HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 82-01RESOLUTION NO.82-1
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE
JUNCTION,ARIZONA,ADOPTING THE APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,GENERAL
PLAN ENTITLED "APACHE JUNCTION:2001,APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA,
GENERAL PLAN,"WHICH INCLUDES,BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO,A LAND USE
ELEMENT,SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES,WATER SYSTEMS ANALYSIS,A
CIRCULATION (TRANSPORTATION)PLAN,AND A SECTION 16 MASTER
PLAN;AND ACCEPTS AS REFERENCE THE REPORTS "A TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FOR APACHE JUNCTION,""WATER SYSTEMS EVALUATION FOR APACHE JUNC-
TION,ARIZONA,""SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES FOR APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA;"AND ADOPTS AS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN THE DOCUMENTS
ENTITLED "POPULATION ANALYSIS FOR THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA,"AND "CITY COMPLEX PLANNING PROGRAM,CITY OF APACHE
JUNCTION,ARIZONA."
WHEREAS,i n accordance with the provisions of §9-461,Arizona
Revised Statutes,each planning agency (Planning and Zoning Commission)
shall prepare and the legislative body of the municipality (City Council)
shall adopt a comprehensive,long-range general plan for the development
of the municipality;and
WHEREAS,there i s substantial state lands within several adjacent
miles of Apache Junction,and the Arizona State Legislature did pass the
Urban Lands Bill which places additional responsibility on local govern-
mental agencies to plan the future development of the urban state lands;
and
WHEREAS,the coordination of services i n the Apache Junction area
requires the cooperation of Apache Junction and Pinal County officials,
and Pinal County officials do request the recommendation of the various
cities on rezoning and subdivision applications within three miles of
the municipal limits;and
WHEREAS,through a grant obtained with the assistance of Governor
Bruce Babbitt from the Four Corners Regional Commission,certain studies
on water,sewage disposal,and transportation have been performed to
provide a data base and also to identify areas needing further long-term
study;and
WHEREAS,the general plan has been prepared by the Apache Junction
Planning and Zoning Commission with the assistance of a Land Use Plan
Committee after much diligent study and investigation;and
WHEREAS,the proposed general plan has been properly advertised and
distributed and public hearings,as required by the Arizona Revised
Statutes,have been held;and
WHEREAS,the general public has been afforded the opportunity to
comment on the proposed plan,those comments receiving dutiful consider-
ation;and
WHEREAS,the Arizona Revised Statutes do provide an amendment process
to adopted general plans;
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the
City of Apache Junction,Arizona,as follows:
1.That certain document entitled "Apache Junction:2001,Apache
Junction,Arizona,General Plan,"is hereby adopted and approved
as the general plan of the city of Apache Junction,Arizona.
2.Those certain documents entitled "Population Analysis for the
City of Apache Junction,Arizona,"and "City Complex Planning
Program,City of Apache Junction,Arizona"are hereby adopted
i n concept by reference as part of the general plan of the
city of Apache Junction,Arizona.
RESOLUTION NO.82-1
PAGE TWO
3.Those certain reports entitled "Water Systems Evaluation
for Apache Junction,Arizona,""Sewage Disposal Alternatives
for Apache Junction,Arizona,"and "A Transportation Plan
for Apache Junction"are hereby accepted as part of the data
documentation and made a part of the general plan.Acceptance
of the reports does not necessarily imply agreement with the
recommendations contained therein.
4.The Apache Junction City Council hereby requests and directs
the Apache Junction Planning and Zoning Commission to submit
a status report to the City Council prior to the first day
of February of each yeear,including any proposals for amend-
ment of the general plan.
5.The Apache Junction City Council hereby requests that Pinal
County officials adopt the Apache Junction general plan as
an amendment to the Pinal County general plan,including
those areas where recommendations have been made outside
the Apache Junction city limits,but in Pinal County.
