EXPANSION OF THE DRINKING WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TO
UNSERVED AREAS - SOUTHERN PORTION OF
AGUA PRIETA, SONORA, MEXICO
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region 9, Thomas Konner
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105
BORDER ENVIRONMENT COOPERATION COMMISSION
Boulevard Tomas Fernandez #8069
Cd. Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico 32470
ORGANISMO OPERADOR MUNICIPAL DE AGUA POTABLE, ALCANTARILLADO Y SANEAMIENTO - AGUA
PRIETA
Calle6,Avenida15#1499
Colonia Centra
Agua Prieta, Sonora, Mexico
August 18, 2009
BROWN AND CALDWELL
11 DONE Loop 410, Ste. 300
San Antonio, TX 78209
-------
Table of Contents EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES.,
LIST OF TABLES...,
1. BACKGROUND 1-1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.1.1 Legal Framework 1-1
1.2 Purpose of the Environmental Assessment 1-1
1.3 Project Location 1-2
1.4 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Actions 1-2
1.5 Scope of the Environmental Assessment 1-5
1.5.1 Issues Studied in Detail 1-5
1.5.2 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study 1-5
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVES 2-1
2.1 Description of the Proposed Actions 2-1
2.2 Water Distribution System 2-1
2.3 Alternative A-No Action 2-2
2.4 Alternative B -PVC WDS Combined With PVC SCH 40 Material Household Line Connection Alternative..2-2
2.5 Alternative C - PVC WDS Combined With PE SDR 9 Material Household Line Connections Alternative ...2-4
2.6 Comparison of the Alternatives 2-5
2.7 Identification of Preferred Alternative 2-7
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3-1
3.1 Land Use 3-1
3.1.1 Environmental Consequences 3-3
3.2 Air Quality 3-3
3.2.1 Environmental Consequences 3-5
3.3 Water Resources 3-5
3.3.1 Environmental Consequences 3-9
3.4 Biological Resources 3-11
3.4.1 Vegetation 3-11
3.4.2 Wildlife and Threatened and Endangered Species 3-12
3.4.3 Environmental Consequences 3-13
3.5 Cultural Resources 3-14
3.5.1 Cultural Setting 3-14
3.5.2 Records Review 3-16
3.5.3 Environmental Consequences 3-16
3.6 Noise 3-17
3.6.1 Environmental Consequences 3-17
3.7 Traffic and Transportation 3-17
-------
Table of Contents EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
3.7.1 Environmental Consequences 3-18
3.8 Socio-Economic Conditions 3-18
3.8.1 Environmental Consequences 3-20
3.9 Municipal Services and Public Health 3-21
3.9.1 Environmental Consequences 3-22
3.10 Cumulative Impact 3-23
4. CONCLUSION 4-1
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY 5-1
6. AGENCIES CONTACTED 6-1
7. ACRONYMS 7-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1.1-1: Urban growth depicted from Landsat imagery from the years 1973,1985,1995, and 2000
(Source: Norman et. al 2004) 3-2
Figure 3.2-1: Three-year moving averages of the annual average PM-10 concentrations at sites with higher
historic concentrations (Source: ADEQ 2008a) 3-4
Figure 3.3-1: Theoretical Drawdown of Water Well #15 Over the Span of 365 Days 3-4
Figure 3.5-1. Historical Population growth rate of the City of Agua Prieta as estimated by the INEGI. Note: Years
is located on the x-axis, and annual growth rate (%) is on the y-axis. (Source: COCEF 2002)...3-19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.4-1 Materials 2-2
Table 2.5-1 Materials 2-4
Table 2.6-1 Comparative Matrix Summary 2-5
Table 3.3-1 Bacteriologist Limit Characteristics 3-6
Table 3.3-2 Chemical Constitute Limits 3-7
Table 3.3-3 Average Water and Wastewater Flows 3-10
Table 3.4-1 Threatened & Endangered Species List for Cochise County, Arizona 3-12
Table 3.8-1 Population Growth Estimates 3-19
Table 3.9-1 Utility Coverage in Agua Prieta, Sonora in 2000 3-21
-------
1. BACKGROUND
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers funds for water and wastewater
infrastructure projects within 100 kilometers of the international boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. The
EPA policy for border funds requires certification by the Border Environment Cooperation Commission
(BECC) /North American Development Bank (NADB) Board of Directors as a condition for grant award. As
part of the BECC certification process, the proposed project must comply with both (1) Mexico
Environmental Regulations, and (2) the EPA National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations. The
EPA policy for border funds requires certification and evaluation by the BECC prior to approval. The
Proposed Action under consideration for the EPA funding is the expansion of the drinking water distribution
system to unserved areas of the City of Agua Prieta, Sonora, Mexico.
The EPA has determined that it will follow the NEPA and the EPA regulations contained in 40 CFR Part 6
as reference for environmental impact in the U.S. from projects located in the U.S. or Mexico (EPA 1997a).
The EPA follows the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID) approach as summarized in Title 22
CFR Part 216.1-216.10 as guidance for assessing environmental impacts in Mexico. The AID regulations
envision collaboration with affected countries to the maximum extent possible in developing an
Environmental Assessment (EA). AID regulations authorize use of either a study prepared by an
international body in which the U.S. is a participant, or a concise review of the relevant environmental issues,
with appropriate documentation, as a substitute for an EA.
This EA was prepared using Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508
and the EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 6) as guidance. A separate Manifestation de Impacto Ambiental (MIA)
document customarily evaluates the environmental impacts of proposed federal actions in Mexico. However,
the Secretarial del Media Ambientej Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) has determined that the proposed actions
are exempt from their substantive environmental review process. Therefore, although this EA will focus on
the environmental consequences of the proposed federal action in the U.S., it will also document the
environmental consequences of these actions in Mexico.
1*2 Of ft's'it'
The City of Agua Prieta, Sonora (City) is developing an expansion of the drinking water distribution system
to the unserved colonia in the southern part of the City in compliance with state and federal regulatory
requirements. The EPA intends to authorize the use of Border Environmental Infrastructure Funds (BEIF)
to Agua Prieta in order to assist in the expansion of the distribution system, which will deliver drinking water
to the eastern half of the southern part of the City. This proposed BEIF project consists of installing 27,127
linear meters (89,000 feet) of new potable water lines to serve 737 additional connections. The City hopes to
provide piped potable water to the approximately 2,860 inhabitants of the underserved colonia in the project
area that currently receive drinking water hauled by water trucks and stored in public water tanks (BECC
2009). The Organismo Operador Municipal deAgua Potable, Akantarilladoy Samamiento (OOMAPAS) estimates
-------
1: Background EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
that about 10 water tanks with a capacity of 5,000 liters (1,320 gallons) currently serve the colonia. This
method of providing potable drinking water can lead to health risks associated with contamination and lapses
in availability of potable water.
Agua Prieta's existing water distribution system is interconnected and has the capacity to satisfy the demand
of the entire city including the project area that is currently not served by the existing water distribution
system. The source of water is provided by 14 existing water wells that produce a flow of approximately 840
1/s (13,315 gpm). A new water well, known as Water Well #15, was drilled by OOMAPAS in the southern
area of the City in 2008. Water Well #15 is located at the intersection of Calle 38 and Avenida 6. The
purpose of this new water well is to provide additional water supplies to the existing water distribution system
such that the southern colonia could be served. This new well has a flow capacity of 60 1/s (950 gpm).
OOMAPAS estimates that Well #15 and the existing 14 wells would provide adequate capacity to meet the
entire City of Agua Prieta's water demand. Additionally, OOMAPAS anticipates that the concurrent
operation of the 15 existing wells would only be required during peak demand hours.
This EA will address those environmental resources that would be affected in the United States and Mexico
by describing the potential affected environment, or area of concern, and assessing the direct, indirect and
cumulative impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed project in Agua Prieta, Sonora, Mexico
on that environment.
1.3
The project area is located within the City of Agua Prieta (City), Sonora, Mexico. The City is located in the
northeastern part of the State of Sonora, Mexico, on the United States (US)/Mexico border, adjacent to the
town of Douglas, Arizona and serves as a county seat of the County of Agua Prieta. The City of Agua Prieta
is situated on the east bank of the Agua Prieta River (Figure 1.2-1). Agua Prieta is located within the
Whitewater International Watershed, with an elevation of approximately 1,216 meters (3,990 feet). Several
mountain ranges surround the City of Agua Prieta, including the Chiricahuas to the north, the Swisshelm and
Perilla Ranges to the east, and the Mule Mountains to the west (Normal et. al 2004). The City spans an area
of 25.94 square kilometers (km2, 10 square miles), and the latest estimate of its population (2007) is 70,523
inhabitants (Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) 2007).
The area of concern, or the area that would likely be affected by implementing the proposed project, was
defined by the BECC to be the south side of the City and the area within a 10 (6.21 miles) km radius of Agua
Prieta across the US border to the north. The proposed alternative, Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Water
Distribution System (WDS) combined with Polyethylene (PE) Standard Dimension Ratio (SDR) 9 Material
Household Line Connection Alternative (Alternative C), is bounded to the north by Calle 36, to the east by
Avenida 29, to the south by Calle 42, and to the west by Avenida 4 (Figure 1.2-2).
According to the BECC (2004), Agua Prieta provided water service to 83.48 % of its detached homes in the
year 2000. The existing water distribution system serves approximately 68,402 inhabitants (INEGI 2005).
However, there are approximately 2,860 inhabitants of the underserved colonia in southern Agua Prieta that
currently receive drinking water hauled by water trucks and stored in public water tanks (BECC 2009). The
OOMAPAS estimates that about 10 water tanks with a capacity of 5,000 liters (1,320 gallons) currently serve
the colonia. This current method of providing potable drinking water can lead to health risks caused by
contamination and lapses in availability of potable water. For example, outbreaks of dengue fever have
occurred in Agua Prieta, which is mostly transmitted by the Aedes aegypti mosquito. This mosquito primarily
lays her eggs in artificial containers that hold water.
-------
1: Background
EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
11BGQ.L L - HOC 'I****
-------
1: Background
EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
LJULJULJ
DDDDD
DD
4I3EEL
-------
1: Background EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
Extending the water distribution system to the colonia would reduce or eliminate the amount of water that is
being transported via water trucks. The distribution system would lower the potential for inhabitants to
succumb to the water-borne pathogens that could be harbored using the current method. Also, improving
local health conditions would contribute to lowering the incidence of water-born diseases regionally.
1.5 Scope of the Environmental Assessment
As defined in CEQ regulations (§ 1508.25), the scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and
impacts to be considered in a NEPA document. The scope of this EA is limited to the relevant resources
within the defined area of concern in the U.S. and Mexico that may be affected by the no action alternative or
one of the action alternatives.
1.5.1 Issues Studied in Detail
In accordance with CEQ regulations (§ 1500.4 and § 1501.7) and BECC-BEIF environmental requirements,
issues to be addressed related to this proposal, include the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to land use,
air quality, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, socio-economic environment, municipal
services and public health conditions, noise, and traffic.
1.5.2 Issues Eliminated from Detailed Study
As directed by §1501.7 and in consultation with BECC, the issues which are not important or which have
been covered by prior environmental review were eliminated from detailed study. These issues include the
following: hazardous and solid waste, wetlands, farmlands, national landmarks and wild and scenic rivers.
