest, Sunbell Corp., Alamo Radiator, Kaehr Plating,
Bumper and Supply
discussion
Copper is an essential and beneficial element in the human metabolism. A deficiency in copper results in nutri-
tional anemia in infants. Since the normal diet provides only a little more than is required, copper in the
drinking water may prevent deficiencies of this element. In small doses (10 - 30 mg), copper is not toxic. 60
to 100 mg will cause gastrointeritis and nausea, liver damage may result from large doses, and 10,000 mg/kg is
lethal to humans.
Copper is also an essential trace element for livestock and poultry. Most livestock are tolerant of rather
high levels of copper, though sheep are not. 18,000 to 180,000 mg/kg is the lethal level for sheep.
Copper salts have bactericidal properties, and copper sulfate is used in algae control. Copper is also toxic
to invertebrates, fish, and plants. It exhibits synergistic effects with zinc, cadmium, mercury, and pentachloro-
phenate.
Sources for copper in the water include industrial effluents, corrosive action of water on copper and brass
tubing, herbicides, and the weathering of rock. Most natural waters contain less than 0.5 mg/1 of copper.
-------
LEAD
STANDARD (concentration not to
WATER USE AGENCY be exceeded)
aquatic life EPA (1) 0.03 mg/1
(freshwater)
drinking water EPA (1)
EIA (2)
EIA"1 (3)
general Alb. stipu-
lation
irrigation EPA (1)
EIA (2)
livestock EPA (1)
0.05 mg/1
0.05 mg/1
0.05 mg/1 (PHS '62)*
0.1 mg/1 from a non-residential
point source
0.05 mg/1 in treatment plant ef
fluent; 0.075 mg/1 for sure.
5.0 mg/1 for continuous use on
all soils
10 mg/1 on neutral and alkaline
fine-textured soils for 20 yrs.
0.05 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
EIA (2)
0.05 mg/1
RATIONALE (effects expected if limit exceeded)
Toxicity: effects on reproduction. Based on the
safe level for Daphnia magna, because preliminary
tests show it is probably also the safe level for
the fathead minnow, brook trout.rainbow trout,
guppies, sticklebacks, and goldfish.
Toxicity: gastrointestinal disturbances, mental
confusion, visual disturbances, paralysis, anemia.
May be harmful to human health.
Very toxic taken in by either brief or prolonged
exposure. A cumulative poison.
Phytotoxicity relatively low.
Potential toxicity. Apparently decreases disease
resistance. May accumulate in tissues and milk
in levels toxic to humans.
-------
LEAD - EXISTING LEVELS
(mg/1)
% TEST RESULTS OVER
LOCATION
PERIOD
AVERAGE
HIGH
LOW
0.05 mg/1
NO. OF TESTS
plant //I influent
9/72 - 7/73
-.104
. 5'40
.010
87%
550
effluent
1/74 - 6/75
-.055
.150
-.020
61%
196
plant 112 influent
7/72 - 7/73
-.079
.600
-.010
82%
821
effluent
7/74 - 6/75
-.044
.500
.010
28%
236
Rio Grande at Barelas
115.12/72,2/73-
-.024
.300
-.010
5%
190
bridge (above plants)
9/73,16.2/74,
12/74 - 5/75
Rio Grande at Isleta
same as Barelas
-.026
.110
.005
8%
184
diversion (below plants)
Albuquerque wells (3) 1974
New Mexico drinking 1962
water sources (5)
Major Albuquerque contributors:
-.011
- 1963
.022
-.025
negative
-.010
0%
63
Alamo Radiator, G.T.E. Lenkurt, American Linen Supply, Kaehr Plating, Sparton
Southwest, Royal Crown Cola, Aladdin Plating, University of New Mexico, Sanitary
Laundry, Bataan Hospital, Brother's Plating, Sexton Plating, Sunbell Corp.
discussion
Lead is an element for which there is no nutritional need and which can be toxic. It is a cumulative poison,
having a tendency to accumulate in tissues. Chronic lead poisoning is similar to multiple sclerosis in its
symptoms, and excess chromosomal breaks have been found in chronically poisoned human beings. Cattle and
sheep are considerably more resistant to lead toxicity than horses.
The toxicity of lead to plants is low; in fact, there is not sufficient evidence to indicate that lead, as it
occurs in nature, is toxic to vegetation.(ref. l,p. 343) It may inhibit cell proliferation. The principal entry
of lead into plants is from aerial deposits, indicating that lead which falls on the soil may not be available
to plants.
Lead is absorbed from food, the air, water, and tobacco smoke. Sources for lead in water include industry, the
action of water on lead pipes, and deposition from polluted air. The lead concentration in natural waters seldom
exceeds 0.05 mg/1.
-------
MANGANESE
WATER USE
AGENCY
drinking water EPA (1)
STANDARD (concentration not to
be exceeded)
0.05 mg/1 of soluble manganese
(Mn++)
EIA (2)
EIA (3)
0. 2 mg/1
0.05 mg/1 (PHS '62)*
general Alb. stipu-
lation (4)
irrigation EPA (1)
EIA (2)
livestock EPA (1)
1.0 mg/1 from a non-residential
point source
0.1 mg/1 in treatment plant ef-
fluent
0.20 mg/1 for continued use on
all soils
10 mg/1 on neutral and alkaline
fine-textured soils for 20 yrs.
0.2mg/l
An upper limit of acceptability
is not necessary.
RATIONALE (effects expected if limit exceeded)
Taste problems, staining of plumbing fixtures and
laundry, accumulation of manganese deposits in
distribution system.
Undesirable for reasons other than human health.
Unpleasant tastes and stains. Fosters growth of
some micro-organisms in resevoirs and filter and
distribution systems.
Toxicity to many crops, especially in acid soils.
The allowable concentration can be increased with
alkaline and calcerous soils and with crops having
higher tolerance.
Manganese is a required trace element, and it is
unlikely that it would be found at toxic levels
in supply waters.
-------
MANGANESE -EXISTING LEVELS
LOCATION
PERIOD
AVERAGE
(mg/1)
HIGH
LOW
% TEST RESULTS OVER
.05, .1, and .2 mg/1
NO. OF TESTS
plant #1 influent
2/73 - 6/73
.062
1.600
.030
30%, 2%, 0.4%
501
effluent
1/74 - 6/75
.048
. 120
.020
20%, 0.7%, 0%
151
plant//2 influent
2/73 - 7/73
.050
.170
.010
33%, 2%, 0%
508
effluent
7/74 - 6/75
.040
.110
.020
16%, 0.5%, 0%
191
Barelas extractable
3/73 - 9/73
.604
9.400
.010
98%, 96%, 85%
80
fxltrate
1&2/74,1-5/75
-.028
.280
-.010
12%, 5%, 3%
74
Isleta extractable
same as Barelas
-.574
3.400
-.010
99%, 97%, 91%
74
filtrate
-.044
. 680
-.010
9%, 8%, 5%
75
Albuquerque wells (3)
1974
-.05
.05
.02
0%, 0%, 0%
63
New Mexico drinking
1962 - 1963
-.013
-.006
water sources (5)
Major Albuquerque contributors: No industries in Albuquerque that have been tested have been found to produce
manganese in excess of the maximum allowable concentration.
discussion
Manganese is a required trace element for animals, but can be toxic in high enough amounts. It is unlikely that
toxic amounts would be present in water supplies. Surface waters rarely contain more than 1 mg/1 of manganese,
since its carbonates, oxides and hydroxides are only slightly soluble. There is a possible association of
manganese toxicity with hemochromatosis. 0.005 mg/1 is toxic to some algae. 0.05 mg/1 is not toxic to fish.
The toxicity of manganese towards crops is associated with acid soils, decreasing with increasing pH.
Sources for manganese include weathering of rock, mining, inks, dyes, glass, ceramics, matches, dry-cell batteries,
paints and varnishes.
-------
MERCURY
WATER USE
AGENCY
STANDARD (concentration not to
be exceeded)
aquatic life
(freshwater)
EPA (1) Total body burden 0.5 ug total
Hg per g wet weight of any aqua-
tic organism & 0.2 ug/1 at any
time or place & 0.05 ug/1 total
Hg as the average in unfilcered
water.
drinking water EPA (1)
0.002 mg/1
general
EIA (2) 0.002 mg/1
EIA (3) 0.005 mg/1 (Technical Review
Committee Tentative Standards)
Alb. stipu- .005 mg/1 from a non-residential
lation (4) point source
.001 mg/1 in treatment plant ef-
fluent; .0015 mg/1 for sure
livestock
EPA (1)
10 ug/1
EIA (2)
0.0002 mg/1
RATIONALE (effects expected if limit exceeded)
Toxicity. Fish, such as Northern Pike and rain-
bow trout, phytoplankton, macrophytes, and other
aquatic life magnify Hg concentrations from the
water and the food chain. These limits should pro-
tect selected species of fish and predatory aqua-
tic organisms.
Adverse physiological effects, both acute and
chronic: neurological disorders, kidney damage,
muscle tremors and spasms, nausea, death.
May be harmful to human health.
Severe neurological disorders. Tonicity to aqua-
tic life.
This limit provides anradequate margin of safety
to humans, who will subsequently not be exposed
to as much as 0.5 ppm of Hg through consumption
of animal tissue.
-------
MERCURY - EXISTING LEVELS
LOCATION
PERIOD
AVERAGE
(mg/1)
HIGH
LOW
% TEST RESULTS OVER .002mg/l
NO. OF '
plant //I influent
6/74 - 6/75
-.003
.040
-.001
51%
190
effluent
t! 11
-.002
.004
-.001
10%
52
plant //2 influent
ft tl
-.002
.150
-.001
14%
356
effluent
fl tl
-.001
.005
-.001
8%
86
Rio Grande at Barelas
12/74-5/75
-.001
.005
-.001
0%
11
bridge (above plants)
Rio Grande at Isleta
tt II
-.001
.002
-.001
0%
11
diversion (below plants)
Major Albuquerque contributors: State Lab (ELA), Alamo Radiator, G.T.E. Lenkurt
discussion
Mercury is ubiquitous in the environment. It sorbs readily onto a variety of materials, including the bottom sedi-
ments of streams. There it may undergo biological methylation by micro-organisms. It enters the food chain through
uptake by aquatic plants, lower animals, and fish. Mercury causes both acute and chronic poisoning. Trace copper
will increase the toxicity of mercury. Mercurous (Hg+) salts are less toxic than mercuric (Hg++) because of being
less soluble in the digestive tract. Organic compounds are the most toxic mercury derivatives to humans, especially
alkyl mercury compounds. About 90% of ingested methyl mercury is absorbed, as opposed to 2% of ingested mercuric
ion. The half-life of methyl mercury in humans is about 70 or 80 days. Alkyl mercury poisoning may manifest it-
self after a few weeks or not until a few years. 0.2 ppm is the lowest whole blood concentration of methyl mercury
which produces toxic symptoms in humans; 20 - 30 mg of mercuric salts is a fatal dose. Mercury will cause exces-
sive chromosomal breads and inhibition of mitosis. Mercury is present in food, especially fish. The FDA has set
0.5 mg/kg as the maximum allowable concentration of mercury in fish to be consumed by humans.