6.The Apache Junction City Council hereby requests the Arizona
State Land Department and the Bureau of Land Management to
fully consider this general plan i n making decisions which
affect lands under their authority and which are located
within the general plan study area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,the City Clerk i s authorized and directed
to forward certified copies of this resolution to the Governor of the
State,U.S.Secretary of the Interior,Commissionerofthe Arizona Land
Department,Director of the Phoenix Office of the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment,Arizona Congressional Delegation,and the Arizona State Delegation
representing this area.
PASSED THIS 20th DAY OF July ,1982,BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA.
Wende 1J./7C/17arls,0
Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathleen Connelly
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
.4/
CITY COMPLEX
PLANNING PROGRAM
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
ARIZONA
prepared for
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
!;
_f -7347 - VT.N ..
I t
SEAL:f4 Elf _111 ;
SIGNATURE:
0 / 3
prepared by
PRC TOUPS
4131 North 24th Street,Suite 110
Phoenix,Arizona 85016
(602)954-9191
PURPOSE
To analyze future space needs for a City Governmental
Complex and t o prepare an Overall Site Plan o f land needs
for a parcel o f State land located i n the Southern portion
o f Section 16,TIN,R8E.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
I n order t o determine future governmental space needs,i t i s
necessary t o have some understanding o f the cities'future
growth.As part o f this study,a separate "Population
Analysis"was carried out t o estimate the cities'population
growth for the year 2000.The following chart i s from the
"Population Analysis Report"prepared i n October 1980.The
City o f Apache Junction.will be influenced greatly by seasonal
residents which will also affect the number o f persons working
for the City.
MUNICIPAL SPACE NEEDS
After the population analysis was completed and future project-
ions were established,a survey was conducted t o determine the
types,number and work position for each existing and anticipated
department or division of the City government.
This data was compared with similar data from cities and towns
of equal size and larger.From an analysis of this information
a table was prepared indicating the personnel needs for each
City department by five (5)year increments.The table was
completed by the Consultant based upon previous data.The
Consultant then met with each department head of the City to
review the projected needs and adjusted the Table accordingly.
After department personnel was determined for each five (5)
year period,the Consultant then multiplied the number o f persons
by a nationally accepted square footage factor based upon
the type o f position and nature o f work.I n addition
t o personnel space needs,space i s required for special
uses and facilities such as a conference room,a mail room,
storage room and vault.These types o f spaces were also
analyzed as t o need with the various department heads.
A list o f special uses and facilities and their space needs
follow the employee space needs table.
For 1980 t o 1985,a total space need o f approximately
15,610 square feet for personnel uses,plus an additional
17,000 square feet for specials uses,will be housed directly
within the City Administration Complex.The 1995 t o 2000
needs for personnel are over 35,000 square feet.
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
Employee and space needs 1980-2000
1980-85
Employees Space
Needs
(1)
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
1985-90
Employees Space
Needs
1990 -9 5
Employees Space
NeedS
mANAGER 1 -450 1 -450 1 -450
Secretary 1 -200 I -200 2 -400
Assistant 2 -500
CITY CLERK 1 -300 1 -300 1 -300
Secretary 1 -200 1 -200 1 -200
C.eputy City Clerks 1 -250 2 -500 2 -500
PERSONNEL DEPT.
Personnel Director 1 -300 1 -300 1 -300 '
Personnel Tech.1 -200 1 -200
Secretary ,1 -200 2 -400 2 -400
.FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Finance Director
Accountant
Accountant Clerk
Secretary
Cashier
DATA PROCESSING
Manager
Programmer
Computer Operator
Key Punch Operator
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1 -300
1 -250
1 -150.
-200
-300
1 -250
2 -500
1 -200
2 -300
-300
1 -250.
2 -500
2 -400
2 -300
1 -300 1 -300
1 -200
1 -200
1 -200
2 -400
19./5 -2000
Employees Space
Needs
-450
2 -400
2 -500
1 -300
1 -200
3 -750
1 -300
2 -400 .