These resource issues are not present within or applicable to the proposed project area, and are unlikely to be
directly or indirectly affected by any alternative and are therefore, not relevant for detailed evaluation.
-------
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with CEQ regulations (§ 1502.14), this section of the EA: (1) presents and objectively evaluates
all alternatives, including alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study and the reasons for
elimination; (2) devotes substantial discussion to each alternative considered in detail so the reviewers may
evaluate comparative merits; and (3) includes appropriate mitigation measures.
Based on the information and analysis presented in Section 3.0 (Affected Environment and Environmental
Consequences), this section also presents the potential local and transboundary environmental impacts of the
alternatives in comparative form.
2,1
OOMAPAS reviewed the use of four main pipe materials. These materials were ductile iron, Pressure Class
150, polyvinyl chloride C-900, Pressure Class 200 (PVC), high density polyethylene pDPE), PE 3408, SDR
9, Pressure Class 200 and asbestos cement, Pressure Class 200. For this project, PVC, C-900, Pressure Class
200 was selected because of its lower material costs, ease of installation, is light weight and does not corrode.
Three alternatives were considered that include the No Action Alternative (Alternative A) discussed in
Subchapter 2.1, the proposed action of PVC WDS combined with PVC SCH 40 Material Household Line
Connection Alternative (Alternative B) discussed in Subchapter 2.2, and the PVC WDS combined with PE
SDR 9 Material Household Line Connection Alternative (Alternative C) discussed in Subchapter 2.3.
These two action alternatives were developed based on the needs of the community, housing density, and
project costs. The inhabitants of the southern colonia are spread throughout and not centrally located. The
housing density of the entire colonia has not been estimated accurately, but it is significantly less than 66%.
Expanding the coverage area adds construction costs. The BECC and OOMAPAS-Agua Prieta agreed to
create an alternative that optimizes the availability of financial resources. The PVC WDS combined with PE
SDR 9 Material Household Line Connection Alternative will provide access to potable water to the unserved
colonia. Besides the variation in household line connection construction material, there are no other feasible
alternative actions that would minimize impacts to environmental resources.
The criteria that were used to analyze alternatives to fulfill the project's purpose and need are as follows:
« Ability to maximize elimination of water tanks that cause potential health risks.
« Cost effectiveness to fulfill requirements of funding agencies.
* Minimized conflicts with existing infrastructure.
» Minimized environmental impacts.
2,2
The City of Agua Prieta, Sonora, through the OOMAPAS has determined that infrastructure improvements
are required to remedy the existing drinking water distribution system deficiencies. The City is seeking
funding from the EPA through BECC and NADB to expand the City of Agua Prieta's Water Distribution
System (WDS) to areas currently not served (see Figure 1.2-2 for proposed infrastructure improvements).
-------
2: Project Description and Alternatives
EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
To minimize health risks, the WDS would be expanded to serve inhabitants between Avenida 4 and Avenida
29 and between Calle 36 and Calle 42. The expanded WDS would serve 737 additional connections. It is
anticipated that approximately 1.62 hectares (4 acres) of temporary surface disturbance would be necessary to
install the proposed water lines within the approximately 146 hectare (360 acre) project area. The
construction area footprint would be larger, as the aforementioned 1.62 hectares (4 acres) only accounts for
the excavated area. Spoil piles, staging areas, and construction access would most likely occur on the existing
road surface. All disturbances would occur within either previously disturbed residential/commercial areas or
through degraded former rangeland that is to be developed. Construction would begin once funds are
acquired.
2.3 Alternative A - No Action
Under Alternative A, the colania would continue to rely on water hauled to the approximately ten 5,000 liter
(6,666 gallons) water tanks in the colonia. No water distribution pipelines would be constructed and no
temporary construction-related impacts would occur. Issues related to water supply reliability and safety
associated with the existing water tanks would remain.
2.4 Alternative B -PVC WDS Combined With PVC SCH 40
Material Household Line Connection Alternative
Standard utility pipeline construction methods would be used for the construction of the new lines including
clearing, grading, trenching, lowering-in and backfilling, hydrostatic testing, disinfection, cleanup and final
restoration. All construction would be performed according to Comision National del Agua Technical Manual,
and the manual entitled Secretarial de Asentamientos j Obras Publicas from the Direction General de Agua Potable j
Alcantarillado. According to OOMAPAS, no city or state permits are needed to carry out the construction.
Special construction techniques would not be necessary as no railroads, paved roads, utility lines, water
bodies, or wetlands would be crossed. To avoid repaving expenses, plugged water lines were pre-installed in
roads that were paved in the project area. Therefore, new lines would only need to be connected to the
previously laid pipes and plugs need to be removed from the existing piping laid underneath the paved roads.
Construction plans for this alternative do not include additional storage tanks or wells.
According to the OOMAPAS cost estimate, the following water pipeline and appurtenances quantities would
be required to provide an adequate drinking WDS to the high density area of the
Table 2.4-1 Materials
Type of Material
1/2" 0 PVC SCH 40 Pipeline
4"0 PVC Pipeline
6"0 PVC Pipeline
8"0 PVC Pipeline
Connections
3" Gate Valves
4" Gate Valves
6" Gate Valves
8" Gate Valves
Valve Boxes
Quantity
4,826 meters
19,819. 18 meters
1,200.57 meters
1,282.35 meters
737 each
9 each
49 each
4 each
4 each
132 each
-------
2: Project Description and Alternatives EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
Excavation trenches up to 1.05 meters in depth and up to 0.75 meters in width would be required for 4", 6",
and 8" diameter piping. Trenches for the l/2" diameter house connections and 4" diameter water lines would
be approximately 0.60 meters wide. House hook up lengths vary from 3-15 meters with a maximum depth of
1.2 meters and a maximum of 0.7 meters in width. The asphaltic concrete and the sidewalk concrete surfaces
would be cut and replaced as required.
Under this alternative, approximately 27,128 linear meters (89,000 linear feet) of pipe would be installed. The
majority of the installed water main pipes 19,819 meters (65,022 linear feet) would have a diameter of 4" and
will require a 0.6 meter excavation width. Approximately 13,922 m3 (18,209 cubic yards) of earth would be
excavated. Approximately 1,369 m3 (1,790 cubic yards) of gravel, 5,418 m3 (7,086 cubic yards) of compacted
fill, and 5,909 m3 (7,728 cubic yards) of fill material would be used to complete the excavations. This
alternative does not require installation of additional tanks or wells.
The PVC material household line connections include the following:
» A 4"x !/>" taping saddle and corporation stop valve to the 4" Main
» 3-15 meters of !/2" SCH 40 PVC pipe with solvent weld bells from Main to the Water Meter
» A !/2" galvanized coupling
« A !/2" bronze adaptor
« A !/2" gate valve
» PVC meter box
» PVC cleaner, primer, and cement
To excavate the trenches, a backhoe would be used. Once the trench is complete, approximately 0.10
meters (0.33 feet) of selective-rock-free backfill material would be placed in the trench as pipe bedding.
The pipe would then be laid and covered with compacted backfill and backfilled to the ground surface.
No new soils would be required to be brought on-site, as the soils from the trench excavations are suitable
for backfill. Any waste generated during the construction would be taken to the local landfill that is
owned by Agua Prieta. All areas disturbed by construction would be returned to pre-existing contours,
and stabilized. Trash and debris that remain from construction would be removed and disposed of in
approved off-site areas.
Measures would be taken to ensure that construction activities would not prevent access to residential areas
by fire and emergency vehicles. One lane of traffic would be kept open or appropriate detours would be
made available when constructing on or across residential streets. Traffic lanes and home access would be
maintained except for the periods essential for pipe laying.
All disturbances from construction of the pipeline are expected to be temporary in nature, and therefore no
appreciable permanent adverse effects to existing natural resources are anticipated. To mitigate project
effects on air quality, construction plans should include instructions for appropriate construction methods.
Also, to reduce the timing of potential impacts, immediately after the WDS installation, the contractor would
backfill the trenches and repave and re-grade the trenches as soon as possible. To mitigate impacts on water
resources, disturbed areas would be stabilized using temporary and/or permanent erosion control measures
as appropriate, to quickly stabilize disturbed soils, and control erosion. Re-vegetation would not be necessary,
as all construction would be completed within unpaved roadways. Mitigation measures for maintaining
cultural resources would include construction plans with instructions for ceasing all work and contacting
appropriate personnel from the Institute NadonalArqueologla e Historia (INAH) to determine the appropriate
course of action if subsurface cultural resources are identified during construction.
Some details of the project have yet to be defined. For example, the amount of personnel required to
construct the project can only be estimated after the project is bid and the contractor is selected. Therefore,
-------
2: Project Description and Alternatives
EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
it is not known if local community members would be performing the construction, and therefore, if the
project would require additional housing. However, OOMAPAS would be maintaining and operating the
WDS once it is built, and as they already have sufficient personnel for these tasks, so construction staffing
needs would be temporary.
2.5 Alternative C - PVC WDS Combined With PE SDR 9
Material Household Line Connections Alternative
This alternative encompasses the same area and the same amount of piping and quantities associated with the
Alternative B.
This alternative implements the same construction methods and installation as Alternative B. The Pipe
material for this alternative includes PVC C-900 for the main water lines but a different material for the Vz "
household line connections. The Vz" household line connections would consist of PE SDR 9. This material
is suitable for household lines due to its pressure rating, flexibility, ease of installation and repair.
The PE SDR 9 material household line connection includes the following:
• A 4"x Vz" tapping saddle and corporation stop compression valve to the 4" Main
• 3-15 meters of Vz" PE SDR 9 pipe from Main to the Water Meter
• A !/>" angle meter corporation stop compression valve
• PVC meter box
The following table shows the pipeline quantities and material types that would be required to provide water
to the WDS for the colonia under this alternative:
Table 2.5-1 Materials
Type of Material
1/2" 0 PE SDR 9 Pipeline
4"0 PVC Pipeline
6"0 PVC Pipeline
8"0 PVC Pipeline
Connections
3" Gate Valves
4" Gate Valves
6" Gate Valves
8" Gate Valves
Valve Boxes
Quantity
4,826 meters
19,819. 18 meters
1,200.57 meters
1,282.35 meters
737 each
9 each
49 each
4 each
4 each
132 each
Similar to Alternative B, all disturbances created by the construction of the water main and household
connections are expected to be temporary in nature, and therefore no appreciable permanent adverse effects
to existing natural resources are anticipated. These disturbances would occur within either previously
disturbed residential/commercial areas, on existing roads or through degraded former rangeland.
Construction of the WDS would begin once funds are acquired.
-------
2: Project Description and Alternatives
EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
2.6 Comparison of the Alternatives
Table 2.6-1 compares the potential environmental trans-boundary impacts for both Douglas, AZ and Agua
Prieta, Sonora to the project area of the alternatives. Refer to Chapter 3 (Affected Environment and
Environmental Consequences) for further discussion of these potential environmental impacts.
Table 2.6-1 Comparative Matrix Summary
ALTERNATIVES
RECEPTORS
Land Use:
Douglas, AZ
AGUA PRIETA,
SONORA
Air Quality:
Douglas, AZ
AGUA PRIETA,
SONORA
Water Resources:
Douglas, AZ
AGUA PRIETA,
SONORA
Alternative A-
No Action
No potential impact.
