Transcript Alternative Analysis for Naco

Preserving The Upper San Pedro River Basin
Presented to:
The Upper San Pedro Partnership Executive Committee
October 7, 2009
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC)
North American Development Bank (NADB)
“Preserve, protect, and enhance US-MEX border
region by identifying, developing, implementing and
overseeing environmental infrastructure projects”
A project that will “prevent, control or reduce environmental
pollutants or contaminants, improve the drinking water supply, or
protect flora and fauna so as to improve human health, promote
sustainable development, or contribute to a higher quality of life”
The NADB finances the construction
of projects certified by BECC.
2
False
true
0
0x991B01
none
Board of Directors
A
unique
and
innovating
structure
among
binational
organisms, where the civil
society is represented within its
Board of Directors.
Representative of the
border states (New Mexico)
Public member who is resident
of the border region (Texas)
Representative of the
border states (Baja California)
Public member who is resident
of the border region (Nuevo Leon)
Coverage & Sectors
BASIC SECTORS
• Water
• Sewage systems
• Wastewater treatment
• Water Reuse
• Storm Water Systems
• Solid Waste
100 km on the U.S. side of border
300 km on the Mexico side
Covers 1.2 million km2 23.8M residents
EXPANDED SECTORS
• Water Conservation
• Air Quality
• Public Transportation
• Clean and Efficient Energy
• Hazardous Waste
• Solid Waste Reduction& Recycling
• Municipal Planning
161
TOTAL INVESTMENT (BD)
$3.46
POPULATION BENEFITED (M) 12.6
CERTIFIED PROJECTS
129
$982.9
MX 83
US 78
NADB FINANCED PROJECTS*
NADB FINANCING* (MD)
*Only contracted agreements are included, not total approvals.
MX 62%
US 38%
5
Certified Projects
California 12
$ 184.02
Arizona 13
$ 146.10
( Cost in million dollars)
New Mexico 8
$ 58.92
Texas 45
$ 818.15
78 in USA
$ 1,207.19
83 in Mexico
$ 2,256.57
Baja
California 23
$ 997.78 Sonora, 20
$ 149.35
Chihuahua, 18 Coahuila 3
$ 261.51
$ 156.60
Tamaulipas, 15
$ 623.80
Nuevo
Leon, 4
$ 67.53
161 Projects with an investment of $3,463 million dollars
Technical Assistance
California
$2,086,065
Arizona
$4,140,816
New Mexico
$3,653,109
Texas
$13,078,300
USA
$22,958,290
Mexico
$14,198,247
Baja
California
$2,183,014
Sonora,
$3,563,404
Chihuahua,
$2,881,644
Coahuila
$1,370,136
Nuevo
Leon,
$438,009
Tamaulipas,
$3,762,040
Total of Technical Assistance: $37.16 million dollares
Measuring Results: Social and
Environmental Benefits
2 Energy:
Offset demands of traditional
fossil-fuel based energy
production, avoiding 630 tons
of CO2 per year.
17 Solid Waste
Management:
2.9 million residents with improved
waste collection and disposal
services, resulting in the capacity to
properly dispose of 1,550 tons of
waste per day
25 Water Conservation:
Estimated annual water savings
of 330 million gallons per day. As
a comparison, this quantity is
sufficient to serve the average
drinking water demands of 4
million people.
11 Air Quality Projects:
6.7 million residents benefited from
reduced exposure to air pollution from
vehicular traffic on unpaved streets.
Approximately 100,000 tons per year
of PM10 anticipated to be eliminated.
83 Water and Wastewater:
Providing improved drinking water
treatment/distribution as well as
wastewater collection/ treatment
for the benefit of more than 12
million border residents, most
significantly impacted by new
capacity to eliminate 300MGD of
untreated or inadequately treated
sewage
8
Number of Projects in BECC’s Pipeline
(SEPTEMBER-09)
Estimated
Cost
Water /Wastewater
State
Solid
Waste
Air
Quality
Clean
Energy
Non-BEIF
BEIF
TOTAL
(MD)
California
0
0
1
1
5
7
$73.20
Arizona
0
0
0
0
3
3
$20.77
New México
0
0
0
0
3
3
$48.80
Texas
4
0
3
1
10
18
$445.78
Total US
4
0
4
2
21
31
$588.55
Baja California
0
1
2
0
11
14
$69.48
Sonora
2
3
0
0
8
13
$70.25
Chihuahua
0
2
1
1
7
11
$222.44
Coahuila
3
1
0
1
1
6
$9.84
Nuevo León
2
3
0
0
1
6
$18.76
Tamaulipas
1
2
7
2
10
21
$5,050.87
Total MX
8
12
10
4
37
71
$5,441.64
Total Projects
Estimated
Cost (MD)
12
12
14
7
57
102
$25.31
$161.41
$4,816.65
$685.23
$341.59
$6,030.19
B-2012 GOAL
Baja
Chihua-
Nuevo
hua
Mexico
0
0
0
9
3
2
3
13
0
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
3
3
1
29
13
Sonora
Arizona
1 - Water
8
0
8
2 - Air
6
2
3 - Land
7
4 - Environmental
Health
5 - Emergency
Response
6 - Environmental
Performance
Total
California
California
$ 4,175,947
Region 6
$ 674,998
EPA- HQ $ 130,000
Total: $ 4,980,945
September 2009
Nuevo
Leon
Texas
Tamaulipas
Total
0
0
0
1
17
0
0
1
0
23
1
1
0
1
7
34
3
0
0
0
4
1
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
37
6
6
1
1
0
6
9
108
EPA FUNDS ASSIGNED TO BORDER 2012 PROJECTS 2005 - 2008
Region 9
Coahuila
•Solicitation for 2009 applications was held
•155 applications received
•Evaluation to be completed by October 2009


The Upper San Pedro
River (USPR) Basin is
one of the most
diverse well-known
avian habitats (Arias
et al. 1999).