Aquatic organisms concentrate metyl mercury in their bodis directly from water or through the food chain. Fresh-
water phytoplankton, macrophytes, and fish are capable of concentrating mercury from the water 1000 to 10,000 times.
The half-life of mercury in fish is considerably longer than in humans - about two years. Fish can survive rela-
tively high concentrations of mercury for short periods; the lethal concentration is lowered as exposured time is
lenghtened. 1 mg/1 of inorganic mercury was found to be fatal to fish within 96 hours; over ten days, 10-20mg/l
was lethal. 0.2 ug/1 of methyl mercury killed fathead minnows. Gammarus, Daphnia, top minnows, and brook trout were
no more sensitive. Mercury alters the epithelium of fish skin and gills and causes severe disturbance of egg devel-
opment. Some species of phytoplankton are particularly sensitive to mercury toxicity.
Alkyl mercury has a high degree of stability in the body, resulting in a cumulative effect. Its half-life in most
animal species is 20 - 70 days. It concentrates in the brain, liver and kidney, and may be transferred to fetuses
and eggs.
Sources for mercury in the water include leaching from geological formations, smelting of ores, industrial and agri-
cultural applications, burning of fossil fuels, and dumping of consumer products into sewers.. U.S. waters usually
contain less than 0.5 ug/1. The low concentrations recommended for aquatic life by the EPA are difficult to deter-
mine; therfore a standard for mercury levels in fish, which is easier to measure, is included.
-------
MOLYBDENUM
WATER USE
drinking water
general
irrigation
livestock
AGENCY
EIA (3)
Alb. stipu-
lation
EPA (1)
EIA (2)
EIA (3)
EPA (1)
STANDARD (concentration not to
be exceeded)
0.01 mg/1
0.010 mg/1 from a non-residential
point source
0.01 tig/1 in treatment plant ef-
fluent
0.010 mg/1 for continued use on
all soils
0.050 mg/1 for short term use on
soils that react with Mo.
RATIONALE (effects expected if limit exceeded)
Based on toxicities to animals from molybdenum -
containing forage.
0.15 mg/1
(0.05 mg/1 on acid soils with a Proposed limit to protect against inducing Mo
large capacity to combine with Mo)toxicity at a later time as a result of over-
liming in humid and subhumid areas.
Setting an upper allowable limit
is not possible at this time.
There are many factors influencing the toxicity
of Mo: chemical form of the element, uptake of
copper and sulphur by the animal, and others.
-------
MOLYBDENUM - EXISTING LEVELS
(mg/1)
% TEST RESULTS OVER
O.Ol mg/1 NO. OF TESTS
LOCATION
PERIOD
AVERAGE HIGH LOW
plant #1 influent
effluent
plant //2 influent
effluent
6/74 - 8/74
12/74 - 5/75
6/74 - 8/74
12/74 - 5/75
12/74 - 5/75
-.008 .180 -.001
-.010 .020 -.005
-.012 .240 -.001
-.009 .020 -.001
-.015 .050 -.010
6-8%
8%
8 - 10%
7%
18%
53
13
50
15
11
Rio Grande at Barelas
bridge (above plants)
Rio Grande at Isleta
diversion (below plants)
New Mexico drinking
12/74 - 5/75
1962 - 1963
-.014 .050 -.010
-.013 -.006
9%
11
water sources (5)
Mai or Albuquerque contributors: State Lab
discussion
Molybdenum is a quite stable element and is available in a number of oxide forms, as well as a disulphide and
as ferromolybdenum. It is not a serious pollutant, but is a biologically active metal. In fresh waters, molyb-
denum is a needed micronutrient for the growth of phytoplankton. It is also essential in animal nutrition,
though the amounts required have not been established. Cattle may need something on the order of 0.01 ppm
molybdenum in their dry diet.
There is no problem of toxicity to plants at the concentrations usually found in soils and water; however, molyb-
denum will accumulate in plant tissue in amounts porportional to that in the soil, making such plants toxic to
animals. 0.01 mg/1 of molybdenum in solution will produce legumes having 5 mg/kg or more. This is the commonly
accepted limit for safe feeding of cattle. 5 to 30 ppm of molybdenum in forage is toxic to ruminants, the amount
of toxicity being influenced by the presence of other elements, especially copper and sulphur. Pasturing on
herbage with 20 - 100 ppm molybdenum (dry basis) produces a toxicosis called teart, which can be controlled by
copper additions to the diet. 1 to 1.5 mg/kg/day had no effect on th^ growth rate, survival, or longevity of
mice and rats. The 96 hour LC50 for fathead minnows was found to lie 70 mg/1 of molybdic anhydride (Mo03) in
soft water and 370 mg/1 in hard water.
Molybdenum is used in the manufacture of special tool steels, in chemical applications, ceramic glazes, and
photography. It may also enter the water from mining operations. Natural surface waters rarely contain concen-
trations of molybdenum greater than 1 mg/1.
-------
NICKEL
WATER USE
aquatic life
(freshwater)
general
irrigation
AGENCY
EPA (1)
drinking water EIA (3)
Alb. stipu-
lation
EPA (1)
EIA (2)
EIA (3)
STANDARD (concentration not to
be exceeded)
RATIONALE (effects expected if limit exceeded)
96-hr LC50#,determined using the Toxicity t(J aquatic life, such as, fathead min
most sensitive important species nows, Daphnia magna, goldfish, sticklebacks,
in the area, multiplied by an and guppies. Reduced reproduction,
application factor of 0.02
0.05 mg/1 Toxicity.
1.0 mg/1 from a non-residential
point source
0.1 mg/1 in treatment plant ef-
fluent
0.20 mg/1 for continued use on Toxicity to a number of plants, e.g., tomatoes
all soils flax, hop, barley, beans, and oats.
2.0 mg/1 on neutral fine-textured
soils for up to 20 years.
0.2 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
Tentative tolerance level based on the depres-
sion of growth of flax at this level. Further
investigation may suggest a iower limit.
if The concentration which is lethal to 50% of the test organism within a 96 hour period.
-------
NICKEL -
EXISTING LEVELS
LOCATION
plant //I influent
effluent
plant //2 Influent
effluent
Barelas extractable
filtrate
Isleta extractable
filtrate
Albuquerque wells (3)
New Mexico drinking
water sources (5)
Major Albuquerque contributors: Bumper and Supply, Duke City Bumper, Aladdin Plating, Alamo Radiator, Kaehr
Plating
discussion
Nickel is a constituent in many ores, minerals, and soils, and is a relatively inert material. Nickel ions are
toxic, especially to plants, and they exhibit synergistic effects with other metals. Nickel can substantially
inhibit the biochemical oxidation of sewage. 0.5 to 2.0 mg/1 is toxic to many plants; corn does not show toxic
effects at 2 mg/1, but does at 10 mg/1. Increasing the pH of the soil will reduce the toxicity of nickel added
to the soil. It was found that the greatest capacity for absorbing nickel without development of toxicity was
by soils with 21% organic matter. Natural nickel toxicities are found in conjunction with high chromium levels
in soils developed from serpentine rock.
Nickel salts in large doses cause gastrointestinal disturbances and can inhibit enzyme systems. Nickel reduced
the growth rate of calves and caused nephritic kidneys. The chronically safe level for fathead minnows was
determined to be 0.4 - 0.8 mg/1 in hard water and 0.1 mg/1 in soft water. 4 to 21 mg/kg/day for 200 days had no
apparent effects on dogs and cats. 5 mg/1 of Ni+2 gaVe -a-significant decrease in tumor incidence in mice when
administered orally, but positive carcinogenicity was found in rats who received nickel by routes other than
oral. Positive carcinogenicity has also been found in humans from working with nickel (lung and nasal sinuses)
and from taking nickel containing drugs.
Sources for nickle in the water include mining wastes, electroplating plants, and industrial smoke.
(mg/1)
% TEST
RESULTS OVER
PERIOD
AVERAGE
HIGH
LOW
.05, 0
.1, and 0.2 mg/1
NO. OF 1
9/72 - 6/73
-.037
.350
-.010
17%,
4%,
1%
644
1/74 - 6/75
-.021
.240
-.010
5%,
2% ,0,
.3%
291
6/72 - 7/73
-.045
1.600
-.010
17%,
6%,
1%
737
7/74 - 6/75
-.038
.190
.010
26%,
3%,
0%
239
116.12/72,2-9/73
-.025
.120
-.010
6%,
1%,
0%
98
1&2/74,12/74-5/75
-.014
. 370
.005
1%,
1%,
1%
92
same as Barelas
-.024
.080
-.010
3%,
0%,
0%
92
-.011
.050
-.010
0%,
0%,
0%
91
1974
-.071
-.100
.070
7 7
• • f
0%,
0 %
60
1962 - 1963
-.013
-.006
-------
SELENIUM
STANDARD (concentration not to
WATER USE AGENCY be exceeded)
drinking water EPA (1) 0.01 mg/1
EIA (2)
EIA (3)
0.01 mg/]
0.01 mg/1 (PHS '62)
general Alb. stipu- 0.02 mg/1 from a non-residential
lation point source
0.01 mg/1 in treatment plant ef-
fluent
irrigation EPA (1) 0.02 mg/1 for continuous use on
all soils
EIA (2) 0.01 mg/1
livestock EPA (1) 0.05 mg/1
EIA (2) 0.01 mg/1
RATIONALE (effects expected if limit exceeded)
Toxic effects on humans: gastrointestinal dis-
turbances, hypotension, respiratory failure,
death.
May be harmful to human health.
Toxicity to humans and animals: increases dental
caries, potential carcinogen.
Low levels produce toxic levels in forages.
Toxicity to plants.
Toxicity.
-------
SELENIUM - EXISTING LEVELS
LOCATION
plant //I influent
effluent
plant//2 Influent
effluent
Rio Grande at Barelas
bridge (above plants)
Rio Grande at Isleta
diversion (below plants)
Albuquerque wells (3)
New Mexico drinking
water sources (5)
Major Albuquerque contributors: No Albuquerque industries tested have been found to produce selenium in excess
of the maximum allowable concentration.
a Most selenium concentrations are reported as 'less than' a given amount. The first percentage is calculated
using only absolute figures; the second percentage is calculated assuming that all concentrations are equal to
their absolute value, e.g., -.030 = .030 (or at least is greater than .020).
discussion
Selenium occurs naturally in certain pasture areas. Elemental selenium is highly insoluble and must be oxidized
to selenite or selenate before it appears at appreciable concentrations in water. This oxidation may be catalyzed
by certain soil bacteria. Selenium is removed from water by precipitation with ferrous hydroxide and by microbial
activity. Selenium toxicity resembles that of arsenic. Interestingly enough, the toxicity of selenium is sometimes
counteracted by additions of arsenic. Organic selenium is more toxic than its inorganic forms. Selenite may be
more toxic than selenate, and there is some indication that selenite is more toxic in drinking water than in the
diet.
The normal human dietary intake of selenium is 200 ug/day and may be as high as 6340 ug/day in seleniferous areas.
2 to 4 mg/kg is the minimum lethal dose for humans. Symptoms of selenium toxicity include gastrointestinal dis-
turbances, liver damage, dental caries, and other deleterious physiological effects. There is some suspicion that
selenium may be carcinogenic, though evidence for this is slight.