Land uses would not
substantially change from
existing conditions.
Air quality in the area of
concern would not be
impacted by the no action
alternative.
Air quality in the area of
concern would not be
impacted by the no action
alternative.
No potential impact.
Current water delivery
activities would remain the
same. Water consumption
levels would likely
increase over time as the
population increases.
Alternative B-
PVC WDS Combined with SCH
40 Material Household Line
Connection
No potential impact.
The proposed WDS would be
constructed and installed in existing
streets and right-of-ways, which for
the most part are unpaved travel
corridors, and would have no
significant direct or indirect impact on
land use in the project area.
Extended water service may increase
the development rate of the area.
Temporary increases in fugitive dust
emissions due to disturbance of dry
soils during construction. These
impacts would be minor and would be
limited to the construction period.
Potential for temporary adverse
impacts to air quality. Construction
plans should include instructions for
appropriate construction methods and
standard dust control techniques to
minimize impact.
No potential impact due to Douglas,
AZ since the flow of both surface
water and groundwater is to the
south. Drawdown of water level in
aquifer attributable to Water Well #15
would be about 0.5 ft at nearest well
and less than 0.25 ft at U.S. border.
Increased wastewater production that
the proposed wastewater collection
system expansion would handle.
Minor temporary impact to surface
waters with increased total
suspended solids. Potential effects to
groundwater levels due to increased
pumping but extent unknown.
Alternative C-
PVC WDS Combined with PE
SDR 9 Material Household
Line Connection
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
-------
2: Project Description and Alternatives
EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
Table 2.6-1 Comparative Matrix Summary
ALTERNATIVES
RECEPTORS
Biological Resources:
DOUGLAS, AZ
AGUA PRIETA,
SONORA
Cultural:
DOUGLAS, AZ
AGUA PRIETA,
SONORA
Socio-economics:
DOUGLAS, AZ
AGUA PRIETA,
SONORA
Municipal Services and
Public Health:
DOUGLAS, AZ
Alternative A-
No Action
No potential impact.
No potential impact.
No potential impact.
No potential impact.
No impact on local
economy would occur.
Lack of reliable potable
water would cause
potential health concerns,
which could result in lost
worker productivity and
wages due to water-
related illness.
Additionally, residents
would spend time away
from family or employment
to obtain water. It would
result in undesirable
conditions.
No potential impact.
Alternative B-
PVC WDS Combined with SCH
40 Material Household Line
Connection
No potential impact on flora, fauna,
and threatened and endangered
species.
Biological resources in the project
area would not be impacted.
Would not have subsurface effects
within Douglas. As such, no direct
effects to cultural resources would
occur.
Subsurface construction limited to
areas that are currently used as
roads, and therefore disturbed. Low
potential for cultural resources impact
and any encountered should be
reported to the INAH and work would
cease until appropriate course of
action determined.
No potential impact to local economy
would occur.
Could result in slight increase in
population.
No potential impact.
Alternative C-
PVC WDS Combined with PE
SDR 9 Material Household
Line Connection
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
-------
2: Project Description and Alternatives
EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
Table 2.6-1 Comparative Matrix Summary
ALTERNATIVES
RECEPTORS
AGUA PRIETA,
SONORA
Noise:
DOUGLAS, AZ
AGUA PRIETA,
SONORA
Traffic:
DOUGLAS, AZ
AGUA PRIETA,
SONORA
Alternative A-
No Action
No action would continue
the current municipal
services or public health
and safety concerns within
water supply and delivery
to residents and business.
No potential impact.
No potential impact.
No potential impact
No potential impact.
Alternative B-
PVC WDS Combined with SCH
40 Material Household Line
Connection
Expansion of WDS would still leave a
portion of the colonia without potable
water infrastructure, which leaves
risks to public health due to potential
contamination drinking water.
Increased water consumption would
lead to increased flows to the existing
WWTP.
No potential impact.
Background noise levels may be
elevated during construction activities
but should not be expected to impose
long-term noise impacts.
No potential impact.
Temporary closing of streets may be
required during times of construction
but should not affect traffic long-term.
Alternative C-
PVC WDS Combined with PE
SDR 9 Material Household
Line Connection
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
2.7 Identification of Preferred Alternative
Alternative C, PVC WDS Combined with PE SDR 9 Material Household Line Connections, was selected as
the preferred alternative by the OOMAPAS. The PE SDR 9 material is suitable for household lines due to its
pressure rating, flexibility and ease of installation and repair.
-------
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
This Section of the EA focuses on the existing conditions of potentially affected resources in the project area
and their environmental consequences. Most effects are local to the project area, the southern portion of
Agua Prieta, Sonora, Mexico, but a 10 km (6.2 mile) radius from the proposed project area was considered
when determining the affected environment and determining the environmental consequences in the
subsequent chapter. Since the project area is close to the US border, the analysis includes, if relevant, a
concise review of potentially affected resources in the Unites States.
Project Area
The proposed WDS location is within existing residential areas on the southern edge of Agua Prieta's urban
area that began developing some time after 2000 (Norman et. al 2004). The proposed alternative - PVC WDS
combined with PE SDR 9 Material Household Line Connection Alternative (Alternative C) covers
approximately 145.6 hectares (360 acres), and is primarily in the central part of the southern colonia.
Alternative C covers the same area as Alternative B. Both action alternatives are bordered immediately to the
north by Calle 35 and more residential housing, and to the east, south, and west by degraded former
rangeland. Development is on-going and is expected to continue in the future regardless of which alternative
is selected.
According to the EPA (2007), land use in the south sector of the City is authorized for housing and minor
business facilities, and the largest land use category for the south sector of the City is designated residential
(single family, multi-family homes). The project area for both action alternatives is located within the former
g/«/a/ranchland that has been converting into a residential area since approximately the year 2000. The
project area contains a mix of inhabited houses, housing under construction, abandoned housing, and vacant
land. The roads are not paved in the colonia, with the exception of Avenida 10, and portions of Calle 38.
Douglas, Arizona and Surrounding Areas
According to the EPA (2007), "the land in southern Cochise County, Arizona is predominantly rural, with
scattered ranches and farms. Much of the land in the county is State Trust land or is owned and controlled by
federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the US Forest Service, or the US military."
Douglas, Arizona, located in Cochise County, is the closest densely populated area across the border from
Agua Prieta. It is estimated that it had a population of 16,932 in 2007 (US Census Bureau 2000). Most of the
land in Douglas is incorporated, with some State trust and BLM land located on its outskirts (Cochise
County, Arizona 2008). State Route 80 and US Highway 191 are the major regional transportation corridors
of Agua Prieta and Douglas. State Route 80 is a roughly arc-shaped highway that, near Douglas, runs east to
west along the US/Mexican border. US Highway 191 runs north to south and follows the Southern Pacific
Railroad line to Nacozari, Sonora, Mexico, which was built in 1901 to connect the mines in Mexico with the
United States markets.
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
Agua Prieta, Sonora and Surrounding Areas
Agua Prieta has experienced rapid growth. By the year 2000, the extent of Agua Prieta's urban land use had
increased 2.5 times since 1973 (from 615.5 to 1,523.6 hectares) (1,522 to 3,765 acres). Douglas grew as well,
but at a slower rate. In the same time period, Douglas expanded by 1.3 times (from 859.1 to 1,113.1 hectares)
(2,123 to 2,800 acres). If this trend continues, it is expected that Douglas will grow to 1,274.7 hectares (3,150
acres) and Agua Prieta will grow 1,861.5 hectares (4,600 acres) (Normal et. al 2004). Figure 3.1.1-1 shows that
urban growth in Agua Prieta from 1985 - 2000 expanded most rapidly to the south.
- -
! V. : • - • \ • - -\ •
H •: ••; ^
Figure 3,1,1-1: Urban growth depicted from Landsat imagery from the years 1973, 1985, 1995, and 2000 (Source: Norman et, al 2004),
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
3.1.1 I
3.1.1.1 No - A
Douglas, Arizona
Land use characteristics under Alternative A would not substantially change from existing conditions and
trends.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Under Alternative A, land uses would not substantially change from existing conditions. A small portion of
land would continue to be allocated for water storage tanks storing water brought by trucks, and obtained by
individuals within the community. Currently, the largest land use category for the project area is designated
residential (single family, multi-family homes), which would likely continue in the future under Alternative A.
Currently, the largest land use category within the city limits for the south sector of the City is designated
residential (single family, multi-family homes) accounting for more than 500 acres, or 12.65 percent of the
total land use and 23 percent of the City currently dedicated for residential use.
3.1.1.2 - B & C
Douglas, Arizona
Because the project is located 3.5 kilometers south of the US/Mexican border, Alternative B or C would have
no direct or indirect impact on land use in the United States.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Alternatives B and C would allow the City to provide potable water to existing and future homes in areas that
currently lack the proper infrastructure. The proposed WDS would be constructed and installed in existing
streets and right-of-ways, which for the most part are unpaved travel corridors, and would have no significant
direct or indirect impact on land use in the project area.
The extended water service under this alternative may increase the desirability of the lands to be served,
which may speed up the rate at which new houses are constructed compared to the development rate that
would occur over time under existing conditions with hauled water and water storage tanks.
As discussed below, it has been shown that air quality in Agua Prieta affects the air quality in Douglas,
Arizona, making it a trans-boundary resource. Therefore, the area of concern includes both Agua Prieta,
Sonora and Douglas, Arizona.
Douglas, Arizona
The EPA designates areas of "non-attainment" for areas that do not meet (or that contribute to ambient air
quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS").
Although no longer considered "non-attainment" for sulfur dioxide, the Paul Spur/Douglas Area has "non-
attainment" status for PM-10.
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
Studies of participate emissions indicate that 60 percent of the PM-10 in the Douglas area originates from
Mexico. The region's prevailing south-to-north winds convey contaminants from Agua Prieta, crossing the
border into Douglas, Arizona, which creates a transboundary environmental air quality problem. According
to the EPA (2001), "the largest source of PM-10 was generated from unpaved road dust (81.4 %). The
second largest emission source is agricultural activities (11.9 %). The remaining sources of dust emissions
were paved roads, agricultural burning, cleared areas, windblown agricultural land, off-road vehicles and
unpaved parking lots."
In 1993, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) developed a State Implementation Plan
to address the airborne dust issue. As shown in Figure 3.2-1, the three year moving concentration averages
of PM-10 have been decreasing since the late 1980s.
—Douglas
—Hayden
— Nogales
—Paul Spur
—Payson
—Rillito
—Yuma
Figure 3,2-1: Three-year mo ving a verages of the annual a verage PM-10 concentrations at
sites with higher historic concentrations (Source: ADEQ 2008a)
Although PM-10 concentrations have increased slightly in the past 2 years presented in the ADEQ's 2008 Air
Quality Annual Report, the last annual concentration violation of the 50 [ig/m3 standard occurred in 1989
with a 55 [ig/m3 concentration reading (EPA 2001).
Agua Prieta, Sonora
The average annual wind speed is 13.4 kilometers per hour from the southeast into Douglas, Arizona; winds
shift and blow towards Mexico in the evening.