2 -400
I -300
1 -250
3 -500
2 -400
2 -300
1 -300
1 -250
2 -400
3 -600
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Planning Director 1 -350 1 -350 1 -350 1 -35 0
Planner 1 -300 2 -600 3 -900 3 -900
Planning Aide 0 2 -500 4 -1000 5 -1250
Secretary 1 -200 1 -200 1 -200 1 -200
Clerk Typist 1 -200 1 -200 1 -200 2 -400
PARKS L RECREATION
Director
Secretary/Receptionist
Recreation Supervisor
Recreation Leader
Parks Foreman
Grounds Keeper
Equipment Operator
Maintenance Man
Laborers
LIBRARY
Librarian
Asst.Librarian
HOUSING (b)
HEALTH L SOCIAL
SERVICES
(6)
1 - 350
-250
1 -300
2 -(2)P.T.
1 -(2)
-350
1 -250
1 -300
1 -250
1 -(2)
1 -(2)
2 -(2)
2 -(2)
2 -(2)
I -(2)
1 -(2)
1-350
1 -250
1 -300
1 -250
1 -(2)
2 -(2)
3 -(2)
4 -(2)
2 -(20
-(2)
2 -(2)
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (7)
clinTnTAI l c -2FIRn 1 1 -7SSO 49 -9700 62 -11250
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
EMPLOYEE AND SPACE Nuns 1980 _2000
1580-85
Ecployees Space
Needs
PUBLIC WORKS
ADMINISTRATION
Public Works Director
Secretary
Receptionist
Book Keeper
Clerk
ENG1NEERING
City Engineer
Secretary
Asst.City Engineer
Engir:eering Aide
Surveyor
BUILDING INSPECTIONS
Superintendent
Chief Building Inspector
Building Inspector
Deputy Zoning Admin.
Plan Checker
erk/Typi.s t
ecretary
STREET MAINTENANCE
Superintendent
Secretary
Equipment Operator
Maintenance Worker
Laborer
WATER DEPARTMENT
Superintendent
Secretary
Equipment Operator
Meter Repair Worker
Maintenance Worker
Laborer
Meter Reader
SANITATION DEPARTMENT
Superintendent
Secretary
Sewer Plant Operator
Maintenance Worker
Equipment Operator
Laborer
LANDFILL
Superintendent
Sec./Clerk
Equipment Operator.
Laborer
VEHICAL MAINTENANCE
Superintendent
Sec ./Clerk
Mechanic 1
Mechanic 11
Partsman
Laborer
PARKS MAINTENANCE
Superintendent
Sec ./Clerk
Groundskeeper
Equipment Operator
Maintenance Man
Laborer
1 -400
1 -250
1 -200
1 -250
1 -250
1 -350
1 -250
1 -300
1
1
1
2
1
350
250
250
250
500
200
1 -350
1 -200
3 -(2)
3 -(2)
3 -(2)
I -300
1 -(2)
1 -(2)
1585 -50
Emplo)ces Space
Needs
1 -400
1 -250
1 -200
1 -250
1 -250
1 -350
1 -250
1 -300
2 -600
3 -500
1 -350
1 -300
2 -500
1 -250
1 -250
2 -500
-200
1 -350
1 -200
4 -(2)
6 -(2)
6 -(2)
1 -350
1 -250 •
3 -(2)
2 -(2)
1 -300
1 -250
2 -(2)
3 -(2)
1 -(2)
1 -(2)
1 -350
1 -250
1 -(2)
2 -(2)
1 -(2)
2 -(2)
1580 -5 5
Employees Space
Needs
-400
I -250
I -200
1 -250
1 -250
1 -350
1 -250
2 -600
2 -600
3 -500
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
350
300
750
250
500
750
200
1 -350
2 -400
5 -(2)
9 -(2)
10 -(2)
1 -350
1 -200
2 -(2)
1 -(2)