Selenium is toxic to plants at low concentrations in nutrient solutions. .025 mg/1 reduced alfalfa yields. Only
small amounts added to the soil will increase the selenium content of forages to levels that are toxic to live-
stock.
Despite its toxicity at high enough levels, selenium is a dietary essential for a number of species. 0.1 to 0.2
ppm is recommended to prevent deficiencies in poultry, ruminants, and other animals. 3 to 5 mg/kg is toxic to cat-
tle. Ruminants may be more tolerant than monogastric animals. A good part of U.S. livestock may be receiving
0.5 ppm or more of naturally occuring selenium in their diets with no ill effects nor accumulation in their tis-
PERIOD
AVERAGE
(mg/1)
HIGH
LOW
% TEST RESULTS OVER3
.01, .02, and .05 mR/1
NO. OF
6&7/74,12/74-6/75
-.017
-.050
-.001
6-67%,6-24%, 0%
49
6/74, 12/74 -5/75
-.011
.050
-.001
5-29%,5-24%, 0%
21
66.7/74,12/74-6/75
-.019
-.050
-.001
8-69%,6-25%, 0%
48
6/74, 12/74-5/75
-.011
-.050
-.001
0-32%,0-26%, 0%
19
12/74 - 5/75
-.017
-.050
-.001
0-43%,0-29%, 0%
7
12/74 - 5/75
-.017
-.050
-.001
0-43%,0-29%. 0%
7
1974
-.027
.340
-.010
61%, 39%, 10%
59
1962 - 1963
-.010
-------
sues to levels that are toxic to humans.
3 mg/1 of Se+4 for life significantly increased the growth rate of mice, but caused most rats to die young;
on the other hand, 3 mg/1 of Se"^1 significantly decreased the mouse growth rate, but significantly increased
rat longetivity.
Selenium sources include photoelectric cells, manufacture of ruby glass, photography, vulcanizing rubber, and
insecticidal preparations. Most surface waters and well waters contain less than 0.05 mg/1 of selenium.
SILVER
WATER USE
general
AGENCY
drinking water EPA (1)
EIA (2)
EIA (3)
Alb. stipu-
lation
STANDARD (concentration not:to
be exceeded)
No limit recommended.
0.05 mg/1
0.05 mg/1 (PHS '62)*
0.1 mg/1 from a non-residential
point source
0.05 mg/1 in treatment plant ef-
fluent
RATIONALE (effects expected if limit exceeded)
Silver in waters is rarely detected at levels
above 1 ug/1.
May be harmful to human health.
Skin and raucous membrane discoloration. Patho-
logical changes in the kidneys, liver and spleen.
-------
SILVER - EXISTING LEVELS
(mg/1)
% TEST RESULTS OVER
LOCATION
PERIOD
AVERAGE
HIGH
LOW
0.05 mg/1
NO.OF TESTS
plant //I influent
9/72 - 7/73
-.010
.065
-.001
0.5%
552
effluent
1/74 - 6/75
-.015
.100
-.002
1%
199
plant 112 influent
6/72 - 7/73
-.009
.070
-.001
0.1%
734
effluent
7/74 - 6/75
-.009
.100
-. 002
0.4%
236
Rio Grande at Barelas
11&12/72,2-9/73
-.005
. C25
-.001
0%
186
bridge (above plants)
1&2/74,12/74-5/75
Rio Grande at Islets-
same as Barelas
-.004
.025
-.001
0%
180
diversion (below plants)
Albuquerque wells (3)
1974
-.036
-.050
negative
0%
59
Major Albuquerque contributors: Anna Kaseman Hospital, Presbyterian Hospital, Bataan Hospital, BCMC, Kaehr Plating
discussion
Silver is a rather rare element with a low solubility - 0.1 to 10 mg/1, depending on the pH and chloride ion
concentration. Silver nitrate is sometimes used as a disinfectant. The principal effect of silver on the body
is that it causes a grey discoloration of the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes. The amount needed to bring
about this condition (argyria) is not known, though one study found that 1 g of silver injected intravenously
caused argyria. Very little of ingested silver is absorbed; once absorbed, it is held in the tissues indefinitely.
Some evidence carcinogenicity has been found in rats and mice which received silver by routes other than oral.
Sources for silver include leaching of ores, electroplating, processing of food and beverages, photography,
chemical applications, and jewelry.
-------
ZINC
WATER USE
aquatic life
(freshwater)
irrigation
livestock
AGENCY
EPA (1)
drinking water EPA (1)
EIA (2)
EIA (3)
EPA (1)
EIA (2)
EPA (1)
STANDARD (concentration not to
be exceeded)
96-hr LC50fdetermined using the
most sensitive important species
in the area, multiplied by an
application factor of .005.
5 mg/1
5 mg/1
5.0 mg/1 (PHS '62)*
2.0 mg/1 for continuous use on
all soils, assuming the soil pH
is kept above 6
10 mg/1 on neutral and alkaline
soils for 20 years.
20 to 30 mg/1 on fine-textured
calcerous and organic soils
5 mg/1
25 mg'/l
RATIONALE (effects expected if limit exceeded)
Toxicity to aquatic life, such as, fathead min-
nows, trout, Bluegills, Daphnia magna.
Noticeable taste.
Reasons other than human health.
This limit is set to keep cadmium and lead, which
are impurities in zinc, below allowable levels.
Toxicity to plants: induces iron deficiencies.
Toxicity related to soil pH.
This limit should provide a very large margin of
safety for livestock.
EIA (2)
// The concentration which
5 mg/1
is lethal to 50% of the test organism within a 96 hour period.
-------
ZINC - EXISTING LEVELS
(nig/1)
% TEST RESULTS OVER
LOCATION
PERIOD
AVERAGE
HIGH
LOW
0.5, 2 and 5 mg/1
NO. OF TESTS
plant #1 influent
9/72 - 7/73
.249
4.000
.016
6%, 1%, 0%
550
effluent
1/74 - 6/75
.138
1.300
.030
3%, 0%, 0%
199
plant //2 influent
7/72 - 7/73
.201
3.000
.010
4%,.4%, 0%
746
effluent
7/74 - 6/75
.142
2.900
.030
2%,.4%, 0%
236
Barelas extractable
116.12/72,2-9/73
.281
. /80
-.010
1%, 0%, 0%
98
filtrate
1&2/74,12/74-5/75
-.028
.230
-.010
0%, 0%, 0%
92
Isleta extractable
same as Barelas
-.077
-.600
.005
0-1%, 0%, 0%
92
filtrate
-.039
. 360
-.010
0%, 0%, 0%
91
Albuquerque wells (3)
1974
-.083
.890
-.025
3%, 0%, 0%
63
New Mexico drinking
1962 - 1963
-.130
-.060
water sources
Major Albuquerque contributors: Alamo Radiator
discussion
Zinc Is an essential and beneficial element in human and animal metabolism. The activity of insulin and other
enzymes is dependent on zinc. A deficiency in this element will cause growth retardation in animals, and in
humans may result in sizeable losses of minerals from the bones. The average daily intake of adult humans is
10 to 15 mg. 10 to 50 mg/1 in the drinking water has no known effects on humans. Excessive.zinc salts will
cause gastrointestinal disturbances; 6000 mg of zinc chloride is lethal to humans. Zinc toxicity is very acute
but transitory. 50 mg/kg in the diet is recommended for swine; 2000 ppm is toxic to swine.
Liming the soil has a large effect on the toxicity of zinc to plants. The acute lethal toxicity of zinc to
fish is affected by water hardness, since zinc solubility depends on pH and alkalinity. 44 to 79 mg/1 was found
to inhibit mitosis and cause destructive changes in the cell structure of the gonads in rainbow trout.
Sources for zinc include galvinized pipe, hot water tanks, yellow brass, and industrial wastes. In areas where
zinc is mined, it may be found in natural waters at concentrations as much as 50 mg/1. The mean concentration
of zinc in a sampling of US waters was 64 ug/1.
-------
REFERENCES
1. "Water Quality Criteria 1972" Ecological Research Series, EPA-R3-73-033 (1973)
2. New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency, Water Quality Division, "Proposed Amendments to Water Quality
Control Commission Regulations" Santa Fe, New Mexico (1975)
3. , Water Supply Regulation Section, "New Mexico Public Water
Supplies Chemical Data" (1974)
4. Stipulation in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, no. 10171, 2 August, 1973.
5. "Water Quality Criteria Data Book, vol. 2: Inorganic Chemical Pollution of Freshwater" EPA Water Pollution
Control Series 18010 DPV 07/71 (1971)
* United States Public Health Service, "Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards" (1962)
Discussion material is drawn primarily from references 1 and 5.
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ALBUQUERQUE OISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P O DOX IS80
ALBUQUERQUE NEW MEXH
SVAED-EP
Mr. John C. White
Regional Admiolstrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elto Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
12 July 1977
V
i
-------
SWAED-EP
Hr* John c« White
11 July 1977
proposed action, may not be financially able or willing to connect to the
sever system. Connection fees, costs involved vi.h substantial pltt&zbing
modifications, sever feea, arid higher taxes nay have a significant Impact on
these families and the success of the proposed plan. This aspect should be
recognized end discussed,
*0 Jia eltemBtlv* {or disposal of sludge that might be considered if no health
or aesthetic problems are Involved la the sale of this material to the gen-
eral public or various businesses,
5) Use »f tens a-uch as hy-diologtc *odifieatlan. nay be aonevt-at technical for
the average reader. Perhaps use or aioplec and iro-re descriptive Lena would
better describe actions tal-en to control the. river. Also, a description of
structuib1 nodlilcati.cn t.nd these responsible f«i these aetwies would con-
tribute to the erivlrortBer.tal sectlog.
61 In describing the biological environment, the tarshea south of Islet a. Pueblo
should be went lotted since they are probably the largest marsh areas in the
general vicinity of Albuquerque. Also, the nsaes, locations, ^nd adtalnis-
tratlon of the wildlife refuges would be appropriate in this section, the
Hew Mexico Deportment of Came and Tlsh Is currently engaged In a 3-5 year
study to determine the wildlife value of different types of riparian habi-
tat along the Rio Grande in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. Some mention of
this and any recent data may be appropriate*
7) flant, bird* and crustacean species In th^ general area proposed for threat-
ened or endangered status, either federally or by the state, should be men-
tioned, A description of the classification used in the tfev ffenico State
Gene CocnleBlon'a Regulation Mo. 563 and a liatltig of species that occur or
could potentially occur In the sphere of Influence under each grouping would
be appropriate.
00
8}
As part of the Albuquerque Greater Urban ATea Study, the Corps Is presently
conducting a flood control study of the Bernalillo to Belen reach of the
Rio Grande* An alternative being considered for Improved flood protection
is the raising and/or rehabilitation of parts of the existing levee system.
The Corps is studying the Idea of taking some borrow naterlal £ron areas be*
tween the. levees end then developing the$t areas into marshes. Water vo-uld
be required for these marshes and It 1b thaJght the statement might consider
use of treated wastewater lor these areas.
We appreciate the opportunity to connect on your statement.
Sincerely yours.
touch more detail is provided in the report
referenced as EPA (1977).
