Table of Contents. Section 9 Impacts of Proposed Facility

Transcription

1 Table of Contents List of Tables 9.1 Impacts to Existing Facilities Impacts to Water Quality Year Flood Plain Location Intergovernmental Agreements Land Usage on Site Potential Odor Issues Table 9-1 Current Non-Metro Facilities Biosolids Production/Handling, Processing, Disposal Table 9-2 Future Non-Metro Facilities Biosolids Production/Handling, Processing, Disposal List of Figures Figure 9-1 FEMA Flood Plain Map Legend Figure 9-2 FEMA Flood Plain Map (Ina Road WRF) Figure 9-3 FEMA Flood Plain Map (Plant Interconnect #1) Figure 9-4 FEMA Flood Plain Map (Plant Interconnect #2) Figure 9-5 FEMA Flood Plain Map (Plant Interconnect #3) Figure 9-6 FEMA Flood Plain Map (Roger Road WRF) i

2 Section 9 Impacts of Proposed Facility The proposed facilities are expected to have few if any impacts on the community. The construction required at both facilities will have a temporal impact the immediate surroundings of the sites. Potentially sensitive features like cultural sites will be carefully handled if discovered. Cultural resource investigations will determine whether the site has evidence of cultural items prior to any construction on site. If such items are discovered, the proper means will be administered to collect and preserve the items found. 9.1 Impacts to Existing Facilities The modifications/expansion of the Ina Road Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WRF)and the construction of a new Water Reclamation Campus (WRC) in place of the existing Roger Road WRF will result in increased capacity and the ability to meet stricter effluent standards. There are no negative impacts expected from these changes at the two treatment plants. The Randolph Park WRF, located within the Roger Road service area, will continue to operate in the same capacity and treat approximately 3-mgd with its effluent becoming part of the Tucson Water reclaimed water system. Non-Metro facilities are those outside the metropolitan Tucson area and are served by Non-Metro facilities. Some Non-Metro facilities collect their sludge in storage tanks and transport to one of the large Metro plants for processing. Table 9-1 shows how biosolids are currently treated at the Non-Metro facilities. 9-1

3 Table 9-2 outlines the plans for future biosolids facilities at the Non-Metro plants. Table 9-1 Current Non-Metro Facilities Biosolids Production/Handling, Processing, Disposal Current Biosolids Location Produced (tpd) Handling, Processing, Disposal Arivaca Junction WRF 0.09 Dried, Scraped, Hauled to Landfill Avra Valley WRF 2.20 Storage, hauled and transported to conveyance system Corona de Tucson WRF 0.16 Dried, Scraped, Hauled to Landfill Green Valley WRF 5.70 GBTs, Aerobic Digesters, BFPs, Drying, Sent to Asarco Mines Marana WRF 0.28 Storage, hauled and transported to conveyance system Mt. Lemmon WRF 0.02 Storage, hauled and transported to conveyance system PC Fairgrounds WRF Dried, Scraped, Hauled to Landfill Rillito Vista WRF 0.01 Dried, Scraped, Hauled to Landfill Total

4 Table 9-2 Future Non-Metro Facilities Biosolids Production/Handling, Processing, Disposal Future Biosolids* Location Arivaca Junction WRF Avra Valley WRF Produced (tpd) Handling, Processing, Disposal (2030) Flow transferred to Green Valley WRF Thicken/haul to interceptor for discharge Corona de Tucson WRF Green Valley WRF Store/haul to interceptor for discharge GBTs, Aerobic Digesters, BFPs, Drying, Sent to Asarco Mines Marana WRF Mt. Lemmon WRF PC Fairgrounds WRF Rillito Vista WRF Current practice until flow is transferred Current practice until flow is transferred Thicken/haul to Ina Road Digester for processing Thicken/haul to interceptor for discharge Flow transferred to SEI Flow transferred to Marana WRF Southlands WRF Master plan is under development Total *Market study will determine future plans for all facilities biosolids handling, processing, and disposal. 9.2 Impacts to Water Quality Both the Ina Road WRF and the Roger Road WRF discharge their effluent into the Santa Cruz River. Both plants will continue to discharge into the Santa Cruz River with the main environmental concern being the effect on the riparian habitat along the river. The Roger Road WRF treats approximately 39.7 mgd during the peak season. Based on the recommendations, the new WRC will treat approximately 32 mgd. Therefore, less effluent is expected and may affect the riparian habitat along the Santa Cruz River. Because the Santa Cruz River flows north the Roger Road WRF is the first of the two metropolitan plants that discharges into the Santa Cruz River.. It is expected that water quality will increase in the Santa Cruz River because of the new ADEQ limits. The reduced treatment capacity at the New WRC at Roger Road and/or the need for more reclaimed water will reduce flow in the Santa Cruz River. The river is highly dependent on treated effluent and the quality of the water discharged into the Santa Cruz River will be improved with the new facilities. 9-3