According to the North American Development Bank (2003), traffic, vehicular congestion, and a high
proportion of unpaved streets cause high concentrations of particulate matter (or pollutant participate matter
with aerodynamic diameter less than a nominal 10 micrometers) (PM-10) emissions in the Agua Prieta urban
area, which may have caused a high incidence of respiratory diseases there. For example, the period 1997-
1999, local health officials reported that 73 percent of all illnesses were respiratory in nature.
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
3.2.1
3.2.1.1
Douglas, Arizona
The Alternative A would have no direct or indirect impact on air quality or climate because no construction
would occur and no changes in land use would occur.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Construction activities that result in particulate matter and hydrocarbon emissions would not occur because
waterline improvements would not be constructed. Alternative A would have no direct or indirect impact on
air quality or climate in the area of concern.
3.2.1.2
Douglas, Arizona
Construction of Alternative B or C could result in temporary increases in fugitive dust emissions due to the
disturbance of dry soils during construction. The fugitive dust emissions could impact both ambient PM-10
concentrations and visibility in the immediate vicinity of excavations, but would be minimized through the
use of standard dust control techniques. The proposed alternative's air quality effects would not be expected
to significantly contribute to long-term air quality effects in the City of Douglas compared to existing PM-10
levels because the additional dust generation would be minor and limited to the construction period of
approximately 8 months.
These impacts would be minor and would be limited to the construction period.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Construction and operation improvements associated with Alternative B or C have the potential for
temporary adverse impacts to air quality in the proposed project area. During construction, emissions would
be produced on-site by earthmoving equipment and by vehicular traffic traveling throughout the construction
site. The quantity of these emissions would also vary and be dependent on the types and level of activities
occurring and the weather conditions.
Construction plans should include instructions for appropriate construction methods and standard dust
control techniques to mitigate impacts and keep the generation of dust and fine particulate matter to a
minimum. To minimize duration of impact, the contractor would backfill the trenches and repave and re-
grade the trenches as soon as possible after the WDS installation.
3.3
The potential for impacts from the proposed action alternatives to surface water is limited to those waters
that are located downstream. However, the current affected environment is shaped by upstream surface
water. Therefore the entire watershed is discussed, which covers a greater area than a 10 km (6.2 miles)
radius from the Project Area.
The Douglas Basin, a subwatershed of the San Pedro watershed, occupies the southern section of a
north west-southeast trending structural trough that extends from the central portion of Aravaipa Canyon in
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
Arizona to the northeastern section of the State of Sonora, Mexico. It contains about 1,940 km2 (749 square
miles) and its valley floor occupies about 1,360 km2 (525 square miles).
Within the Douglas Basin lie the headwaters of Rio Agua Prieta, in the Chiricahua Mountains at an altitude of
2,450 m (8038 feet), 50 km (31 miles) north of Douglas in the US. At its incipiency, it is named Ash Creek,
and generally drains west, changing its course to the south and southeast, where the name changes to
Whitewater Draw as it flows through Douglas, Arizona (Normal et. al 2004). Through most of the area,
Whitewater Draw and its tributaries only flow after precipitation and snowmelt. At the border, Whitewater
Draw's name changes to Rio Agua Prieta, which is a perennial body of water (Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR 1995) that lies to the west of the Project Area In the United States, the name
of the watershed where the river is located is San Pedro (ADEQ 2008b). In Mexico, it is part of the Yaqui
River watershed.
Based on a review of topographic maps and field reconnaissance, runoff from the Project Area flows west
towards the Rio Agua Prieta. However, our field reconnaissance did not confirm whether runoff from the
project area would actually reach the Rio Agua Prieta. There are no perennial or intermittent waterways or
arroyos crossing the project area. There are small runoff drainages with discontinuous bed and banks
features. These drainages are topographic swales rather than waterways.
Under Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act, the ADEQ is required to identify water bodies for which
effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement water quality standards.
Whitewater Draw is no longer on the 303(d) list. As discussed in subchapter 3.3.1, Whitewater Draw's name
changes to Rio Agua Prieta as it flows south into Mexico. This data indicates that there is not currently a
water quality concern with water that flows into the Rio Agua Prieta from the United States.
Potable water quality data received from OOMAPAS indicates they are in compliance with the Comision
National del Agua (National Water Commission, CNA) standards. According to OOMAPAS staff the raw
water pumped from the Agua Prieta Wells is chlorinated and pumped into the existing water distribution
system. The chlorinated water is within the specified limits of the CNA regulations. OOMAPAS conducts a
daily water chlorination residual test to verify compliance with CNA and the Secretaria de Salud fublica (Public
Health Department, SSP) standards of 0.20-1.50 ppm. Therefore, the Agua Prieta potable water is considered
quality water that meets the Normas Ofidales Mexicanas 127 SSA-1.
Table 3.3-1 below indicates the minimum bacterial limits that the Agua Prieta's potable water must meet.
Table 3.3-1 Bacteriologist Limit Characteristics
Characteristic
Total Coliform Organisms
Fecal Coliform Organisms
Turbidity
Allowable Limit
2NMP/100ml
2UFC/100ml
None Detected NMP/1 00 ml
OUFC/100ml
5NTU
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
Table 3.3-2 below lists the chemical constitutes limits that Agua Prieta's water must meet.
Table 3.3-2 Chemical Constitute Limits
Characteristic
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Cyanides (CN-)
Chorine Residual Free
Chlorides (CI-)
Copper
Total Chrome
Total Hardness (CaCOs)
Phenols
Iron
Fluorides (F-)
Manganese
Mercury
Nitrates
Allowable
Limit (mg/l)
0.20
0.05
0.70
0.005
0.07
0.20-1.50
250.00
2.00
0.05
500.00
0.001
0.30
1.50
0.15
0.001
10.00
Characteristic
Nitrites
Ammonia Nitrogen
PH
Chlordane
TDD (Isomers)
Gamma-HCH
Hexachlorobenzene
Heptachlor
Methoxychlor
2,4 -D
Lead
Sodium
TDS
Sulfates
Trihalomethanes
Zinc
Allowable
Limit (mg/l)
0.05
0.50
6.5-8.5
0.30
1.00
2.00
0.01
0.03
20.00
50.00
0.025
200.00
1000.00
400.00
0.20
5.00
Summer rains can cause flooding in the flat terrain of Agua Prieta. Flood zones are located to the northwest
of the project area, near Rio Agua Prieta, and to the northeast of the project area, where a residential area is
located (Normal et. al 2004). According to Norman et. al (2004), the project area is not located within flood-
prone areas.
Based on a review of topographic maps and field reconnaissance, wetlands were not been identified within
the Project Area. Additionally, according to the EPA (2001), there are no identified wetlands along the Rio
Agua Prieta in Mexico.
The aquifer that supplies water to Agua Prieta and Douglas, Agua Prieta River Aquifer, covers an area greater
than a 10 km radius. It is a basin and range aquifer, which means that the aquifer is made from sediment that
fills the valley, and its extent is confined by the surrounding mountain ranges. Therefore, the aquifer
(containing groundwater) covers a similar expanse as the Douglas subwatershed (controls direction of surface
water flow).
The Douglas basin is underlain by alluvium consisting of permeable layers of gravel and sand interbedded
with relatively impermeable silt and clay (ATSDR 1995; and Arizona Department of Water Resources
(ADWR) 2005). These alluvial deposits from the aquifer that supplies water to Douglas, Arizona and Agua
Prieta. The alluvium is at least 480 meters thick in the central part of the valley, and it thins less than a meter
along the mountain fronts. The groundwater flows from the mountain highlands toward the central portion
of the valley, and then south into Mexico. Extractions from the groundwater system have resulted in
pumping depressions that alter the natural flow within the United States (ATSDR 1995).
The main source of groundwater recharge in the Douglas basin is precipitation in the mountains.
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
The annual mountain-front recharge is estimated at 24,670 megaliters (20,000 acre-feet), and total recharge
into the basin is estimated to be 27,140 megaliters (22,000 acre-feet) per year. The remaining recharge may be
from streambed infiltration along the ephemeral washes in the valley and groundwater entering as underflow
through the course of Whitewater Draw and several other ephemeral streams that flow into the basin along
its northern boundary.
Very little rainfall on the valley floor is recharged into the basin-fill aquifer because of high evaporation rates
and clay and caliche layers in the basin-fill, which impede downward percolation of water. Also, recharge of
irrigation water also may be negligible due to the presence of impermeable clay and caliche layers (ADWR
2005). The wells in Douglas, Arizona draw from the same aquifer as does the City of Agua Prieta, Sonora.
The additional water that will be pumped for the new 737 connection could cause a drawdown of the water
level in the aquifer attributable to Water Well #15. Water Well #15's drawdown will be about 0.5 ft at the
nearest well and less than 0.25 ft at the U.S Border. Therefore, it is unlikely that the impact to the
groundwater and Wells in Douglas, Arizona would be significant. A detailed hydrological study needs to be
conducted to accurately determine what the impact may be on the existing water wells in Douglas, Arizona.
Groundwater is discharged from the basin by pumping, underflow, stream base flow, and evapotranspiration.
Currently, the largest source of basin discharge is groundwater pumping. Before development began in the
basin, natural basin discharge was estimated at 3,700 megaliters (3,000 acre-feet) per year through underflow
and stream base flow, and 23,400 (19,000 acre-feet) per year from evapotranspiration. Prior to 1910, water
use was minimal and limited mainly to cattle ranching and the copper smelter at Douglas. In 1910, the first
irrigation wells were drilled, but until the mid-1940's, pumping was less than 6,170 megaliters (5,000 acre-feet)
per year. In the late 1940's and early 1950's, agricultural acreage increased rapidly, requiring more pumping.
By the late 1940's the Douglas basin was severely overdrafted. From 1950 to 1989, pumping averaged 95,000
megaliters (77,000 acre-feet) per year. This increase in groundwater pumping caused reduced underflow, base
flow, and evapotranspiration out of the basin. For example, current stream base flow is calculated to be 490
megaliters (400 acre-feet) per year (ADWR 2005).
In 1965, the State Land Commission declared much of the basin's central valley a Critical Groundwater Area
due to large water-level declines associated with the severe overdraft conditions. The Commission prohibited
drilling new irrigation wells except to replace existing wells. Groundwater pumping peaked in the early 1970's
and then steadily declined as farmland was taken out of production. The Critical Groundwater Area became
the Douglas Irrigated Non-Expansion Area with the passage of the 1980 Groundwater Code.
The chemical quality of groundwater in the basin is suitable to marginal for most uses. High concentrations
of fluorides occur locally, making some water marginal for domestic uses. Fluoride concentrations in the
samples collected from the main aquifer between 1987 and 1990 averaged 1.1 mg/1, with a maximum of
8.5 mg/1. The maximum contaminant level for fluoride in drinking water is 4.0 mg/1. Total dissolved solids
concentrations for samples collected averaged 390 mg/1, and the recommended secondary maximum
contaminant level for total dissolved solids in drinking water is 500 mg/1 (ADWR 2005).
Currently, most groundwater pumped in the Douglas basin is used for irrigation. Stock and domestic
pumping is minor except near Douglas, Arizona, where pumping by the City of Douglas for domestic use is
significant (ADWR 2005). In Agua Prieta, the water is primarily used for domestic, farm, commercial, and
industrial purposes (Normal et. al 2004).