6) The marshes are shown on Figure 2-8 The discussion of refuges is
provided In detail Ln the reference EPA (1977) The study being
performed on riparian habitats is not completed; no data are available
St this time.
7) The discussion of rare and endangered species has been modified. However,
the main listing of species is in EPA (1977), ns before.
6)
Section 3 7 A has been revised to Include this concept
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
*icion
117 U. S. Court House
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
July 25, 1975
HA-NM
Mr. John C. White, Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
First International Building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. White:
We have reviewed your draft Environmental Impact Statement and
have no substantive comments to make. It appears the proposed
action is needed for sewage transport and treatment to provide
for the orderly growth of Albuquerque and the Rio Grande Valley
urban area. If the proposed collector on Juan Tabo south of
Meraul is co be constructed within the next 6 or 7 years, it
should be coordinated with the upcoming highway project M-4065(l)
for the reconstruction of Juan Tabo Blvd.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on your proposal.
Sincerely yours,
cc: R.O. HED-06, TES-70, Secretarial Representative,
CEQ-5
-282-
-------
1522 K Street N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20005
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
/
\UL 151377
July 12, 1977
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
Region VI
Environmental Protection Agency
First International building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
This is in response to John C. White's request of June 14, 1977, for
comments on the draft environmental statement (DES) for the proposed
Albuquerque Wastewater Treatment^ Facilities, Project No. C-35-1020-01,
Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
The Council has reviewed the DES and notes that while.cultural resource
6tudies to date indicate no properties included in or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected
by the proposed undertaking, additional cultural resource studies will
be undertaken prior to project implementation. The Council also notes
that the Environmental Protection Agency recognizes its responsibility
pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f, as amended, 90 Stat. 1320) should the above-cited
cultural resource studies identify previously unknown cultural properties
of significance. Accordingly, the Council looks forward to working
with EPA in accordance with the "Procedures for the Protection of
Historic and Cultural Properties" (36 C.F.R. Part 800) in the future, as
appropriate.
Should you have questions or require additional assistance, please contact
Michael H. Bureraan of the Council staff at P. 0. Box 25085, Denver,
Colorado 80225, or at (303) 234-4946, an FTS number. Your continued
cooperation is appreciated.
Assistant Director, Office
-283- of Review and Compliance
The Council is an independent unit of the E\ecut. • Branch of the Federal Government charged by the Act of
October 1f, 1966 to adi ise tlx- President and Congress in tl>e field of Historic Preservation.
-------
United States Department of Agriculture
FOREST SERVICE
Cibola National Forest
10308 Candelaria NE
Albuquerque3 New Mexico 87112
8430
July 7, 1977'
fir. Clinton B. Spotts
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI, 1201 Elm
First International Building
28th Floor Library
gallas, Texas
Dear Mr. Spotts:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for "Albuquerque
Wastewater Treatment Facilities," Project No. C-35-1020-01. We have no
comments on the draft statement.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the statement.
-28A-
4200-11 (1/69)
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
Box 2007, Albuquerque, NM 87103
August 1, 1977
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 7527
Dear Mr. Spotts:
Our office has received a review copy of DEIS for Albuquerque waste
Water Treatment Facilities, Project #C-35-1020-01. After reading the
Executive Summary section of the statement, it is our opinion that the
proposed project deals entirely with an urban and urbanizing area of the
state. The proposal will have little impact on soil or water resources
for which this agency has concern. Consequently, we have no comments
applicable to the proposed project.
Sincerely yours,
A. W. Hamelstrom
State Conservati
-285-
-------
IN REPLY
REFER TO
TO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
date June 28, 1977
ABQ ADO-610
SUBJECT
FROM
AIRPORTS DISTRICT OFFICE
P. 0. Box 9253
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87119
/0V- •
V ,
<)>'' ° \
Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Albuquerque
Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Albuquerque, New Mexico;
Project No. C-35-1020-01
Chief, Airports District Office
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
First International Building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
We have reviewed the subject statement, and concur with the statement
as stflpitted.
' ,
ILL J. HOWARD /
juN3 01977*-
•y
y
TPA
vr
A Oiv.
,\v
/ O \
-286-
-------
STATE PLANNING OFFICE
GREER BUILDING
505 DON GASPAR AVE
SANTA FE B7503
LEILA ANDREWS (5051 827-2073 JERRY APODACA
STATE PLANNING OFFICER GOVERNOR
July 28, 1977
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
First International Building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the
Albuquerque Wastewater Treatment Facilities. We feel that the expansion
and upgrading of Albuquerque's wastewater treatment facilities should proceed.
Thank you for the opportunity to comuent.
Sincerely,
lO'.cYtrf
Kate Wickes
Division of Natural Resources
KWranne
AUG 51977** '
f.pa' r
region vi x
-287-
-------
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
STATE PLANNING OFFICE
LEILA ANDREWS
GREER BUILDING
505 DON CASPAR AVE
SANTA FE 87503
(505) 827-2073
JERRY APODACA
STATE PLANNING OFFICER
June 27, 1977
Mr. CIinton B. Spotts
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
First International Building
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Spotts:
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Albuquerque
Wastewater Treatment Facilities (project No. C-35-1020-01) has
been reviewed by this office. It is my opinion that the
assessment of known cultural resources and the outlined pro-
cedures for the location and evaluation of presently unknown
archaeological sites will provide for the adequate protection
of significant cultural resources that might otherwise be
damaged or destroyed by the various aspects of this project,
Should you have any further questions concerning the
historic preservation aspects of this project, do not hesitate
to contact this office.
S1ncerely,
Thomas W. Merlan
S ta teJiLs^ar i c
P f f i c e r
DER:cdm
-288-
-------
APPENDIX B. PUBLIC HEARING RECORD
The following represent the responses to comments made at the Public
Hearing held July 20, 1977. The transcript of the hearing follows the responses.
Where appropriate the responses are referenced to specific pages and lines of
the hearing transcript; elsewhere they are referenced to the entire testimony
of one individual. Many responses cite sections of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement which have been rewritten in order to address the comments.
In such cases the direct response itself is brief, and the reader is referred
to the cited section for the substantive changes in the EIS which reflects the
comments. Where a comment was responded to at the hearing, no further response
is given below.
Testimony of Paul Robinson
Page 10, lines 14-16. The Facility Plan was available for inspection
at the City of Albuquerque Water Resources Department and at the New Mexico
Environmental Improvement Agency in Santa Fe. It did not differ substantially
from the draft Facility Plan which had previously been distributed to
Southwest Research and Information Center.
Page 10, lines 17-22. The discussions of the liquid waste ordinance
have been rewritten to reflect these comments. Refer to Section 2.1.2 and
3.8.
Page 10, line 23-25, and Page 11, lines 1-2. In response to these
comments a detailed description of operation and maintenance problems has
been included in Section 2.1.1.
Page 11, lines 3-5. Steps to be taken to assure quality design and
construction are set forth in Section 4.4.
Page 11, lines 6-12. Cost-effective is defined in the Final EIS; refer
to Section 1.3.
Comments of Edmund Archuleta
Pages 13-15. Section 2.1.2 of the Draft EIS included a discussion of
the major measures discussed by Mr. Archuleta. In the Final EIS the comments
have been expanded, and are included in Section 2.1.2.
Comments of Paul Robinson
Pages 16-17. The Final EIS includes new Sections, 3.3 and 4.5, which
set forth the specific measures which will be taken to ensure that past problems
are not repeated with the new facilities, including: a value engineering
analysis of the proposed design; a construction inspection program carried
out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and a requirement for a Plan of
Operation which includes not only procedures to be followed, but addresses
questions of budget and staffing.
Comments of Stan Reed
Pages 17-20. The response to Paul Robinson, above, also addresses these
comments. Specifically Sections 4.4 and 4.5 deal with measures which will be
undertaken by EPA to assure that the goals of the Facility Plan are in fact
realized.
Page 20, lines 15-23. No written comments were received from Mr. Read.
Comments of Gene Martinez
Page 21, lines 21-25; Page 22, lines 1-3. There was no statement in
the draft EIS which attributed nitrates in the Mountainview area to a munitions
cache in Sandia base. Rather these nitrates were stated to probably be related
-289-
-------
to nitrates observed in the Tijeras area, which in turn appear to be derived
from natural sources, or possibly as yet-unidentified man-made sources. In
EPA (1977) a munitions dump is listed as one possibility for man-made sources.
The important fact stated in the draft EIS is that the likely nitrate source
is natural, and that in any case the nitrates cannot be ascribed to the impact
of wastewater management practices.
Page 22, line 4-15. The nitrates observed in the Paddillas-Pajarito
area have been known for a number of years, according to records in the files
of the City Environmental Health Department. There is no evidence to link
these nitrates to any discharges from the treatment plants. The nitrates in
the Tijeras-Mountainview area were observed well before Plant #2 was constructed
in the Mountainview neighborhood.
Page 22, lines 16-25; Page 23, lines 1-6. The City has no record of this
odor problem and no specific response to a solution of the problem is
possible. Regional odor sources may be significant (see Section 2.2.2).
Page 24, lines 12-14. No written statement was received. The comments
in these paragraphs were responded to at the hearing by Mr. David Neleigh
of EPA (see page 27).
Comments of Gloria Toland
Page 28, lines 10-12. Contractors engaged in dewatering will be required
to advise residents in advance if analysis indicates that wells may go dry,
and to provide an alternate water supply during the period of dewatering. The
impacts during Phase I construction related to installation of a new inflow
line and will not occur for most of the proposed new facilities.
-290-
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
/ ' %
' . \
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL' PROTECTION AGENCY
; l ^
REGION VI \f- \ > "" J
V ' ~ /'
\ /"
\ / '
In the Matter of:
THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR
ALBUQUERQUE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
FOR THE CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE
PUBLIC HEARING
Pursuant to Notice and Publication, the above-entitled
matter came on for Public Hearing at 7:30 o'clock p.m. on
Wednesday, July 20, 1977, at the City Council Room, City
Hall, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
RICHE K. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 871 12
Telephone (505) 243-0144
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
INDEX
SPEAKER PAGE
Presiding Officer Diana Dutton, Regional
Counsel of Region VI of the EPA in Dallas -
Call to order and opening remarks 3
Paul Bergstrom, EIS Coordinator, EPA Dallas
office 6
Paul Robinson, Southwest Research Center 10
Edmund Archuleta, Liquid Waste Division
of the City of Albuquerque 13
Paul Robinson - Response to Mr. Archuleta's
remarks 16
Stan Read - Speaking as an individual 17
Gene Martinez, President of the Southwest
Valley Area Council 21
Dpvid Nealeigh, Officer for Albuquerque grant,
EPA Dallas office - Response to Mr. Archuleta's
comments 27
Gloria Tolan - Speaking as an individual 28
Bill Tryon, Assistant City Attorney 29
Paul Robinson - Further comments 33
Robert Spalding - Question 35
Paul Bergstrom - Response 35
Paul Nolan, Director Water Resources, City
of Albuquerque - Question 36
Paul Bergstrom - Response 36
Presiding Officer Dutton - Closing remarks 37
EXHIBITS
DESCRIPTION PAGE
Hearing Exhibit 1 15
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque. New Meiico 87112
Telephone (505) 243 -0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
PROCEEDINGS
PRESIDING OFFICER DIANA DUTTON: Good evening.