5 Information from a Corps of Engineers Santa Cruz River Study estimated that the effluent flow required to sustain existing riparian habitat below the Roger Road WRF discharge is a minimum average of 2 mgd. It is not expected that groundwater quality will be adversely affected by the new facilities because effluent will continue to be released into the Santa Cruz River and used by Tucson Water as is presently the case Year Flood Plain Location The Ina Road WRF and the Roger Road WRF are both generally bounded by Interstate I-10 to the east and the Santa Cruz River to the west. Figure 9-2 depicts the approximate location of the Ina Road WRF on a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The subsequent maps, Figure 9-3, Figure 9-4, Figure 9-5, provided by FEMA, show the locations between Interstate I-10 and the Santa Cruz River from the Ina Road WRF heading south to the Roger Road WRF between which the plant-interconnect pipeline is planned. And Figure 9-6 shows the approximate location of the Roger Road WRF. 9-4

6 Figure 9-1 FEMA Flood Plain Map Legend 9-5

7 Figure 9-2 FEMA Flood Plain Map (Ina Road WRF) 9-6

8 Figure 9-3 FEMA Flood Plain Map (Plant Interconnect #1) 9-7

9 Figure 9-4 FEMA Flood Plain Map (Plant Interconnect #2) 9-8

10 Figure 9-5 FEMA Flood Plain Map (Plant Interconnect #3) 9-9

11 Figure 9-6 FEMA Flood Plain Map (Roger Road WRF) 9-10

12 9.4 Intergovernmental Agreements As described in the 2006 Metropolitan Facility Plan Update: Four IGAs between Pima County and the City of Tucson governing their effluent ownership and distribution: the 1979 Intergovernmental Agreement (1979 IGA), the 2000 Supplemental Intergovernmental Agreement, (2000 IGA, which governs the Conservation Effluent Pool), and the 2003 Intergovernmental Wheeling Agreement (2003 Wheeling IGA). As the dates of these IGAs suggest, they were sequentially passed and each succeeding IGA builds upon the previously granted agreement. A fourth IGA, the Intergovernmental Agreement titled Permitting and Operating Managed In-Channel Recharge of Effluent in the Santa Cruz River Channel (2003 Managed Recharge IGA), governs the recharge of effluent allotted to the nine participants of the Lower Santa Cruz River Managed Recharge Project. The 1979 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA), signed on June 26, 1979, was the original agreement between Pima County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Department (PCRWRD) and the City of Tucson. This agreement assigned control of wastewater conveyance and treatment activities to PCRWRD. In exchange, the City of Tucson would receive rights to the effluent produced at the PCRWRD Metropolitan Treatment Facilities, which were limited at that time to the Ina Road WRF, Roger Road WRF and Randolph Park WRF. The SAWRSA was the settlement between the City of Tucson, Pima County and the United States Bureau of the Interior (on behalf of the water rights of the tribal nations in Pima County). The 2000 Supplemental Intergovernmental Agreement signed on February 8, 2000, placed restrictions on how PCRWRD could use the effluent from the Ina Road WRF and the Roger Road WRF. This agreement also identified the need for reopening the Randolph Park WRF, which had been shutdown in It provided an avenue for PCRWRD to deliver effluent to Pima County facilities. This supplemental agreement also established a Conservation Effluent Pool for use with riparian habitat projects and identified how the SAWRSA effluent water rights would be treated in determining effluent allocations. The 2000 IGA identifies up to 10,000 acre feet (AF) of effluent that will be set aside for use on environmental restoration projects. These projects will be in accordance with the criteria of the 2000 IGA, or must have the approval of both the City of Tucson and Pima County. The 2003 Intergovernmental Wheeling Agreement, signed December 16, 2003, governs reclaimed water transactions between PCRWRD, the effluent provider; City of Tucson, the distributor and a reclaimed water user/owner; and other Pima County facilities, reclaimed water users. The effluent enters the system at the City of Tucson s Sweetwater Recharge Facilities and the Tucson Reclaimed Water Treatment Plant and through direct delivery from the Roger Road WRF; from there it is piped to various locations. The Randolph Park WRF discharges its effluent directly into the City of Tucson reclaimed water system. The agreement governs the costs (per acre-foot) that will be charged to Pima County for distribution of Pima County effluent to Pima County sites from either of these two locations. The 2003 Managed Recharge IGA governs the recharge of effluent and the associated credits granted by Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) for the Lower Santa Cruz River Managed (LSCRMRP) between the Ina Road WRF and Trico Road in Marana. Participants include the Town of 9-11