According to the " Andlisis de Alternativas para la Construction de las Obras de Ampliation de la Red de Akantarillado
Sanitaria j Mejoras al T^ratamiento de Aguas Residuales en Agua Prieta, Sonora" report conducted by CSI Inginieros in
Agua Prieta the domestic average water consumption per capita per day is 406 liters (104 gallons).
Considering this information and an average density of approximately 4.0 persons per household, the
drinking water consumption for 737 new connections is approximately 1,196,888 liters/day (316,184
gallons/day). OOMAPAS estimates that a total of 70,000 liters (18,490 gallons) are being trucked to the
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
unserved colonia on a weekly basis. This means that an average of 10,000 liters/day (2,642 gallons/day) of
water is consumed in this colonia. Therefore, it is estimated that the water consumption in the colonia will
increase by 1,186,888 liter/day (313,543 gallons/day). The same study indicates that the wastewater discharge
rate is 240 liters per capita per day (63.4 gallons/ capita/day). Therefore, the wastewater that will be generated
based on 4.0 persons per household and 737 wastewater connections is approximately 707,520 liters/day
(186, 907 gallons/day).
3,3,1.1
Douglas, Arizona
Alternative A would neither have impacts on surface water, nor on groundwater resources in the United
States since surface and groundwater flow in the Douglas basin and the White Water Draw/Rio Agua Prieta
is from north to south.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Current water delivery activities would remain the same with this alternative. Construction activities
associated with the improvements to the WDS would not occur. Without access to an adequate WDS, the
population would continue using water tanks to obtain potable water. Water consumption levels would likely
remain the same, and increase over time as the population increases. It would remain difficult to maintain the
quality of water as it is dispensed in household containers. Small amounts of contaminated water may spill to
the ground during water transfer, causing potential health concerns. However, due to the arid environment
and consequent high evapotranspiration rates, percolation of these small quantities to the groundwater is
unlikely.
Also, there would be no increased per capita water use because the availability of potable water would remain
the same.
Douglas, Arizona
Alternative B or C would take place downstream from the US/Mexican border; therefore, since the flow of
both surface water and groundwater is to the south, it would have minimum direct and indirect effect on the
US water resources. In addition, operation of new Water Well #15 would result in less than 0.25 ft
drawdown at Douglas assuming maximum pumping.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Since most water use would be in-home use and not subject to evaporation or percolation, an average of 80%
of the water piped to users would be returned to the wastewater collection system. Alternative B or C would
receive approximately 707,520 liters/day more than current wastewater flows (see Table 3.3-3). According to
OOMAPAS, an extension of the wastewater system has also been proposed for the project area, and would
also be an interconnected system that would convey the wastewater to the existing Agua Prieta Wastewater
Treatment Plant (AP WWTP).
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
Table 3.3-3 Average Water and Wastewater Flows
# of Proposed Colon/a
Connections
737
Average Water Consumption
(liters/day)1
1,196,888
Average WW Production
(liters/day)2
707,520
' Based on a population density of 4.0 persons/household and an average water consumption of 406 liters/person/day
2 Assuming 240 liters/capita/day is discharged into the wastewater system.
The wastewater that would be produced in the colonia area would only be household waste. The area is not
platted for commercial or industrial establishments. The wastewater discharge from the colonia would not
contain substances that can alter the required quality of the wastewater. However, the existing AP WWTP is
currently operating at full capacity and does not meet the wastewater discharge quality standards specified in
the existing Wastewater Discharge Permit No. 02SON114224/09HMGR99. The existing AP WWTP does
not have adequate capacity to handle the additional wastewater flows that would be generated by Alternative
B or C. Therefore, Alternative B or C could have a potential impact upon the existing AP WWTP and
Collection System. The impact of the expansion or the construction of a new WWTP and the expansion of
the existing Wastewater Collection System to the unserved colonia is addressed in a separate document entitled
"Environmental Information Document for Sewage Collection System Expansion and Wastewater Infrastructure Improvements
— Southern Portion of Agua Prieta, Sonora."
Surface Water
Surface water resources located within the area of concern are limited to the Rio Agua Prieta to the west of
the project area and intermittent drainages within the project area which carry water only during and
immediately after rainfall. Alternative B or C is not expected to have any long-term adverse impacts on
surface water quality in the Republic of Mexico.
However, soils excavated during the construction of water supply lines and placed near the trench could be
washed into intermittent drainages and subsequently the Agua Prieta River by rain events and cause increases
in turbidity and total suspended solids (TSS). Sediment impacts, should they occur, would be temporary and
are not expected to increase annual total suspended solid (TSS) loads over time. Given that the existing
watershed is sparsely vegetated and contributes large amounts of sediment to the Rio Agua Prieta under
existing conditions, the additional potential sediment contributions from this project would be minor.
Wetlands, floodplains, and riparian areas are not present within the project area and would therefore not be
impacted by Alternative B or C.
Groundwater
Minor effects from the implementation of Alternative B or C would be possible on groundwater resources.
The new taps might result in additional demands on the existing water wells, since the convenience of
obtaining water would be greatly increased compared to existing conditions. Also, there is typically a 10%
estimated water loss for water distribution systems due to leakage or other inefficiency. Assuming that there
is no water loss using the current tank method of distribution, and that water use rates would remain the
same, WDS infrastructure would cause an increase water demand of 10%. This could affect groundwater
levels due to increases in well pumping.
Intermittent operation of the new Water Well #15, which may operate concurrently with the existing 14
Wells to provide water to the new 737 connections in Agua Prieta, would lower water levels in the aquifer
about 0.5 ft at the nearest Well and less than 0.25 ft at the U.S. border. This evaluation assumes a continuous
pumping operation for 1 year at 60 1/s (950 gpm), a rate and duration that represents a conservative, worst-
case scenario (see Figure 3.3-1). Therefore, the addition of Water Well #15 would cause an additional 0.5 ft
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
drawdown of water levels in the groundwater aquifer, which will not adversely affect operation of the existing
well field or affect the supply or availability of groundwater.
Theoretical Drawdown vs Distance
(at one time: t = 365 days)
o.o
0,5
l.O
1.5
2,0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4,5
5,0
20OO
4Q0O
radius (feet)
6000
800O
10000
1200Q
Figure 3.3-1: Theoretical Drawdown of Water Well #75Over the Span of 365 Days
The biological environment includes the biotic or living components of the ecosystem present within the
project area. Biotic components include vegetation; special aquatic sites such as wetlands; wildlife; and
threatened, endangered, or other special status species. The affected environment for each of these
components for the areas surrounding Agua Prieta, Sonora and Douglas, Arizona are described below.
Agua Prieta, Sonora is located within the Chihuahuan desert scrub community, which transitions into the
semidesert grassland biotic community to the northwest. Douglas is located on the border between these two
communities. Western Douglas is characterized by the Chihuahuan desert scrub community, whereas eastern
Douglas consists of the semidesert grassland biotic community. The Chihuahuan desert scrub community is
essentially shrub-dominated. Creosote bush (Lama tridentata), tarbush (Flourensia cernud], and whitethorn acacia
(Acacia neovernicosd] are common, as are yuccas, agaves, sotols, and beargrasses.
The semidesert grassland consists of short grasses intermingled with a diversity of large, well-spaced scrub-
shrub perennials. Perennial grasses common to this grassland type include black grama (Bouteloua eriopoda) and
other grama species (Bouteloua sp], Muhlenbergiaporteri, Aristida sp., Triachachne californica, and Panicum obtusum.
Sotols (Dasylirion sp], agaves (Agave sp], yuccas (Yucca sp], and beargrasses (Nolina sp] may also be found in
this community type. Dominant scrub-shrub species can include mesquite (Prosopis sp], One-seed Juniper
(Juniperus monospermd], graythorn (Zi^yphus obtusifolia, Condalia spathulata), and Mormon or Mexican tea (Ephedra
trifurca, E. antisyphiliticd). Important cacti species include barrel cactus (Ferocactus msli^enii), cane cholla and
prickly pears (Opuntia sp], and pincushions (Mammillaria sp] (EPA 1997; Brown 1994).
The vegetation communities described above do not occur within the immediate vicinity of the project area.
The project construction area is characterized by disturbed areas (mostly unpaved roadways) and minimal
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
vegetation. Vegetation is mostly present only within in the house yards along the roads, and in the
undeveloped areas at the edge of the project area.
3.4.2 Wildlife and Threatened and Endangered Species
According to the EPA (1997), the project area lies in a region that provides a Chihuahuan desert scrub
habitat. Herpetofauna are more prevalent than mammals in the Chihuahuan desert scrub community. Typical
species include the Texas banded gecko (Coleonyx brevis)', roundtail horned lizard (Phiynosoma modestum)', spiny
lizards (Sceloporus sp.); trans-Pecos ratsnake (Elaphe subocularis)', western hooknose snake (Ficimia cana)', and
Mohave rattlesnake (Crotalus scrutttlatus).
In the neighboring semidesert grassland, the following animals are common: 1) small mammals, such as the
blacktailed jack rabbit (Lepus californicus)', spotted ground squirrel (Spermophilus spilosomd)', Ord's, banner-tailed,
and Merriam's kangaroo rats (Dipodomys ordii, D. spectabilis, D. merriami); badger (Taxidea taxus); and coyote
(Canis latrans); and 2) common birds such as the Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni); prairie falcon (Falco
mexicanus)', mourning dove (Lenaida macroura)', scaled quail (Callipepla squamata)', road runner (Geococcyx
californianus)', loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovidanus)', and meadow lark (Sturnella magna).
The habitat quality in the immediate vicinity of the project area for these animals is potentially low. The
animals are more likely to pass through the project area than reside within it, as most of the area is a
developed residential area.
Federal
The table below provides a list of federal endangered species for Cochise County, Arizona (the US county
adjacent to the project site) as obtained from the US Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) website.
Table 3.4-1 Threatened & Endangered Species List for Cochise County, Arizona
Common Name
beautiful shiner
Canelo Hills ladies'-tresses
Chiricahua leopard frog
Cochise pincushion cactus
desert pupfish
Gila chub
Gila topminnow (incl. Yaqui)
Huachuca springsnail
Huachuca water-umbel
jaguar
Lemmon fleabane
lesser long-nosed bat
Scientific Name
Cyprinella formosa
Spiranthes delitescens
Rana chiricahuensis
Coiyphantha robbinsorum
Cyprinodon macularius
Gila intermedia
Poeciliopsis occidentalis
Pyrgulopsis thompsoni
Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var.
recurva
Panthers onca
Erigeron lemmonii
Leptonycteris curasoae
yerbabuenae
Group
Fishes
Flowering Plants
Amphibians
Flowering Plants
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Snails
Flowering Plants
Mammals
Flowering Plants
Mammals
Status
T
E
T
T
E
E
E
C
E
E
C
E
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
Table 3.4-1 Threatened & Endangered Species List for Cochise County, Arizona
Common Name
loach minnow
Mexican spotted owl
New Mexico ridgenose
rattlesnake
northern aplomado falcon
Northern Mexican gartersnake
ocelot
San Bernardino springsnail
Sonora tiger Salamander
southwestern willow flycatcher
spikedace
Yaqui catfish
Yaqui chub
yellow-billed Cuckoo
Scientific Name
Tiaroga cobitis
Strix occidentalis lucida
Crotalus willardi obscurus
Falco femora/is septentrionalis
Thamnophis eques mega/ops
Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis
Pyrgulopsis bernardina
Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi
Empidonax trail/// extimus
Meda fulgida
Ictalurus pricei
Gilapurpurea
Coccyzus americanus
Group
Fishes
Birds
Reptiles
Birds
Reptiles
Mammals
Snails
Amphibians
Birds
Fishes
Fishes
Fishes
Birds
Status
T
T
T
E
C
E
C
E
E
T
T
E
C
> Source: (USFWS 2009).