We will now call the Hearing to order. My name is Diana
Dutton. I am the Regional Counsel for Region VI of the
Environmental Agency in Dallas. I will be Presiding Office]'
for tonight's Hearing.
The other members of the panel here with me are,
on my immediate left, Paul Bergstrom, Environmental Impact
Statement Coordinator, and David Nealeigh, next to Paul, who
is the Project Officer for the Albuquerque grant. Both of
these people are with EPA in Dallas. Also at the table
here with us is Lee Wilson, contractor who prepared the
environmental analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement
We are here tonight to receive public comments on
the Environmental Impact Statement that has been prepared
on a proposed project for the expansion ana upgrading of
Albuquerque's wastewater treatment facilities. In a few
moments I will ask Paul Bergstrom to summarize for you the
extent of the proposed project.
The National Environmental Policy Act, usually
referred to as NEPA, requires that an Environmental Impact
Statement be prepared for major Federal actions signifi-
cantly affecting the quality of the human environment. It
requires that a Federal agency include in its decision
making process on such actions a careful appraisal of all
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87112
Telephone (505) 243 -0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
environmental effects of the project. The Hearing In which
we are now engaged is a part of that deliberative process
and in accordance with EPA's regulations for the implemen-
tation of NEPA, which are found in Part 6 of Title HO of
the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Environmental Protection Agency is authorized
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 to make
grants to municipalities for seventy-five percent (75%)
of the cost of constructing or improving wastewater treat-
ment facilities. Before such grants can be made, there
must be prepared an environmental assessment or an
Environmental Impact Statement.
The City of Albuquerque has made application for
such a grant, and the Environmental Impact Statement under
consideration tonight was prepared on that proposal. Copies
of the impact statement have been made available for public
inspection. If you wish to review the statement and have
not done so, copies are available for inspection at the
City's Water Resources Board at the New Mexico EIA and at
EPA's office in Dallas. We also have available tonight a
few extra copies that you may wish to look at. We have
these for distribution. We don't have very many of them,
though.
I would like to turn now to the procedures we
will follow tonight. We welcome comments from anyone
R1CHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
I PI 7 Paig« Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 6711?
Telephone (S05) 243 - 0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
relevant to the impact statement or the proposed project.
The Hearing Is an Informal one for the purpose of receiving
public comment. It is not a formal Hearing such as one
under the Administrative Procedures Act. Formal rules of
evidence do not apply, and cross examination of the wit-
nesses will not be allowed. From time to time, however,
members of the panel may ask questions of those testifying
in order to clarify the record. If you have any evidence
that you wish to submit for inclusion in the record, it
should be in a form that can be included conveniently
and it can be duplicated.
As you see, there is a transcript being made
of tonight's Hearing. The transcript will be on record
in the offices of the Environmental Protection Agency and
will be available there for inspection. If you wish to
obtain a copy of the transcript, I would suggest that you
talk with the Court Reporter during a break.
In the interest of time if we have many speakers
tonight, I would ask that each speaker limit remarks to
ten (10) minutes. If you have written comments, you may
summarize those and include the full text of your remarks
in the record. If you have written comments at all, the
Court Reporter requests that you provide a copy to her.
You may also make written comments subsequent to the Hearing
Those comments will be included in the Hearing record, along
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87112
Telephone (505) 243 -0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
with any comments made here tonight, and will be considered
if they are received by EPA in Dallas by August the 8th
of this year.
We have asked that each of you register tonight.
If you wish to make a comment and have not registered, I
ask that you do so now. Otherwise, we have no way of know-
ing that you wish to speak. I will call on those who have
registered in the order that they registered. We wish to
give everyone here an opportunity to speak and to say what-
ever he feels is relevant. If we have time after the
speakers, we will try to answer any questions you may have,
but I first want to ensure that everyone who would like to
speak does have an opportunity to do so.
I'd like to call now Mr. Bergstrom to explain
the scope of the project that we have under consideration
tonight.
MR. PAUL BERGSTROM: Thank you, ma'am. My notice
of intent dated April 29th, 1976, EPA informed the public
that an Environmental Impact Statement would be prepared
for the expansion and upgrading of Albuquerque's wastewater
treatment facilities. The draft of the Environmental Impact
Statement was mailed to all interested agencies, public
groups and officials on June 14th, 1977. A notice of
availability of the draft statement appeared in the Federal
Register dated June 24, 1977. The Council on Environmental
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, Hew Mexico 87112
Telephone (505) 243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
j
i
Quality's due date for receipt of the comments on the draft j
statement is August 8th, 1977- Comments should be sent to I
Mr. Clinton V. Spotts, Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VI, First International Building, 1201 Elm Street,
Dallas, Texas 75270.
[
The draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Albuquerque wastewater treatment facilities was prepared
by EPA and the City of Albuquerque through a Joint contract J
I
preparation method. The City's consultant who performed !
the environmental analyses in the Environmental Impact j
Statement was Lee Wilson and Associates. This draft statemej
I
i
covers a proposal by the City to expand and upgrade their j
I
wastewater treatment facilities under EPA grant C-35-1020-01
Proposed actions discussed in the draft statement include
the following:
Construction of approximately one hundred and
five (105) miles of interceptor and collector lines to
serve the following areas: Arenal District, South Valley;
south and eastern part of the North Valley; portions of the
Southeast Valley near Treatment Plant No. 2, including;
Mountainview; developing portions of the West Mesa; develope
and developing portions of the Candelaria and North
Industrial Parks and North Albuquerque Acres and Four Hills
and other parts of the Northeast Heights.
Conversion from Chlorine to hydrogen peroxide for
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 871 12
Telephone (505) 243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
odor control in sewer lines at various points throughout
the City.
Renovations of lift stations including monitoring
alarm systems and stand-by power at various points through-
out the City.
Construction of mechanical dewatering facilities j
to replace sludge drying beds at treatment plant number 2 j
I
near Mountainview.
Completion of preliminary treatment facilities j
i
for raw sewage which flows to the activated sludge facilitieji
at plant number 2. I
Construction of an administration and laboratory
building located within the boundaries of treatment plant
number 2.
Provision of facilities for scum handling at
plant number 2.
Overhaul and expansion of the gas recycling system
at plant number 2.
Overhaul of trickling filter units at plant
number 2.
Construction of rail siding for bulk delivery of
chlorine at plant number 2.
Expansion of treatment capacity at plant number 2
to 76.6 mgd.
And, the elimination of plant number 1 which is
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeasi
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87112
Telephone (505)243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
located in the South Barelas neighborhood.
The Court case, Mountain View Community Improvemer
Association, et al, versus Robert W. Fri, et al, resulted
in a legal document, the Stipulation dated August of 1973- ;
i
The Stipulation required that the EIS consider odors and
metals and the evaluation of alternative methods of utili- j
zing phosphorus and/or nitrogen as nutrients from waste- !
|
water effluents. These areas are addressed in the draft j
environmental statement.
The project total cost is approximately forty-
four million eight hundred and seventy-two thousand dollars j
($M, 872,000). EPA's share will be thirty-three million
1
six hundred and fifty-four thousand dollars ($33,654,000). j
1
State and local shares will be five million six hundred and
nine thousand dollars ($5,609,000) each.
The EIS does not address the previously approved
projects known as Phase 1 and Phase 1A.
PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you. The comments made
tonight on draft Environmental Impact Statement will be
considered by EPA, and the comments will be addressed in
the final Environmental Impact Statement. What we are
considering here tonight is a draft. We will take all the
comments we receive tonight, as well as any written comments
that are submitted, addressing to those and make appropriate;
changes in relevant portions of the final Environmental
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87 I I 2
Telephone (505) 243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
Impact Statement.
I would like to begin now to call on those who
wish to make a statement tonight. Again, I say, if you
wish to make a statement and have not so indicated by
registering, please do so. When I call your name, I'd
like you to come to the front. You can stand either here
(indicating) or at the podium, which is probably more
convenient. Would you please state your name and your
affiliation, if any, for the record.
Mr. Paul Roblnsoo.
MR. PAUL ROBINSON: I'm with the Southwest Research
and Information Center, and we have several problems that
we want to outline.
One, we were long-standing interested parties in
this case and didn't receive a facility plan until Monday, |
and that was only from the Liquid Waste Division.
Another problem we have is with the discussion
of the Industrial Liquid Waste Ordinance. They discuss
progressive enforcement but really don't go into any details
of what that would be. They also don't discuss in the
impact statement the present and historical lack of enforce-
ment and its effect on the future.
Another problem we have is with the lack of
discussion of operation and maintenance of the new facilitie
These have been problems in the past and must be remedied
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place. Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87112
Telephone (505) 143-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
in order for the plant to be operating successfully in the
future.
We have problems with the quality design and
the insurance of quality design in the future plants,
again, based on the past performance of plant number 2.
i
We have a problem with the discussion of cost
I
effective in the Environmental Impact Statement. It's
mentioned numerous times and is never defined in terms of
the — cost effective is never defined as a concept. It's (
only used as a justification, and, again, we haven't seen
the facility's plan long enough to really know what that
means. I
l
And, we will be making written comments by
|
August 8th. i
i
PRESIDING OFFICER: All right. Thank you,
Mr. Robinson. To clarify your remarks, can I ask you a
question? You have indicated that you have problems with
several areas. Do you have problems with the substance
of what is contained in the Eivironmental Impact Statement
or with the fact that it's not included?
MR. ROBINSON: Both.
PRESIDING OFFICER: O.K. When you submit written
comments, can you give us more detail with regard to the
substance?
MR. ROBINSON: Yes, we would be probably more
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87117
Telephone (SOS) 243 - 0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
detailed at that time.
PRESIDING OFFICER: Very good. Thank you.
Katherine Montegue, you have an indication that
you might want to make a statement.
MS. KATHERINE MONTEGUE: I don't have one right
now. I might later on.
PRESIDING OFFICER: O.K. William Tryon.
MR. WILLIAM TRYON: I'm here more or less as a
spokesman for the City spotting problems.
PRESIDING OFFICER: You don't wish to make a
formal statement?
MR. TRYON: No, not at this time.
PRESIDING OFFICER: O.K. I have no further cards.
Is there no one here who wants to make a statement? I will
wait a moment and let you think about this. I really hate
to close the Hearing at this time.
MR. TRYON: I would like to suggest a five minute
recess.
PRESIDING OFFICER: I think that's an excellent
idea. Let's take a short break and think about this. This
is your opportunity to comment on this project, and I really
would like for everybody to have ample opportunity to say
whatever they feel about this project. And, I hesitate to
close the Hearing fifteen (15) minutes after it has begun.
So, let's take a five minute break. Please think about it,
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place. Northeast
Albuquerque. New Mexico 87112
Telephone (505) 743-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
|
and we'll reconvene and see what happens then.
(Brief recess.)
PRESIDING OFFICER: Could we reconvene again?
Our break was somewhat productive. We did come up with
two more people who would like to make statements. j
I
Ed Archuleta, if you would come forward and |
state your name for the record and your affiliation. j
MR. EDMUND ARCHULETA: My name is Ed Archuleta, '
and I'm with the Liquid Waste Division, City of Albuquerque'
Water Resources Department. i
I'd like to respond to point number three which .