2 -(2)
2 -(2)
3 -(2)
1 -350
1 -200
1 -(2)
2 -(2)
2 -(2)
-(2)
1 -350
-250
4 -(2)
3 -(2)
1 -300
1 -250
3 -(2)
5 -(2)
2 -(2)
1 -(2)
1 -350
-1 -250
2 -(2)
-4 -(2)
2 -(2)
4 -(2)
1555-2000
E,ployees Space
Needs
1. -400
1 -250
1 -200
1 -250
1 -250
1 -350
1 -250
2 -600
4 -600
6 -500
1 -350
1 -300
4 -1000
1 -250
3 -750
3 -750
1 -200
1 -350
2 -400
6 -(2)
12 -(2)
16 -(2)
1 -350
2 -400
3 -(2)
2 -(2)
4 -(2)
6 -(2)
5 -(2)
1 -350
2 -400
1 -(2)
3 -(2)
3 -(2)
6 -(2)
1 -350
2 -500
5 -(2)
14 -(2)
1 -300
1 -250
4 -(2)
-(2)
3 -(2)
1 -(2)
1 -350
1 -250
3 -(2)
6 -(2)
3 -(2)
6 -(2)
PUBLIC SAFETY
LEGAL
City Attorney
Assistant Attorneys
Secretary
CITY COURTS
Magistrate
Office Administrator
Court Clerk
Clerk/Typist
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
EMPLOYEE AND SPACE NEEDS 1980 -2000
1980-85
Employees Space
Needs
1 -300
1 -250
1 -200
1 -350
1 -300
1 -250
1 -200
Director of Public Safety 1 -400
Secretary/Receptionist 1 -250
Police Chief •1 -350
Police Captain -300
Police Lieutenant 2 -600
Police Sergeant 4 -800
Detective Sergeant 1 -250
Detective 3 -400
Police Officer 16 -(3)
Records Clerk 2 -500
Secretary 1 -200
Receptionist 1 -200
Dispatcher 7 -600
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Chief
Captain
Lieutenant
Engineer
Firemen
Secretary
Dispatcher
ANIMAL CONTROL
Supervisor
Secretary/Receptionist
Officers
Aids
I -(5)
1 -(5)
-(5)
7 -(5)
14 -(5)
I -(5)
7 -(5)
1 -300
1 -200
2 -(2)
-200
SUBTOTAL 85 -7400 .
1985-90
Employees Space
Needs
I -300
1 -250
1 -200
1 +P.T.-600
-300
-250
2 -400
1 -400
1 -250
1 -350
1 -300
3 -800
5 -800
1 -250
7 -600
21 -(3)
4 -800
2 -400
7 -400
7 -600
I -(5)
1 -(5)
1 -(5)
7 -(5)
21 -(5)
1 -(5)
7 -(5)
-300
1 -200
4 -(2)
-200
115 -8950
1990 -95
Employees Space
ueeds
1 -300
2 -500
1 -200
P.T.-600
2 -600
2 -500
3 -600
2
3
15
14
42
6
3
8
14
400
250 .
350
300(4)
Boo
1000
500
1000
(3)
1000
600
500
600
1 -(5)
2 -(5)
2 -(5)
21 -(5)
35 -(5)
2 -(5)
7 -(5)
I -300
1 -200
6 -(2)
2 -(2)
204 -11100
(I)Space Needs have been determined on the following architectural guide lines:
Managers,Dept.Heads,Supt.,Etc.350 S.F.to 450 S.F./person
Assistants to the Above 250 S.F.to 350 S.F./person
Technicians,Operators,Etc.250 5.r.t o 350 S.F./person
Clerks,Typist,Recp.,Etc.150 S.F.to 300 S.F./person
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
To be housed at facility or public works maintenance yard.
Special room.
Additional persons assigned to a substation.
All personnel assigned to station.
Appears not applicable at this time.
l o be served by special meeting rooms and a ppropriate staff.