T= Threatened
E = Endangered
C = Candidate Taxon, Ready for Proposal
According to the Arizona Department of Fish and Game's Online Environmental Review Tool, there are no
USFWS-listed species located within 4.82 km (3 miles) of project vicinity in Arizona.
State
According to the Arizona Department of Fish and Game's Online Environmental Review Tool, the Special
Status Species found within 4.82 km of the project in Arizona are the Greater Western Bonneted Bat (Eumops
perotis californicus), and the Texas Horned Lizard (Phtynosoma cornutum).
3.4.3 Environmental Consequences
3.4.3.1 No Action Alternative - A
Douglas, Arizona
The implementation of Alternative A would have no direct or indirect transboundary impact on flora, fauna
and threatened and endangered species in the United States.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Under Alternative A, flora, fauna and threatened and endangered species in the area of concern would not be
affected because construction would not occur.
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
- B & C
Douglas, Arizona
Alternative B or C would have no impact on flora, fauna and threatened and endangered species in the
United States because the proposed construction activities would be located 3.5 km south of the US/Mexican
border within the Agua Prieta City limits in an already disturbed area.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Most of the area directly affected by the project consists of developed residential landscapes. Under these
conditions, habitat for native species is typically degraded and where vegetation exists it is often dominated by
non-native plants, and noxious or other weedy species. Under Alternative B or C, impacts would only occur
within existing right-of-ways in areas that have already been developed as residential. Therefore, biological
resources in the project area would not be affected by habitat loss because construction of the WDS would
occur in areas that have been previously disturbed.
Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, districts, structures, and objects significant to history,
architecture, archaeology, culture, or science. Significant cultural resources are those that are listed in or are
considered eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Under Arizona Revised
Statutes (A.R.S.) §41-841, activity on state property is not allowed to disturb cultural resources. To protect
cultural resources during this project, a thorough literature review and background research were conducted
for the 10-kilometer radius around the project area.
The cultural history of southeastern Arizona and northeastern Sonora, Mexico spans approximately the past
12,000 years and can be divided into five major time periods: Paleoindian (12,000 to 7,500 B.C.), Archaic
(7,500 B.C. to A.D. 100), Formative (A.D. 100 to 1450), Protohistonc (A.D. 1450 to 1539), and Historic
(A.D. 1539 to present).
3.5.1.1
Human occupation in Arizona is generally recorded to have begun approximately 12,000 years ago with the
earliest evidence coming from mammoth kill sites in southeastern Arizona. These sites are dated between to
approximately 11,000 years ago (Haynes 1984). The primary diagnostic artifacts from this time period are
large lanceolate, fluted projectile points indicating subsistence based mainly on large-game hunting.
The transition from Paleoindian to Archaic cultural traditions correlates with a climatic shift to warmer drier
conditions occurring approximately 7,000 years ago (Stone 1987). Subsistence during the Archaic period was
more diversified and based on plant gathering and small-game hunting. The artifact assemblage from this
time period consists of leaf-shaped knives, scrapers, and a diverse set of projectile points as well as milling
implements. Settlement during this period was centered near water sources, however the population was still
highly mobile.
Sayles and Antevs (1941) proposed an Archaic cultural tradition for southeastern Arizona called the Cochise
culture. The Cochise culture has been divided into three stages: Sulphur Springs (7500 to 3500 B.C.),
Chincahua (3500 to 1500 B.C.), and San Pedro (1500 B.C to A.D. 100) (Whalen 1971,1975). The Sulphur
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
Springs stage has only been described from a few sites (Whalen 1971) and is considered to be a specialized,
Paleoindian adaptation. Artifact assemblages from sites attributed to this stage contain groundstone and
limited chipped stone tools associated with extinct Pleistocene fauna! remains.
The Chiricahua stage is defined by an artifact assemblage made up of groundstone and chipped stone tools
(Sayles et al. 1958). The groundstone tools are described as small, shaped and unshaped handstones, shallow
basin metates, mortars, and proto-pestles. Chipped stone tools include hand axes, knives, scrapers, and three
types of projectile points: triangular side-notched with indented base, stemmed, and leaf-shaped (Sayles et al.
1958). It had been proposed that maize and squash were utilized during this stage (Dick 1951; Martin and
Schoenwetter 1960).
The San Pedro stage can be defined by an increase in the amount of chipped stone tools in relation to
groundstone tools (Sayles et al. 1958). Pithouses and storage features, limited agriculture of beans, maize, and
squash, and pottery are identified from sites attributed to the end of this stage (Dick 1965; Eddy 1958; Martin
et al. 1949; Sayles 1945) indicating that the population was becoming more sedentary.
The Formative period describes a cultural tradition focused more on agriculture and containing many ceramic
artifacts. South central Arizona was the base of the Hohokam culture (Haury 1976). Other cultures in the
area included the Trincheras in northern Sonora, Mexico (McGuire and Villalpando 1991) and the Mogollon
in eastern Arizona (Douglas and Brown 1984, 1985). The appearance of rock and adobe pueblos occurred
during the Formative period.
The Protohistoric period is poorly documented, but is initiated by the abandonment of the large pueblos in
the region beginning around A.D. 1450. A site in the San Pedro Valley called Babocomari Village may
represent this period (Di Peso 1951).
Historic explorations into southern Arizona began with Fray Marcos de Niza in 1539 and Francisco Vasquez
de Coronado, Melachor Diaz, and Alarcon in 1540. The Spanish found native populations living in small
villages near the major watercourses. Initial contact with the Spanish was detrimental to the native people,
who suffered a rapid population decline or were assimilated into Spanish culture.
In 1687, Eusebio Kino began regular excursions into the Santa Cruz Valley and established a chain of
missions throughout the region. These missions were then used as bases for an influx of Spanish
missionaries, miners, ranchers, and settlers. The Spanish population continued to grow in the region, causing
antagonism resulting in a revolt by the Pima and Papago people in 1751. This revolt, along with epidemics
and Apache attacks led to a major decline in Pima and Papago populations.
In 1856, property included in the Gadsden Purchase, including Arizona, became part of the United States.
American settlers came to the area for mining and ranching.
The City of Douglas, Arizona was founded in 1899 as a location for a Phelps Dodge smelter servicing their
mines in Bisbee, Arizona and Nacozari, Sonora. The location of the smelter here initiated the settlement of
both Douglas and Agua Prieta, Sonora (Hadley 1987). By 1904, there were multiple smelters in the city and
by 1907 Douglas was ranked fourth in population in the Arizona territory (Hadley 1987). Mining was the
principal economic driver, but the railroad was also important as it supplied a conduit for local ranches,
farms, and border trade.
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
The Mexican Revolution created a need for US troops to be stationed in Douglas and other border towns. In
1911, the US cavalry was stationed in Douglas to prevent US citizens from crossing the border to watch the
fighting in Mexico (Christiansen 1974). Spectators stood in the streets and rooftops in Douglas to watch the
action. Firing from the battles resulted in damage to buildings in Douglas and the deaths of some US
citizens. In 1916, Douglas became the site of the first operational military airfield (Christiansen 1974). The
airplanes were used to patrol the border.
A records search conducted in 2007 reviewed both Arizona State Museum (ASM) and Arizona State Historic
Preservation Officer (ASHPO) files to identify previously recorded cultural resources located within the
proposed area of concern. No National Register-listed historic properties were identified within the area of
concern. ASM lists seven cultural resource sites within the City of Douglas. Four of the identified resources
are historic including the old State Route 80 and the abandoned Southern Pacific Railroad Line. The
remaining three resources are prehistoric archaeological sites, consisting of potsherd and lithic scatters.
ASHPO identified 16 cultural resources within the area of concern. An historic site has been identified in the
area near the site of the Pan-American sewer line, within the Douglas city limits. This site consists of a
foundation of an historic structure, two concentrations of mining slag, a pit and five trash mounds.
A records review was not conducted within the project area in Agua Prieta due to lack of available records.
3.5.3.1 No - A
Douglas, Arizona
Since Alternative A would maintain existing conditions, no direct or indirect effects to cultural resources
would occur with this alternative.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Since Alternative A would maintain existing conditions and no subsurface construction would occur, no
direct or indirect effects to subsurface cultural resources would occur with this alternative. Since water
delivery trucks stay on maintained roads, the risk of disturbance to surface cultural resources from truck
traffic is very low.
- B & C
Douglas, Arizona
Alternative B or C would only have subsurface effects within Agua Prieta and not within Douglas, Arizona.
As such, no direct effects to cultural resources would occur with this alternative. Above-ground, visible
portions of Alternative B or C are planned to be minimal and, therefore, would have no indirect effect on
cultural resources or scenic outlooks.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Subsurface construction for Alternative B or C are planned to be limited to areas of Agua Prieta that are
currently utilized as roads, and therefore disturbed. There is a low potential that cultural resources are
present within the planned construction areas. Construction plans would include instructions that, if any
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
subsurface cultural resources are identified during construction, that all work would cease and the appropriate
personnel from the INAH be contacted to determine the appropriate course of action.
3.6 Noise
The project location is in an outlying suburban area with little ambient noise. Existing background noise
within the area of concern is probably affected by wind, traffic, construction activities and other city noises.
The noise environment in the City of Douglas, AZ, the closest community in the US to the project area, is
characteristic of an urban environment. The majority of noise generated in the City of Douglas from local an
international vehicular, rail traffic and aircraft operation at the Douglas Municipal Airport and Bizbee-
Douglas International Airport.
The noise environment in the City of Agua Prieta, Sonora, wherein the project area is located, is characteristic
of an urban environment. Noise within this colonia is typical of residential development. Vehicular traffic is the
primary generator of noise in Agua Prieta, including the project area
3.6.1 Environmental Consequences
3.6.1.1 No Action Alternative - A
Douglas, Arizona
The implementation of Alternative A would have no impact on the noise levels in the United States.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Existing noise levels would not change because construction activities associated with the proposed
improvements would not occur. Therefore, implementation of the no action alternative would not impact
noise levels in the area of concern.
3.6.1.2 Action Alternatives - B & C
Douglas, Arizona
Due to attenuation and the location of the project in Mexico, over 3.5 kilometers from the border, the
implementation of Alternative B or C would have no impact on the ambient noise levels in the United States.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Alternative B or C are not expected to impose long-term noise impacts on the proposed project area.
Background noise levels may be elevated during construction activities associated Alternative B or C.
Construction noises tend to be short in duration and concentrated around the immediate work area. Heavy
equipment back-up alarms may be employed during construction, which can be an inconvenience to some
people.
3.7 Traffic and Transportation
In the US, State Route 80 and US Highway 191 are the major regional transportation corridors of Agua Prieta
and Douglas. State Route 80 is a roughly arc-shaped highway that, near Douglas, runs east to west along the
US/Mexican border. US Highway 191 runs north to south. These roads are predominantly single-lane in
each direction with minimal shoulder area. State Route 80 widens to double-lane in each direction for about a
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
two-mile stretch outside of Douglas toward Bisbee. State Route 80 is the main road to Tucson, but because
of the sparse population, traffic volume on the road is generally light.