I
Mr. Paul Robinson made in regard to an apparent problem
with the lack of discussion at least, as I understand it,
l
in the impact statement concerning the operation mainten- j
ance of the wastwater treatment facilities. j
I think Mr. Robinson is well aware in recent
meetings that we've had, one in particular in the South |
i
Valley about two months ago, when we discussed with the I
I
!
citizens of the South Valley our plans for an odor control j
I
program at the wastwater treatment facilities. This infor- .
i
I
mation was discussed in detail at that time, and we did
provide a list of the planned program of the Liquid Waste
Division Water Resource Department at that time to Lee
Wilson and Associates.
In part, while the program and discussion that
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
i9l7 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque. New Mexico 871 12
Telephone (SOS) 243 - 0 (46
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
evening dealt with odor control, there were, I think, three
items that indirectly referred to improved operation and
maintenance of the facilities as Indirectly effecting odor
control.
So, I would like to clarify and submit for the
record of that odor control program which deals with the
operation maintenance facilities. Item number one is that
we have retained this past January a special consultant to
study sludge handling, noise and odor control at plant
number 2 and, also, the odor control or need for odor con-
trol at plant number 1. This consultant, among other things
examines short-term, long-term, low cost and more expensive
programs to accomplish the odor control program.
Part of this report, part one, was submitted in
March of this year which dealt with the noise and odor
control, at least part of the temporary type or more immedi-
ate type odor control programs.
Part two of the report we anticipate will be
submitted next week. This particular report, among other
things, deals with the operation and maintenance staffing
requirements of these facilities. We have gone into quite
a bit of detail in working with this consultant on that,
and it ia our intent to Implement those recommendations
such that we do have the proper staffing to operate and
maintain our plants.
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87112
Telephone (SOS) 243-0144
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
i
Prior to that we have a number of people — I
believe there's ten (10) people at plant number 2, two
people at plant number 1, seven people indirectly in the
electrical instrumentation maintenance that have been budgeted
for this fiscal year and will be coming on the line very
shortly in the operational maintenance of our plant.
So, in addition, the City has provided additional
funding through a liquid waste division this fiscal year
for the increased operator training to ensure that our
i
people have a — currently have a certification requirementjs
but to ensure that currently the people that are on board
now and people that are to be hired are well trained, edu-
cated so that we can properly operate these facilities. j
i
So, in summary, I would like to submit this for
the record, but I wanted us to set the record straight.
If it's not completely covered in the impact statement,
that we feel that we have made and are making great strides
to ensure that we operate and maintain these facilities
in accordance with state, local and federal requirements.
Thank you.
PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Archuleta.
That would be helpful.
(The document referred to was
marked Hearing Exhibit 1 for
identification and attached hlsreto.
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 871 12
Telephone (505) 243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
Do any of you panel members have questions?
(No response.)
PRESIDING OFFICER: O.K., thank you very much.
MR. ROBINSON: May I respond to that?
PRESIDING OFFICER: You may respond after I call
on the next speaker, and you're certainly welcome to make
additional comments If you choose to do so.
Stan Read.
MR. STAN READ: In order to make sense or con-
tinuity, I would ask Mr. Robinson to speak before me In
response to what was said.
PRESIDING OFFICER: I have no objection to that
|
as you're the only other speaker. j
Please state your name again so that we can get
it on the record.
MR. ROBINSON: Paul Robinson is my name.
Like Mr. Archuleta said, this area was not
completely covered in EIS and needs to be further filled
out. He mentioned plans that they had and an intent to
deal with these problems. And, I believe — but the prob-
lems are systematic and have occurred in the sewage treatmer
efforts of the City for the past fifteen (15) years. And,
in order to think about the next twenty (20), this past
has to be dealt with in a fairly detailed way. This historj
is very relevant to the environmental impact idea of what
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque. New Mexico B7IIZ
Telephone (505) 243-0144
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
has been going on in the past has effect on the future,
and particularly when you're talking about running these
forty-four million dollars ($44,000,000) worth of equipment.
We've been assured that this stuff would be done
in these meetings that he's discussed, but our point is
that the Environmental Impact Statement should treat these
in detail in order to fulfill their Job according to NEPA.
Thank you.
PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you.
Mr. Stan Read.
MR. STAN READ: My name is Stan Read, R-e-a-d.
I live approximately one half mile south of City Sewage
Treatment Plant Number 2. My address is 218 Sunnyslope, one
word, Southwest, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102.
I've lived in the area approximately five years.
I was a Plaintiff in the suit brought against the City in
1973, as I remember, to block the use of federal funds with-
out some assurances and, at that point, an impact statement
about the City sewage treatment plants, wastewater plants.
The result of that 1973 case was a Stipulation that has not
yet been met in terms of the acceptance, as I understand it,
by the Federal Government of all of plant number 2. And,
so the Stipulation, I keep hearing, is essentially in abey-
ance, the details of it, until acceptance of the facility —
the new ten million dollars ($10,000,000) or whatever facili
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place. Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 871 12
Telephone (505) 243 - 0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
is accomplished.
I was also at the meeting Mr. Archuleta mentioned
and received a copy that he has submitted for the record,
the Summary of Odor Control Program. The problem that I
have with all of the plans at this point, including the Odoi
Control Program as presented on paper and in parts orally
at that meeting, is much the same as mentioned briefly by
Mr. Robinson.
My neighbors, and I think I can speak for them
on that point — we've discussed it frequently — and I
are sceptical of plans and projects and even of the best
laid, best made, Environmental Impact Statements because of
the history of that particular plant and, to our knowledge,
plant number 1, especially as regards odor control.
I dearly hope that Mr. Archuleta is correct,
Mr. Nolan is correct, and that the control programs that
they have talked about and the control programs that they
are instituting or planning for will take care of the prob-
lem of odor control. However, the history, even as I've
been in that neighborhood, does not suggest that the efforts
of the City in the past, should they be repeated in the
future, would be sufficient for that task.
So, I think we regard some of the details in the
impact statement regarding the alternatives for odor control
for example, with — we regard those statements with a great
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. JNC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Me«ico 871 I 2
Telephone (505) 243 -0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
deal of scepticism. The meeting Mr. Archuleta refers to
was a very loud meeting. I think that the officials of
the City came down to tell us something, and I do not
think they were pleased to have the citizens telling them
that they didn't trust them.
And, after some time and some statements — I,
in fact, left and went home and fed my animals, finding
that a more productive endeavor than saying anything more
or hearing anything more from the City. At the same time,
I did not leave assuming that the City would not do what
it could, could not do what it could, but my neighbors
who called later in the evening were very sceptical. Some
of them had been fighting that particular battle for many
years.
And, the promises are almost always good promises
when heard, and not delivered on. One of my neighbors
commented that "If they do it, they don't have to tell us
about it and if they don't do it, we'll tell them about it."
I think that's essentially where most of us left that meet-
ing. I know that the City had an agenda, and that they
wanted that agenda followed, and I don't think they were
particularly pleased that that agenda was not what the
citizens wanted at that particular time. And, the comments
made were not really answering the questions that had been
posed for some time.
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place. Northeast
Albuquerque. New Mexico 871 12
Telephone (505) 243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
U
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2D.
As I understand the procedure, we have until
August the 8th to submit written comments, is that correct?
PRESIDING OFFICER: That's correct, yes, sir.
MR. READ: And, the specific problems that my
neighbors and I have with it — I Just got my EIS back
today. It's made the rounds of the neighborhood. There
are some written comments in the margin. Some of them would
be possible to repeat here. Others may have to be put —
couched in different language, but that's understandable.
Whatever the case may be, I think that it would |
be better with our general comments about distrust of the i
i
projects in the past and scepticism about the ability of
the City to carry them out in the future, although strong
hopes — we live there — strong hopes that it would, in far;
be accomplished in a forthright manner. We will make com-
ments about the EIS in detail in writing.
I recently reviewed one on a project in the north,
and the written comments seem on the whole to be better
understood by those responding to them and perhaps more
saliently put than the oral ones.
So, I think that's the way we will approach it,
and we will mail them to you by the 8th of August. Thank
you.
PRESIDING OFFICER: Very good. Thank you, Mr. Read
Gene Martinez.
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place. Northeast
Albuquerque, New Menico B7II2
Telephone (505)143-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
MR. GENE MARTINEZ: Gene Martinez, 1800 Corte
Eduardo S.W., Albuquerque, New Mexico, President of the
Southwest Valley Area Council.
Ladles and gentlemen, I want to thank you for the
I
opportunity that you're giving us to appear before you and
make some comments on the EIS in regards to the sewer
treatment facilities. I'm sorry we're a little bit late
in getting here, but just picking up on some of the testi-
mony that was just presented, I would concur with the
statements that, best, in the past it has been extremely
difficult to accept what has been told and what actually
has transpired in reality.
Yet, we are now hopefully seeing some accomplish-
ments and solving some of the problems that we were encoun-
tered with in the Southwest Valley by the operation of the
treatment plants number 1 and 2. It seems like the odor
at times is, at best, extremely unbearable.
There are other areas that have concerned us
deeply within the South Valley community in close proximity
to the sewer treatment plants. This is the area of nitrates
It's a little bit confusing to me as a lay person to try
to read through this material and find that in one page
they will state that the nitrates in the Mountainview area,
adjacent to Sewer Treatment Plant Number 2, are caused by
some unknown buried munitions cache in the Sandia base and
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place. Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 871 12
Telephone (505) 243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
that no one has the authority or the opportunity to check ;
this source out. So, this is what they attribute the
nitrates.
But, yet, a couple pages further down it says i
that within the last couple of years they have identified
nitrate concentrations in the Padillas Pajarito area which
is across the river west and south of the sewer treatment
plants. This — to me it came as a surprise that nitrates
had been discovered in that area, where before in the years
past the only sources, traces, of nitrate had been east of j
the river and south of Rio Bravo in the Mountainview close j
to where the sewer treatment plants are at. So, this is j
an extreme concern that we look at now, did the treatment
plant cause filtration of nitrates to the west and south
of the present treatment plant number 2?
The other question we have is the odors that we
are, say, forced to live with, that — about the 2300 block
of South Isleta, if you're driving by, say, in the late
afternoon, early evening, the odor is unbearable, that this
is a few miles — I'd say about three miles north and west
of treatment plant number 2. It is about two miles south
and west of treatment plant number 1. There is a force
main running along that area. My understanding is that
there has been problems with the chlorination stations in
various parts of the City. I would say if this is a
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87112
Telephone (505) 243 -0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
problem attributed that we do not have sufficient chlorina-
tion stations throughout these force mains, that something
should be done to look into, say, updating a system on
chlorinating or, say, implementing more chlorinating statioi
throughout the system to alleviate some of these odor
problems that we are faced with in the South Valley.
We do not at present time derive any direct bene-
fit by the use of either treatment plant number 1 or 2. Th
only benefit we do have is the benefit of the odors that
permeate from these two facilities. It is real difficult
for myself, personally, to try to bring forth some of the
problems we encounter realizing that if we get too hot and
heavy, it might Jeopardize the EIS that is being presented
to you people tonight, and this might further delay sewer
treatment plant expansions on Sewer Treatment Plant
Number 2, and then, in itself, would delay the North and
South Valley sewer hookup, which in my estimation has been
delayed for too many years already. It should have been
constructed long before this.