>400 avian species in the basin (Krueper
1999), and ~1 to 4 million neotropical
migratory birds annually during migration in
the riparian corridor (Arias et al. 1999).
Fort Huachuca’s Environmental and
Natural Resources Division (ENRD) is
responsible for the USPR Basin
protection and improvement.

ENDR understands that
changes in the depth of the
water table, and river
surface flow can greatly
impact riparian vegetation
and the animal species in
the region.
ENDR is currently looking forward meeting groundwater pumping marks by 2016.


GOAL: Achieve
approximately an additional
1,000 acre-feet per year
(AFY).

To meet this goal ENRD
has partnered with
BECC to search for a
solution to continue
with the Upper San
Pedro River Basin
groundwater resource
protection.

Finding a potential alternative for protecting
the shared USPR watershed.


Decreasing underground pumping from USPR
aquifer.
Recharging treated wastewater to store in
the USPR aquifer.

Focus Community is Naco,
Sonora
◦ Reduction of water demands
◦ implementation of water
conservation, micrometering
◦ Treated/Reclaimed WW
infiltration

Water supply source is the USPR watershed.


Direct Impact to the USPR.
High extraction and consumption rates.

Over 57% losses in current water distribution
system.

Non-existent water conservation programs.

Currently looking for a wastewater treatment
solution.

Represents a win-win project.





•
•
•
Water Supply: 172.5 gpcpd.
Extraction Rate: 1.02 MGDs (1,142 AFY)
DW Service Coverage: nearly 100%.
Number of Connections: 1,872 .
Household Connections: 1,810.
Water Losses: 57% of water supply.
Micrometering Coverage: 50%.
Fixed rate for household usage.

Wastewater Collection Service Coverage: 92%.

WW discharge: 0.80 MGD (894.5 AFY).

WWT lagoon Capacity: 1.14 MGD (1,277 AFY).


Have selected the best alternative to find a
point of discharge.
Currently reviewing proposals to develop EA.

Drinking Water System Improvements in Naco, Sonora
(PDAP Funds)
◦ Construction of a drinking water storage tank (40,000 gal)
and drinking water distribution infrastructure rehabilitation,
to serve 600 existing connections.
◦ Currently developing Pre-design, to determine type of
storage tank required

Wastewater Treatment Improvement in Naco,
Sonora (PDAP Funds)
◦ To provide treated wastewater discharge infrastructure
at the east lagoons and thereby prevent untreated
wastewater bypasses that result in an average of 4 l/s of
raw sewage spilling into Naco, Arizona.
◦ Completed an Alternative Analysis, currently developing
the EA for the NEPA process.





Water metering incremental from 50 to 100
percent.
Base rate fee on actual usage.
Water loss detection and repair strategy
plan.
Installation of water conservation
mechanisms in each household: in toilets,
showers, and faucets.
Treated Wastewater Infiltration lagoon
Population
Water Supply (gpcpd)
Water Demand (AFY)
Usage Reduction (AFY)
10,000
1,000
100
Year
2028
2027
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
10
2008
2028
Percent
Change
Population
5,926
7,281
23%
Water Supply
(gpcpd)
173
83
52%
Water Demand
(AFY)
1,145
675
41%
Usage Reduction
(AFY)
0
470
470%
Existing force main
Objective:
To pump treated wastewater flow from
the effluent in lagoons to dam and reuse for irrigation activities.
Distance from international U.S.Mexico Border to dam: 2 mi
Dam Capacity: 8 MG
Additional pipeline length required,
approximately 350 ft
Proposed dam location as
discharge point
Available land for the infiltration lagoon: 5 acres
Storage Capacity: 20 days
Stabilization
Lagoons
Existing
Dam
Nonexistent
Segment
Concept
Cost (US Dollars)
NEPA Process
50,000
Pre Design
50,000
907 meter installation (reaching
100 percent water metering)
155,042
Water loss detection and repair
312,184
Household Water Conservation
Device Installation
Infiltration Lagoon Option (Final
Design and Construction)
Total
57,778
852,800
1,477,804

Water Conservation:
◦
◦
◦
◦

Pre Design, planning
Environmental Clearances – EA and MIA
Final Design
Construction
Infiltration Lagoon Option:
◦
◦
◦
◦
Hydraulic Study and planning
Environmental Clearances – EA under development
Final Design
Construction


Initiate meetings with International Boundary
and Water Commission (IBWC).
Investigate Policy Issues/requirements with
State of Sonora Water Commission(CEA) and
National Water Commission of Mexico
(CONAGUA).

Involving ADWR and ADEQ.
Questions or comments