Douglas is a major US/Mexican border crossing and therefore a transportation route to Mexico from the
United States. Pan American Drive, the entrance road from Douglas to Agua Prieta, is a modern double lane
road for about a one-mile stretch between State Route 80 and the border crossing. Between 160,000 and
200,000 vehicles per month crossed the border from June 2005 to January 2006. Traffic delays on both the
north and south sides of the border can occur as vehicles undergo border inspections, but there is more than
sufficient roadway north of the border to accommodate backups.
In Agua Prieta Mexico, Mexican Federal highway 2 follows the US/Mexican border and divides the city in
half. The busiest road near the project area is Calle 35, which travels east to west on the northern side of the
project area.
3.7.1
3.7.1.1 No Action Alternative - A
Douglas, Arizona
The implementation of Alternative A would have no impact on the traffic in the United States.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
The implementation of Alternative A would have no impact on the traffic in Agua Prieta.
3.7.1.2 Action Alternatives -B &C
Douglas, Arizona
Due to the size and location of the project (3.5 km from the US/Mexican border), the implementation of
Alternative B or C would have no impact on the traffic in the United States.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Closing of a roadway or street avenues may be required during times of construction and would temporarily
inconvenience some users of Agua Prieta roads in the project area. Construction of Alternative B or C would
not affect the long-term automobile, railroad, or air traffic patterns and the time of the closing of roads would
be for only a few hours. No new roadways would be constructed as a result of Alternative B's or C's
construction work.
3.8
The socioeconomic area of concern comprises the City of Agua Prieta, including the location of proposed
action alternatives. No socioeconomics effects are anticipated for Douglas, Arizona.
According to Norman et. al (2004), the copper industry and agriculture fueled the economy of this area in the
early 1900s. The 1970s saw a decline in the southern Arizona mining industry, and today "the entire region is
transitioning from the copper and cattle industries of the past to modern manufacturing in bonded assembly
plants, as well as to tourism. Increase in manufacturing and tourism has generated increased migration of
Mexican citizens from other regions of Sonora."
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
Census data obtained by the Instituto National de Estadistica Geografia e Informdtica (INEGI) and the Consejo
National de Population (CONAPO) indicated that the 2007 population was estimated at 70,523 inhabitants and
estimations for the year 2027 forecast were 79,143 inhabitants. However, the city's growth rate, as shown in
Figure 3.5-1, is quite variable, which confounds accurate estimates.
8.00
0.00
1965
1970
2000
2005
Figure 3,5-1, Historical Population growth rate of the City ofAgua Prieta as estimated by the INEGI.
Note: Years is located on the x-axis, and annual growth rate (%) is on they-axis. (Source: COCEF2002)
Table 3.5-1 presents populations growth estimates according to the INEGI.
Population
Growth rate (%)
Location
1980
1990
2000
1980-1990
1990-2000
State of Sonora
1,513,731
1,823,606
2,216,969
1.92
1.97
County of Agua Prieta
34,380
39,120
61,944
1.33
4.70
City of Agua Prieta
28,862
37,664
60,420
2.70
4.84
(Source: BECC 2002)
There were approximately 14,452 inhabited homes in Agua Prieta in 2000, which indicates a housing rate of
approximately 4.0 inhabitants per home. In the 2000 census, there were 43,324 (72%) inhabitants aged 12
years or older. Of the 23,353 (39%) that were considered economically active, 23,144 inhabitants were
unemployed and 209 people were unemployed.
Employment opportunities include maquiladoras, agriculture, animal husbandry, apiculture, and small scale
logging (COCEF 2002). Maquiladoras are manufacturing plants that imports and assembles duty-free
components for export. About 47% of the population in Agua Prieta is employed in maquilas, commerce or
by rendering services. There are approximately 20 maquiladoras in Agua Prieta. The rest of the population is
employed in agricultural related activities (BECC 2007). The growth of the maquiladoras has caused the
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
population of Agua Prieta to increase at a higher rate than the state average. Maquiladora products include
clothing, furniture, electronics, materials and equipment for hospitals, sports, and components for computers,
radio communications and televisions. The influence of this economic activity on the growth of population
shown in the table above indicates that the highest growth the state average (COCEF 2002).
Irrigated agriculture occupies an area of 2,797 hectares. Of those hectares, 1,240 are ejidal, and 1,557 are
"settlers" (colonos) and small landholders. The main crops are corn, beans, wheat and fodder.
3.8.1 Environmental
3.8.1.1 N© Action Alternative - A
Douglas, Arizona
No impact on local economy in the City of Douglas would occur with the implementation of Alternative A.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
With the implementation of Alternative A, the number of jobs in the area of concern would remain the same.
The number of inhabitants and the size of the economically active population would also remain the same,
but the lack of reliable potable water would cause potential health concerns, which could result in lost worker
productivity and wages due to water-related illness. Additionally, residents would continue to spend time
away from family or employment to obtain water. Therefore, Alternative A would result in these undesirable
conditions to continue into the future.
3.8.1.2 Action Alternatives - B & C
Douglas, Arizona
Demography
Construction of Alternative B or C would not have an impact on the Douglas or southern Cochise County
population. Since the contractor has not yet been selected, it is not known how many workers would be
employed during construction or if they would be current residents of Agua Prieta or Douglas.
Economic ActiYity
Due to the size of the project, there is little potential that any influx of jobs to the Agua Prieta area due to the
implementation of Alternative B or C would have an impact on the Douglas economy.
Housing
Construction workers for the projects may be housed in Agua Prieta or Douglas. However the size and
duration of the project construction is such that the availability or affordability of housing in Douglas or
southern Cochise County would not be affected.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
Demography
The number of jobs that Alternative B or C would generate would be relatively low, and it is unlikely that a
large number of workers and their families would relocate to the region as a result of the implementation of
the proposed action. Therefore, there would be no impacts on population in the region. Improvements to the
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
WDS may create a more desirable place to live, which could result in a slight increase in population over time,
but this increase would likely be minor.
The implementation of Alternative B or C would only have a temporary minor positive impact on the City of
Agua Prieta economy. Under the implementation of Alternative B or C, the number of temporary jobs that
the project would generate would be relatively low. It is unlikely that the construction would create new
permanent jobs. Therefore, the construction activities associated with implementation of Alternative B or C
would also have little to no impacts on local employment.
Housing
It is assumed that the labor supply in the area is sufficient and construction workers would not need to
relocate from outside the area to implement Alternative B or C. Because it is likely that most, if not all,
construction workers would be local residents, demand for housing is not expected to change and the
housing vacancy rate would not be affected. No significant impacts on housing would be expected with
implementation of Alternative B or C.
According to COCEF (1996), the maquiladora industry in the area has experienced a significant increase in its
activities, causing the population of Agua Prieta, Sonora to increase from 20,754 to 54,000 between 1970 and
1995. The surface area occupied by the city concurrently expanded, going from 2,143 to 4,000 acres. This
growth has caused a backlog of urban infrastructure and public services.
According to INEGI data (2000), in 2000, 94.71 % of Agua Pneta's population had electrical service,
consisting of 13,610 residential contracts. This service is provided by the Comision Federalde Electriddad.
Table 3.9-1 shows utility coverage in Agua Prieta in 2000.
/
Number of houses considered (single houses only)
Potable water in the house
Hauled potable water
Number of houses considered (single houses only)
Electricity
Electricity not available
Number of houses considered (single houses only)
Connected to a public wastewater system
Connected to septic system, gully, river, lake or sea
No wastewater service
Homes with no sewer or piped water service
14,370
11,997
2,373
14,370
13,610
760
14,370
9,897
3,556
940
3,313
Source: INEGI, XII Censo General de Poblaciony Vivienda, 2000.
Given a housing rate of 4.0 inhabitants per home, approximately 54,820 people have potable water service,
54,440 people have electricity service, 53,812 people have wastewater sewer service, and 48,020 people have
access to all three services.
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
According to INEGI data (2000), 83.48 % of Agua Prieta has potable water service provided by the city
(BECC 2004). The remaining 16.52% of the population currently receives water delivered by water trucks,
thus introducing potential health risks through multiple possible points of environmental exposure before
reaching the end-consumer. In areas where water is hauled, water has to be used very conservatively because
of the limited amounts of water that are trucked and deposited in public tanks. The population has to fill up
their own tanks to supply their homes with water and often the shipments of water occur after the home
supply is exhausted. This kind of water shortage encourages water to be stored for longer periods of time in
unsuitable containers, potentially exposing themselves to intestinal diseases and other unknown health risks.
The 2008 Agua Prieta "Secretaria de Salud" (Secretary of Health of Agua Prieta) data indicates that a total of
1,285 people were treated for intestinal infections that could have been caused by the lack of clean potable
water. This represents 8 persons per week, roughly 55% of these occurrences were 14-year old children and
younger. Providing water to portions of Agua Prieta that are lacking the service will help prevent diseases and
other health risks.
3.9.1.1
Douglas, Arizona
Municipal services and public health under Alternative A would not substantially change.
Agua Prieta, Sonora
The implementation of Alternative A would continue the current municipal services or public health and
safety concerns within water supply and delivery to the residents and businesses in the Project Area.
- B & C
It is estimated by OOMAPAS that their 15 water wells would provide adequate capacity to meet the entire
City of Agua Prieta's water demand, including the southern colonia. However, implementation of Alternative B
or C would still leave a portion of the colonia without potable water infrastructure, which would require them
to continue to use water hauled by water trucks and stored in tanks. This method of obtaining water increases
risks to public health due to potential contamination of containers used to collect water from the tanks, and
the potential for lapses in potable water service. However, the number of residents without potable water
service would go down under Alternative B or C.
In addition to the construction of a municipal drinking water system, OOMAPAS is planning the expansion
of a wastewater collection system within the project area and the expansion of the existing Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP), South of Agua Prieta, Sonora. The availability of water through a water
distribution system typically results in increased water consumption due to improved availability. The
wastewater flows used in the design of the concurrent wastewater collection system and WWTP would
include flows anticipated from the expansion and operation of the water distribution system; therefore the
proposed wastewater improvements would accommodate the anticipated increase in water consumption.
The construction of a new WWTP with expanded capacity and the proposed wastewater collection system
would have adequate capacity to handle the additional wastewater generated by Alternative B or C. If the
expansion of the AP WWTP and the Collection System is approved, Alternative B or C would not adversely
impact the wastewater infrastructure or treatment plant.
-------
3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
No Action Alternative- A
Cumulative impact, according to CEQ §1508.7, is the impact on the environment, which results from the
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative
impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of
time.
Since Alternative A maintains the status quo, there would be no cumulative impacts to environmental
resources. However, risks to public health posed by the lack of reliable potable water would continue.
Alternatives B & C
The EPA administered funds for expansion of the wastewater collection system in the south sector of Agua
Prieta. This system is nearby, but not in the same location as the proposed WDS presented in this EID. An
EA was prepared for this project in 2007 and studied the proposed wastewater collection system, and stated
that potential negative impacts resulting from the project would be limited to short-term air impacts (both
particulate matter and other contaminants due to fumes from construction equipment). The particulate
impacts were to be minimized with the use of conventional methods to keep dust down. The expansion of
the current wastewater collection system is a reasonably foreseeable future project for Agua Prieta.