I'm not trying to place the blame on any one
individual or groups of individuals, but we have seen
within the last few months that a step forward and a posi-
tive step has been taken. We're gratified to see that the
City Fathers in their wisdom did increase the budget for
the Water Resources Department, at long last realizing
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
19(7 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 871 12
Telephone (505)243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2H
that there was problems faced by the community in the less
affluent segment of the community. So, hopefully these
will take care of our problems. And, the other question
I would have — I received a copy of a memorandum from
Mr. Sonny Aragon (phonetic) that he picked up in Dallas,
who is an employee of the Water Resources Department, from
a Douglas M. Costell of the National Office of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency to all Regional
Administrators. The letter is dated the 21st of June,
1977. This establishes policies on collection lines and
interceptors under Public Law 92-500.
There are some areas I do have some concern with,
i
and we shall submit formal written statement in regards to |
those. But, the question I want to ask now under one of
the provisions is the — under paragraph — subsection C,
public disclosure of cost, that the memorandum states that
thei'e shall be a public disclosure as to the operational
and maintenance and rates, hookup charges, monthly rates
to be charged to the people who would be hooking up to this
system.
The frustrations that we have faced in the past
is trying to get any information at all, guesstimates or
otherwise, as to what type of financial investment we, the
residents of the county outside the City, would be facing
when and if the sewer system does come in. That, since thers
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87112
Telephone (505)243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
is a mandatory requirement that if said collection lines
come within a hundred and fifty feet (150') of your property
you are mandated or required to hook up. This, in itself,
we believe will not be a small investment in itself, but
we are looking at the additional investment that people
will be facing since we are, say, utilizing ceptic tanks,
cesspools, or whatever, that this will be Just the cost
up to our property line. Then, we are faced with further
costs of going from our property line to the residence,
itself, pumping out our ceptic tanks, cesspools, fill them
up with sand and breaking physical connections to said
ceptic tanks or cesspools.
And, the closest guesstimate that we have been
able to pick up from talking to various people who deal
in this type of service is approximately twelve hundred
dollars ($1,200) that we will be facing inside our own
property line. So, not knowing the unknown cost that we
are facing, it's really quite a burden on us.
I would ask if there is any funding method within
the EPA tnat would assist, say, our senior citizens or peopl(
on a fixed income to help defray some of these costs, we
would not be asking, say, for gratis gift. We would be
willing to, say, if a revolving type loan fund could be
established that people could borrow from this loan and pay
it back a little bit at a time. And, this way the financia]
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 871 12
Telephone (505) 243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
burden really wouldn't be so great, but the money would |
be coming back and It would be there in the future for j
less fortunate people who did not have the financial j
I
resources with which to hook up to utilize this system
without having to go to a loan company and be charged |
I
an outrageous interest charge. j
So, if you people could see if you do have this |
type of capabilities within your organization and filter
the message back to us, we would greatly appreciate it,
and we would be greatly indebted. So, with that, I thank ,
you. |
PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you, Mr. Martinez. I j
think you've raised several very good questions. And, as
I mentioned earlier, the Issues th^t you raised will be
addressed by EPA in the final statement. I would like to
correct one thing that you said. You indicated that the
EIS would be presented to us, and I'd like to make clear
that we're presenting the EIS to you.
And, we also don't want to delay a project that
the City of Albuquerque needs. But, on the other hand,
we're very interested in the problems that people have with
the impact statement and with the project, and we want to
be able to address those.
So, I thank you for your comments, and we certainlj
will address those.
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 871 12
Telephone (SOS) 243 - 0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
MR. MARTINEZ: Well, thank you for your clarifi-
cation, and I'm sorry for being so misinformed on that one
particular point. Thank you.
MR. NEALEIGH: I think I can answer one of
your concerns. First of all, that primary requirements
memorandum will require that before another grant is Issued
to the City of Albuquerque for collection systems, that
those costs are identified as well as possible.
And, secondly, there is no mechanism within EPA
for any type of assistance with hookup costs. The regula-
tions prohibit any assistance whatsoever for services to
individual homes. So, EPA cannot assist the individual
home owners on the hookup fee or run the line at all
toward the individual home. We'd be glad to do whatever
we could, you know, to help you find assistance somewhere
else through another agency, but we can't do it.
MR. MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Nealeigh, and we
will appreciate your efforts and your information that you
will forward on to us. Thank you.
PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you.
Gloria Tolan.
MS. GLORIA TOLAN: Is it all right if I speak
from here?
PRESIDING OFFICER: I think the Reporter can hear
you much better over here, and weTre trying to make a
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
KI7 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, Hew Mexrco 87112
Telephone (505) 243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
transcript. !
MS. TOLAN: My name is Gloria Tolan. I reside
at 106 Abelene S.E. in the South San Jose area. I also !
I
am one of the parties that filed a lawsuit against the
I
City in 1973* One of the reasons that I was party to this
suit is because our area was and is effected by a tremen- j
i
dous, horrible smell. This has not been taken care of.
I ran for State Representative in 1972, I believeL
I was in the Mountainview area where the plant number 2 is.
At that time I was getting a lot of complaints about drying
wells that were caused by the new plant, which is plant j
i
number 2. These people were very concerned. A lot of
them were minorities. There were Spanish. I don't know '
whether the fact that the area is, you know, resided by
Spanish people or Mexicans or whatever minority that the
Government, you know, will take it, you know — it 3eems to
me that they take advantage of people that cannot defend
themselves. These people are pretty bad off, you know.
They need help. They need their water, and yet their wells
are running dry.
I would ask why these meetings are not held where
the areas are effected. And, those are really my main
comments. I'm really disturbed. I think that if you had
your meetings where the people live that are involved and —
in essence, you might have a good turnout, but I doubt that
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Plate, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87t 17
Telephone (505( 243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
you'd have people that understand your Environmental Impact
Statements and what have you, because we also have a prob-
lem of education. They're very — you know, they're not
very educated. They go up as high as grade school. Some
of them graduate from high school, and they're lucky they
do that. So, these people do live in a sort of poverty
area, you know, under a poverty guideline or what have you.
And, the plant does effect these people, and I wish that
this would be considered. Thank you.
PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for your comments.
We certainly hope to reach everybody in holding these
Hearings, and it's certainly not our intent to exclude any-
body by having the Hearing one place or another. We had
hoped that this was a centrally located place here at City
Hall.
I have no further cards indicating that anyone
else wishes to make a statement. Is there someone in the
audience who would like to speak?
Yes, would you come up and identify yourself pleaso
MR. BILL TRYON: My name is Bill Tryon, and I'm
presently Assistant City Attorney.
To open my remarks which will be brief, I would
like to say that in addressing and commenting on Stan Read's
remarks, I have known Stan for many years. As a matter of
fact, he's a friend of mine. But, even more than that, he's
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque. New Mexico 87112
Telephone (505) 143-0144
-------
1
2
3
i
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
an honorable person, and I think his comments were well
taken. One of the major points that he had was a certain
feeling of scepticism. Well, at this time, I don't think
it's appropriate for me to address the foundation of that
scepticism. However, right now and through these type
of Hearings, what we have attempted to do is to increase
information about what the City of Albuquerque is doing.
Only tonight we've heard a further example of how
apparently there's been evidence that the facility planning
report didn't get into the proper hands with enough time.
That was Paul's remarks.. To address that, I would ask the
EPA to certainly give any written comments that Paul and
I
his group have added weight, because that would certainly !
reflect the fact they'd had more time to study the facility
planning report and, thereby, address it in their written
comments.
Perhaps one of the things that's dearest to me,
as Assistant City Attorney, is the Liquid Waste Ordinance.
I've been involved in this project for five months, and I
would like to assure everybody in this audience the City
of Albuquerque is committed to the enforcement of the Liquic
Waste Ordinance. Things that we've done in the past that
show that we have been enforcing this ordinance include
identification of the five major industrial pollutants.
Likewise, one of those five, Duke City Bumper, was identifi
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87112
Telephone (SOS) 243-0144
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
as having caused some problems with the influent at Waste
Treatment Plant Number 2. The City of Albuquerque took
steps and — lawyer is an acronym, I suppose, but literally
on the Courtroom steps we placed Duke City Bumper on a
schedule of compliance, whereby they were brought within
the effect of our Liquid Waste Ordinance. And, they are
still being monitored on a daily basis.
On a daily basis the ordinance in enforced by the
testing of influent coming into the plant. The influent
is tested, and this is in response to some of the concerns
about the metals. The influent is tested on a daily basis.
The nine metals that are tested, probably more properly
addressed by either Mr. Ed Archuleta or Mr. Galen Roumpf.
But, again, I'd like to assure you that this is being done.
These metals are being tested for — and, it's being done
on a daily basis.
No system is perfect. And, only last Friday
when the Environmental Protection Agency sent a fact finding
team down to the City, one of the individuals that came
down to Albuquerque suggested a method of better enforcement
of our Liquid Waste Ordinance. His suggestion called for
the setting up of treatment — what's the proper phrase? --
actually setting an on-site inspection for all the areas
that could be contributing to industrial pollutant problems
in Albuquerque.
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place. Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87112
Telephone (505) 243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
10
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
I will be rewriting this ordinance, and we will
attempt to do this. And, this is, again, an attempt to
progressively apply our ordinance.
The final point I wanted to make, again, deals
with some of Paul's comments, and that — in his discussion
of the maintenance plans and the operating plans. And,
again, I've suggested to your attorney, Denise Court
(phonetic), tonight in order to simplify what is an obvious
communication problem. I would suggest, one, that any
request for information, whether technical or legal, be
addressed to me in my office. I feel this will certainly
simplify your procedures because you only have one person
to get it to.
Likewise, Mr. Paul Nolan has assured me and he has
since he has taken over the Water Resources Department, has
assured the public that maintenance plans and operating
plans will be available. In the past, I am quite convinced
that there has been confusion as to the availability, where
this information can be found and, perhaps, a little slug-
gishness on the part — or the perception of sluggishness
on the part of City officials.
I, personally, am committed, and I know the entire
Water Resources Division is committed to end this communi-
cation problem.
So, with no further ado, I have no more comments.
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place. Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87112
Telephone (505) 143-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
Thank you.
PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you. I would like to
point out again, there was a reference made to written
comments, that when we consider the record on this
Environmental Impact Statement, we will consider together
any comments made here tonight and the written comments
submitted later.
Yes, do you wish to make another statement?
MR. ROBINSON: Yes, if I may.
PRESIDING OFFICER: All right.
MR. ROBINSON: My name is still Paul Robinson.
I want to thank Mr. Tryon for his comments. I appreciate
it; and we will be trying to work through you.
I wanted to also comment on your statement about
the commitment to enforce the Liquid Waste Ordinance. We
have — I talked to Galen Roumpf, who is with the Liquid
Waste Division of the City, last week in order to get
compliance monitoring information on this Liquid Waste
Ordinance, because we're trying — as I said before, we
don't feel that the ordinance had been enforced, so we're
trying to get data to see if it's been enforced. We've
been trying for a week and a half to get the data, and
Mr. Roumpf was on vacation and it seems to have a little
trouble getting it out of the computer. And, we haven't
seen the numbers and, therefore, I don't know whether to
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87112
Telephone (505) 243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
believe what Mr. Tryon says and have, again, been trying
to get this information.