13 Marana, Cortaro-Marana Irrigation District, Avra Valley Irrigation and Drainage District, Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District, Flowing Wells Irrigation District, Oro Valley, Pima County, City of Tucson, and the Bureau of Reclamation. In accordance with the 1979 IGA, Tucson Water was awarded a majority percentage of all effluent after the SAWRSA distribution and Pima County was awarded a minority percentage. However, under the SAWRSA and separate IGAs between Tucson Water, Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District, and Oro Valley Water, a new distribution formula was created and also incorporated into the 2003 Managed Recharge IGA. In accordance with this new formula, of the total effluent generated from all Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Treatment Facilities, SAWRSA had rights to the first 28,200 AF, and then the CEP had rights to up to 10,000 AF on an as-needed basis for environmental restoration projects. Since CEP is allotted after the United States receives its SAWRSA share and before either Tucson Water or PCRWRD receive their share, any allocation to CEP effectively reduces the remaining share available to Pima County and Tucson Water. As part of a settlement, Oro Valley and Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District provide a portion of Tucson Water s CEP share, and therefore they indirectly contribute to CEP. However, at the maximum CEP allocation, PCRWRD provides 1,000 AF, while Tucson Water and other providers are required to provide up to 9,000 AF. Although a final agreement has not been reached between Tucson Water and Pima County as to how the CEP will be administered, it is currently anticipated that City of Tucson and Pima County CEP projects could reach the maximum CEP allotment of 10,000 AF of effluent by As not every restoration project will qualify or attempt to qualify for CEP, it is difficult to say with certainty the CEP allocation will be consumed as quickly as anticipated. It is possible that qualifying for CEP allocations could be a lengthy process involving the United States Fish and Wildlife Department. If the CEP effluent remains unused as an environmental water source, it could become very difficult for PCRWRD to predict its own long-term effluent balance. 9.5 Land Usage on Site Construction of the new Water Reclamation Campus and the demolition of the existing Roger Road WRF will lead to improved water quality as well as the possible construction of tournament grade facilities for amateur soccer, softball, and baseball along Interstate 10 or other alternative site use. The treated effluent will be used for landscape irrigation. In addition, the facilities near Roger Road may include trails for biking and walking and picnicking areas. The proposed development plan calls for the campus to be connected to Columbus Park and surrounding areas in the hopes of creating a large community space. 9.6 Potential Odor Issues The Roger Road WRF and Ina Road WRF have near identical air quality permits regarding odor control. The Roger Road WRF air quality operating permit is #1913 and was issued on February 23, 2005 while the Ina Road WRF permit is #1903 and was issued on September 12, The Roger Road permit expires February 22, 2010 and the Ina Road permit expires September 11, Both permits have regulations involving emission from diesel generators and odor/hydrogen sulfide emissions. A 350-foot buffer zone, required by ADEQ, for odor and noise control will be maintained between the treatment 9-12

14 facilities and the respective buffer zone border. The Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the City of Tucson and Pima County will be referenced in the event the buffer zone for the facilities enters land owned by the City of Tucson. A System Wide Odor Control Plan was created for PCRWRD. There were various short-term and nearterm solutions that were recommended to address the most severe sources of odor emissions. The shortterm and near-term odor control recommendations have been implemented. The long-term recommendations are to coincide with the expansions and modifications recommended within the Regional Optimization Master Plan over the next 9 years. Various odor treatment methods have been recommended that target many areas of odor and especially sensitive areas. All process and equipment was studied to determine where odor emissions were expected. If implemented correctly, major odor issues can be effectively treated. 9-13