Expansion of the maquiladora industry within the region is possible and would lead to an increase in
population density and usage of the WDS. Impacts to the temporary local air quality (both particulate matter
and other contaminants due to fumes from construction equipment) would be subdued using conventional
methods to keep dust down. Long-term local air and water quality impacts (manufacturing byproducts)
would be an issue of concern and should be monitored for long-term impact of the region.
Therefore, cumulative impacts of implementing Alternative B remain limited to short-term air and surface
water impacts from previous, proposed, and potential future infrastructure projects, and an indeterminate
long-term impact to groundwater levels from the proposed WDS project and indeterminate long-term impact
to local air and water quality from the potential expansion of the maquiladora industry in the region. The
possible expansion of the current wastewater collection system would mitigate possible increases in
wastewater generation.
If the wastewater collection system is installed prior to the water distribution system there may be some
additional construction costs to avoid disrupting the newly installed collection system. There is a possibility
that manholes, wastewater collection mains and yard line services may be broken or damaged in the process
of installing the water distribution system and water household connections.
-------
4. CONCLUSION
The NEPA guidance recommends that the evaluation of an action alternative should include consideration of
means to reduce, or mitigate adverse environmental impacts. Mitigation measures are identified to ensure that
an action does not create any significant adverse effects.
The identified potential negative or adverse effects associated with the implementation of the action
alternatives could be minimized by implementation of appropriate practices and technologies. Construction
activities should be conducted in a manner sensitive to potential environmental impacts. Generation of dust
and PM10 emissions should be minimized using appropriate and accepted methods.
Construction activities should be limited to normal weekday working hours to minimize the potential effects
to local residents associated with construction noise.
The following positive effects would be realized by implementing the proposed projects:
» Supplying sanitary potable water to underserved areas;
» Reducing the potential for inhabitants to succumb to water-borne pathogens and a general
reduction in community health risks associated with an open water system;
Therefore, this EA, prepared for the EPA in compliance with the NEPA, after considering a wide range of
regulatory, environmental (both human and natural) and socio-economic factors, has identified no significant
impacts to the environment resulting from the implementation of the proposed projects alternative.
-------
5. BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADEQ. (2008a). 2008 Air Quality Annual Report. A.R.S. §49-424.10. Retrieved April 15, 2009, from
http://www.azdeq.gov/function/forms/download/2008air.pdf
ADEQ. (2008b). 2006/2008 Status of Ambient Surface Water Quality in Arizona; Arizona's Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing
Report. Retrieved April 16,2009, from http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/assess.htmlffintegrated
ADWR. (2005). Securing Arizona's Water Future; Douglas, Arizona. Retrieved April 16,2009, from
http://www.adwr.state.az.us/dwr/Content/Find_by_Program/Rural_Programs/OutsideAMAs_PDFs_for_web/Southeastern_Arizona_
Planning_Area/Douglas_Basin.pdf
Anderson, T.W., Freethey, Freethey, Geoffrey, and Tucci, Patrick (1992). Geohydrology and Water Resources of Alluvial Basins in South-
Central Arizona and Parts of Adjacent States. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1406-B. United State Government Printing
Office, Washington.
ATSDR. (1995). Petitioned Public Health Assessment; Phelps Dodge Corp Douglas Reduction Works; Douglas, Cochise County, Arizona.
Cerclis No. Azdoo8397143. September 29,1995. Retrieved April 16,2009, from
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/hac/PHA/phelps/pheJoc.html
BECC. (2007). BECC Certification Document; Wastewater Collection Project in Agua Prieta, Sonora. Board Document 2007-XX.
BECC. (2009). Request for Proposal (Solicitation No. SOLT A09-001)/ An Environmente I.D. and an EA for a Trenobruad ony Region Ampleant
y the BEIF Requirements for Drinking Water Distribution Expansion to Unsewered Areas- South side in Agua Prieta.
Brown, D.E. (1994). Biotic Communities: Southwestern United States and Northwestern mexico. University of Utah Press (Salt Lake City, UT).
Christiansen, L.D. (1974). Bullets Across The Border. The Cochise Quarterly 4(4). Cochise County Historical And Archaeological Society.
COCEF. (1996). Comprehensive Municipal Solid Waste Collection and Final Disposal Project for Agua Prieta, Son. Retrieved April 10,2009,
from http ://www.cocef .org/aproyectos/ing529. htm
COCEF (2002). Proceso De Evaluation Rapida; Proyecto Integral De Agua Potable, Alcantarillado Y Saneamiento De Agua Prieta, Sonora.
ContratoNo.CONTA01-032.
COCEF. (2004). Proyecto De Agua Potable, Alcantarillado Y Saneamiento; Agua Prieta, Son.
Cochise County, Arizona. (2008). Comprehensive Land Growth Areas and Land Jurisdiction. Retrieved April 13,2009, from
http://www.co.cochise.az.us/P&Z/complan.pdf
Dick, H.W. (1951). Evidences of Early Man in Bat Cave and on the Plains of San Augustine, New Mexico. In Indian Tribes of Aboriginal
America: Sleeted Papers of the 29th International Congress of Americanistas, Part 111:158-163. New York.
Dick, H.W. (1965) Bat Cave. Monographs of the School of American Research, No 27. Santa Fe.
DiPeso, C.C. (1951) The Babacomari Village Site on the Babocomari River, Southeastern Arizona. The Amerind Foundation, No 5. Dragoon,
Arizona.
Douglas, J.E. and L.J. Brown. (1984). Archaeological Resources in the San Bernadino Valley, Southeastern Arizona. Cochise College,
Douglas, Arizona.
Douglas, J.E. and L.J. Brown. (1985). Archaeological Resources in the San Bernadino Valley, Southeastern Arizona. Cochise College,
Douglas, Arizona.
Eddy, F.W. (1958). A Sequence Of Culture and Alluvial Deposits in the Cienega Creek Basin, Southwestern Arizona. Master's thesis,
University of Arizona, Tuscon.
-------
5: Bibliography EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
EPA. (1997). Water Supply, Wastewater Collection And Treatment Project For The City Of Naco, Sonora, Mexico Final Environmental
Assessment. Retrieved April 24,2009, from http://www.epa.gov/Border2012/infrastructure/becc/nacofea.pdf
EPA. (2001). Douglas, Arizona Wastewater Collection and Potable Water Distribution Improvement Project Environmental Assessment.
EPA. (2007). Expansion of the Wastewater Collection System in the South Sector of the City Agua Prieta, Sonora, Mexico Environmental
Assessment. Retrieved April 10,2009, from http://www.epa.gov/Border2012/infrastructure/index.htmlWaz
EPA. (2008). Sulfur Dioxide in Douglas, Arizona. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/az/douglas/index.html
Hadley, D. (1987). Border Boom Town-Douglas, Arizona 1900-1920. The Cochise Quarterly 13(3):3-47. Cochise County Historical and
Archaeological Society, Douglas.
Haury, E.W. (1976). The Hohokam: Desert Farmers and Craftsmen. The University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.
Haynes, C. V., Jr. (1984) Stratigraphy and Late Pleistocene Extinction in the United States. In Quaternary Extinctions: A Prehistoric Revolution,
edited by P.S. Martin and R.G. Klein. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.
Martin, P.S., J.B. Rinaldo, and E. Antevs. (1949) Cochise and Mogollon Sites, Pine Lawn Valley, Western New Mexico. Fieldana:
Anthropology 38(1). Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.
Martin, P.S. and J. Schoenwetter. (1960) Arizona's Oldest Cornfield. Science 132:33-34.
McGuire, R.H. and M.E. Villapando. (1991) Projecto Reconocimiento Arqueologico en el Valle de Altar.
Norman L.M., A. J. Donelson, E. L. Pfeifer, A. H. Lam, K. J. Osborn. (2004). Monitoring Colonias Development along the United States-
Mexico Border: A Process Application using GIS and Remote Sensing in Douglas, Arizona, and Agua Prieta, Sonora. Open-File
Report 2004-1212116 p. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2004/1212/
North American Development Bank. (2003). Agua Prieta Fact Sheet. Retrieved April 15,2009, from
http://www.nadb.org/pdfs/state_projects/FS%20Agua%20Prieta%20_AQ_%2001-03.pdf
Sayles, E.B. (1945). The San Simon Branch: Excavations at Cave Creek and in the San Simon Valley. Medallion Papers, No. 34 and 35. Gila
Pueblo, Globe, Arizona.
Sayles, E.B. and E. Antevs. (1941) The Cochise Culture. Medallion Papers, No. 29. Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona.
US Census Bureau. (2000). Douglas City, Arizona. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_submenuld=population_0&_sse=on
USFWS. (2009). Endangered Species List.. Retrieved April 15,2009, from
http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/EndangeredSpecies/lists/ListSpecies.cfm
Whalen, N.M. (1971). Cochise Culture Sites in the Central San Pedro Drainage, Arizona. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
University of Arizona, Tucson.
Whalen, N.M. (1975). Cochise Site Distribution in the San Pedro Valley. The Kiva 40(3):203-211.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EXPANSION OF THE DRINKING
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TO UNSERVED AREAS
6. AGENCIES CONTACTED
Arizona Department of Game and Fish
Arizona State Historic Preservation Office
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Institute Nacional de Antropologia e Historia - Sonora
Organismo Operador de Agua Potable, Alcantarillado y Saneamiento de Agua Prieta, (OOMAPAS)
Secretaria del Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca (SEMARNAP)
US Fish and Wildlife Service
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EXPANSION OF THE DRINKING
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TO UNSERVED AREAS
7. ACRONYMS
ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources
AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department
ARS Arizona Revised Statutes
ASHPO Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer
ASM Arizona State Museum
ASTDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
BECC Border Environment Cooperation Commission
BEIF Border Environmental Infrastructure Fund
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMPs Best Management Practices
C Candidate
°C Degree Celsius
COCEF Comision de Cooperacion Ecologica Fronteriza
CONAPO Consejo Nacional de Populacion
CEQ Council of Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DWS Drinking Water System
E Endangered
EA Environmental Assessment
EID Environmental Information Document
EO Executive Order
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
IBC International Boundary Commission
IBEP Integrated Border Environmental Plan
INAH Institute Nacional Arqueologia e Historia
-------
7: Acronyms
EA Expansion of the Drinking Water Distribution System to Unserved Areas
INEGI
km
km2
1/s
m
mg/1
NAAQS
NADB
NAFTA
NEPA
NRHP
OOMAPAS
PL
PM-10
PVC
SO2
T
TSS
use
US
ug/m3
US
USFWS
WDS
WMA
Institute Nacional de Estadistica Geografia e Informatica
Kilometers
Square kilometers
liters per second
meter
milligrams per liter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
North American Development Bank
North American Free Trade Agreement
National Environmental Policy Act
National Register of Historic Places
Organismo Operador Municipal de Agua Potable, Alcantarillado y Saneamiento
Public Law
Particulate matter
Polyvinyl chloride
Sulfur dioxide
Threatened
Total Suspended Solids
Unites States Code
United States
Micrograms per square meter
Unites States
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Water Distribution System
Wildlife Management Area
Water Quality Act
------- |