The other comment you made about influent testing
The influent testing on a daily basis sufficient to test
to see if the Industrial Liquid Waste Ordinance is in
compliance. It's these — all the industrial point sources
and effluent are needed to assess whether the Industrial
Waste Ordinance is being complied with. There's numbers
for the individual point sources as well as for effluent
from the plant.
I Just wanted to make those comments and, again,
reiterate thank you for making yourself available as a
source for information.
PRESIDING OFFICER: O.K., thank you. Is there
anyone else who would like to make a statement? It appears
that there are none. We would be happy to try and answer
any questions that you might have. If we can't answer
them tonight and you'll give us your name, we'll try to
give you a response.
Does anyone have any questions?
(No response.)
PRESIDING OFFICER: This is too easy. Nobody
has a question? It appears that there are no questions —
yes, there is one. We would appreciate your standing up
and stating your name so that we will have it for the recor<
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeait
Albuquerque, New Me*jco 87112
Telephone* (505) 243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE: My question Is, what is
your schedule as far aa your tine period — what things
will happen in the future from here?
PRESIDING OFFICER: From here we will have a
time period in which we receive comments. Those are due
to EPA by August the 8th. After that we will analyze the
comments, make any appropriate changes that need to be made
in the Environmental Impact Statement, finalize it and thero
is opportunity following that for comment on the final
Environmental Impact Statement, assuming that there are no
major objections to the project, can proceed following the
filing of the final Environmental Impact Statement with the
Council on Environmental Quality. And, after those proce-
dures have taken place, the project can be funded.
MR. ROBERT SPALDING: I missed the very end of
what you said, the dates as far as the final — (interruptec
PRESIDING OFFICER: I'm going to let Mr. Bergstron
respond to that question as this Is his field.
MR. BERGSTROM: Once we receive all comments
after the August 8th date, we will begin preparation of
the final statement. During this time period we will be
responding to all comments, and we estimate that this proces
would take approximately thirty (30) to forty-five (45)
days to complete-the final environmental statement. At that
time we will send copies back to people who made major
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place. Northeait
AIbuquerque, New Mexico 87112
Telephone 1505)743-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1G
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
comments on the draft environmental statement. And, once
the — at that same time we will also forward copies to
the Council on Environmental Quality. Once the Council on
Environmental Quality receives the final Environmental
Impact Statement, there is a thirty (30) day comment period
from the time they publish receipt in the Federal Register.
PRESIDING OFFICER: Yes?
MR. NOLAN: I'm Paul Nolan, Director of Water
Resources for the City of Albuquerque. I'm somewhat con-
cerned by your comments on your schedule. We've been
informed by the State EPA that our environmental Impact
Statement must be approved by the time they approve our
grant applications by October 1. In other words, the
Environmental Impact Statement must be approved and our
facility's plan approved before they will award us any
grants for the next year. And, it's my understanding the
deadline is October 1. And, if you take forty-five (45)
days, plus an additional month, you're not going to make
that.
MR. BERGSTROM: I Just might add that we do have
a process. It's a — which gives us the legal, I guess,
right to waive the thirty (30) day period at the Council
on Environmental Quality. We — our present time schedule,
though, we believe that we can meet and get final aoproval
on the final statement by that October 1st date with no
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87112
Telephone (505) 243-0146
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
problems. So, we don't see this to be a problem at this
point. This is without our requesting a thirty (30) day
waiver from Council on Environmental Quality also.
PRESIDING OFFICER: Are there any further
questions? It appears that no one else has a question,
therefore, I'm going to adjourn the Hearing for tonight,
and I certainly appreciate all of you coming. Thank you.
(WHEREUPON, the Hearing in the above-
entitled matter was closed.)
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
1917 Paige Place, Northeast
Albuquerqui, New Henco (7112
Telephone (505) 143-0146
-------
SUMMARY OF ODOR CuVIROL PROGRAM
Pr_i^;rani
A. P1 a [i l Nc . 2
1. Special Con-
sultant
Ketained
Objectives and/or
Antlcipated ResulLs
1, Identify problems
2. Make recommendations on:
a. Plant Operations
b. Short-Term, Long-Term, Low Cost
and more expensive programs.
Anaerobic Digester 1. To restore eight digesters to Cull
CZ £:an:.^-Rehabil-
itation
useful capacity.
Schedule
1. Consultant hired 1/77
2. P?rt I Report submitted
3/77.
3. Part II Report submitted
6/77.
1. Two digesters March-
June 1977
2. Two digesters September
December 1977
3. Two digesters March-June
1978
4. Two digesters September-
December 1978
Ef-1 li i a ted
Co S L
$35,000
$ 300,000
Centrifuge Pilot
Plant Program
Pilot Plant to determine feasi-
bility of thickening waste
activated sludge.
Work conducted during
Fall 1977
Minimal cost to the
City; rest co^ts CL
the expense of the
equipment manufac-
turer
6.
Construction or
Dissolved Air
Flotation System
Hauling of
Liciuid Sludge
Dispose 1 of Ex-
cess Stockpiled
Dry Sludge
To thicken waste activated sludge
and thus minimize amount of water
handled
Eliminate significant: amount of
sludge until Item 4 above can be
completed.
To eliminate the excess stockpiled
sludge above and beyond the needs
of the Parks and Recreation Dept.
1. Consultant began work 4/77
2. Equipment to be pr.=—
purchased July 1977.
3. Construction to begin 11/77
4. Start-up to begin June 1978
1. Frogrnm began in May 1977
and will continue until at
least July 1978.
1. Specifications have been
written.
2. Program expected to begin
Ttl\y "*Q77 n O fl t nno in-
___Tin y.
$1,150,000
$100,000 annually
fnft, % I
-------
Frogr.m
7. Construction of
temporary Sludge
Drying Bods
S* Design and Con-
struction of
Phase IA
Addition of Poly-
electrolyte
Chemicals
10. Chlorination
Improvements
11. Increased Scaff-
ing and Budget
12. Operator Train-
ing
13. Additional
Facilities
1.
1.
2.
1.
2.
Objectives and/or
Anticipated Results
To provide additional beds to help relieve
the existing 62 beds 1.
Increase plant capacity from 39 mgd to 47 1.
mgd.
Add 30 additional sludge drying beds 2.
3.
2.
1.
2.
To help capture excess solids and thus
clarify effluent.
To accelerate dewatering of sludge
poured to beds.
To replace two existing chlorinators
which provide odor control to tire "super-
natant" and for "pre-chlorinacion."
Will provide increased capacity
and reliability.
To provide additional personnel in cer-
tain operation and maintenance areas.
To provide additional monies for im-
proved preventative maintenance pro-
grams.
To continue program of Operator Train-
ing so that fully qualified and certi-
fied personnel operate and maintain
facilities.
Planning calls for the following:
a. All treatment to take place at
Plant No. 2 after 1983.
b. Plant 2 to be expanded to 59 mgd by
1983.
c. Mechanical sludge dewatering will
replace most open air drying beds.
1.
2.
1.
2.
Schedule
Beds constructed Fall
1977 by City Forces
Design complete by Oct.
1977 .
Construction to begin
January 1978.
Construction complete
January 1980.
Program conducted Jan,-
April 1977.
Program partially success-
ful and will continue to
further evaluate sludge
dewatering.
Chlorinators ordered
April 1977.
Installation complete
by July 1977.
Programs to begin July 1,
1977.
On-going
Anticipated completion
by 1983 but dependent
on Federal funding pro-
gram.
Estinated
Cost
$10,000
$3,000,000
$25,000 (to date)
Part of current
construction pro-
gram.
Amount dependent
on Budget Approval
Amount depends on
Budget Approval
$12,000,000
-------
Ob jei. Lives and/or
n i>^rjin A111 li11 |i.i l i-d Ui--.ii I L ¦:
3. P_1 aji_t_ N_ti_. 1
1. Special Consult- 1. Idt-'nLily l'rub Li'ins.
ant Retained 2. Make recommendations on:
a. Plant Operations
b. Short-Term, Long-Term low cost and
more expensive programs
2. Low-Cost Measures 1. To cover certain open channels, boxes,
identified in Item structures, etc. and treat the collec-
1 above ted gas prior to discharge to the at-
mosphere .
Anaerobic Diges-
ter Rehabilita-
tion
1. To restore digesters to full useful
capacity.
Disposal of Ex-
cess Stockpiled
Dry Sludge
To eliminate excess stockpiled sludge
above and beyond the needs of the
Parks and Recreation Department.
Increased Staff-
ing and Budget
6, Operator Train-
ing
1. To provide additional personnel in
certain operation and maintenance
areas,
2, To provide additional monies for im-
proved preventative maintenance
programs.
1, To continue program of Operator
Training such that fully qualified
and certified personnel operate and
maintain facilities.
7. Equipment Re-
placements
1. To replace and/or rehabilitate certain
digester mixers, pumps, bar screens,
trickling filters, and other mecham-
ical equipment.
Schedule
r>.tim.ited
COS L
1.
2.
3.
1.
2.
1.
2.
Consultant hired in Jan.
1977
Part I report submitted
March 197 7
Part II report submitted
June 1977.
Program evaluation under-
way .
Recommended program to
begin after July 1977,
and complete July 1978.
Program evaluation under-
way .
Specifications have been
written.
Program expected to begin
July 1977 and continue
indefinitely.
Program to begin July 1,
1977.
$35,000
$50,000 plus
(Amount dependent
on budget approval)
Amount dependent on
recommended program
and budget approval
Amount dependent on
budget approval.
1. On-going
Amount dependent on
budget approval.
1. On-going
Amount commensurate
with available Capi
tal Improvements
Funds
-------
Program
Oilier lr.K-tors
Additional Staff
added since
Summer 1976
Employment of
Temporary and
Part-Time
Personnel
01> Joel i ves .liul/or
Ant ic 1 patcd Re-sij 1 ts
1. To provide eight additional personnel
for improved operation and mainten-
ance of both facilities
1. To assist at both Plants in the
Operation and Maintenance of both
Facilities
4.
Sclicilul i>
lis Lima tod
Cost
1. All personnel budgeted $85,000 annually
have been hired.
1. Three students from NMSU
will be employed foL 12
weeks this summer
2. Temporary employee to be
hired May 1977 for six-
month period
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
S
10
11
12
13
14
15
J 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
C E R T I F I C A T E
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT the proceedings of which
this is the transcript were held at the time and place
hereinbefore written and;
THAT the foregoing pages 1 through 37, Inclusive,
are a complete and correct transcript of ray stenographic
notes and electronic tape recordings taken at the proceed-
ings and;
THAT Hearing Exhibit 1 was marked for ideatificati
and attached hereto.
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES,
INC., Certified Shorthand
Reporters
By: S/sfo; /H,
(Mrs.) Riche H. Emmons
RICHE H. EMMONS & ASSOCIATES. INC.
COURT REPORTERS
191T Paige Place. Northeast
Albuquerque, New Metico 87112
Telephone (505) 143-0144
------- |