1995-2000
Employees Space
Needs
1 -300
3 -750
2 -400
2 -600
2 -600
2 -500
4 -600
1 -400
1 -250
I -350
2 -300(4)
6 -1000
15 -1000
3 -500(4)
21 -1000(4)
65 -(3)
8 -1200
4 -A00(4)
9 -500(4)
14 -600
1 -(5)
2 -(5)
3 -(5)
28 -(5)
45 -(5)
3 -(5)
7 -(5)
-300
2 -400
6 -(2)
2 -(2)
220 -12350
TOTAL EMPLOYEE
SPACE NEEDS 15,610 24.500 31.150 35,100
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
SPECIAL USES AND FACILITIES
SPACE REQUIREMENTS
CITY COUNCIL IN SQUARE FEET
Council Chambers (200 t o 250 persons)
Conference Room,Use Managers Conference Room
Mayors Office
CITY MANAGER
Managers Office with Conference Desk (8 persons)
Conference Room (18 persons)
Secretary's Office
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Central Reception Area
Conference Room Use Managers
Data Processing Machine Room
Billing Machine Room with Tables for Layout
Address and Mailing Room,Xerox
Vault -Work In -Clerks Area
Cashier Area with Dirve-Up Window
Records and Filing Room with Microfilm Equipment
Materials and Supply Room
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
2500
250
0
325
300
225
225
150
225
120
0
425
300
Planning Reception and Reference Room 325
Planning Conference Room (8 persons)225
Planning Design and Drafting Room 450
Planning Reproduction Machine Room 120
PARKS AND RECREATION
Administration Offices a t Central Facility
Recreation Offices and Activities at each site
Maintenance Facilities in conjunction with street
maintenance or at a major park site.
LIBRARY
Special Facility Considerations
HOUSING,HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
Small Interview and Conference Rooms
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Small Appeal and Hearing Room
Large Conference Room
Small Hearing Room
Use Council Chambers
To use available facilities
o f other departments.
SUB -TOTAL 6165
SPECIAL USES AND FACILITIES
PUBLIC wORKS
ENGINEERING
Reception and Reference °oom
Conference Room
Design and Drafting Room
Reproduction Machine Room
File and Map Room
cuILDINC INSPECTIONS
SPACE REQUIREMENTS
IN SQUARE FEET
200
180
360
24o
2 0
Reception Area and Application Counter 250
Plans Review and Storaoe Area 240
Hearing and Appeals Room 180
SlREE1 MAINTENANCE
Street Maintenance Equipment Storage
Street Maintenance Parts Repair Shop
Street Materials Storage Yard
Street Sign Shop
wATER C.SEwER DEPARTMENT
Locate Maintenance and Repair Facilities
i n conjuction with street maintenance facilities
o r a t future treatment plant.
SANITATION DEPARTMENT -GARBAGE AND LANDFILL
Locate Maintenance and Repair Facilities i n
conjunction with street maintenance facility
o r at future treatment plant.
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
Locate i n conjuction with Street
Maintenance Facility.
AIRPORT
Locate Maintenance and Repair Facilities
a t future Airport site.
CEMETERY
Locate Maintenance and Repair Facilities i n
conjunction with Street Maintenance Facilities.
SUBTOTAL
NA
NA
NA
NA
1890
SPECIAL USES AND FACILITIES
PUBLIC SAFETY
SPACE REQUIREMENTS
IN SOUARE FEET
City Court Rooms -(40 Spectators)2000
Judges Chamber 1000
Court Clerks Room -(3)with Counter and Reception Area 450
Law Library -i n Library
Jury Room (6 persons)400
Conference Room (109 persons)200
Men and Women Wash Rooms
POL1LE DEPARTMENT
Information and Reception Area
Communications Room (Secure)
Records Room (Secure)
Photo and 1.0.Laboratory
Holding Cells,1 -Male,1 -Female,1 -Juvenile
Drunk Tank
Booking Room -Adjacent t o Holding Cells
Interrogation Rooms (3)
Property Room (Secure)
Briefing Room (30 persons)
Training Conference Room (100 persons)
Showers,Dressing and Weight Exercise Room
Uniforms and Equipment
Weapons,Arsenal
Vault
Lunch Room (20 persons)
Sally Port
K-9 Cage (4)
Property Storage Rooms
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Individual Site and Buildings
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL OF SPECIAL USES
350
150
240
120
300
250
150
400
600
850
600
120
120
120
300
100
120
300
9240
17,295
MUNICIPAL COMPLEX STYLE AND CHARACTER
In order t o ascertain the desires o f the community as t o
style and character for the Community Complex,the Consultant
presented slides o f other City and Town complexes and other
architectural projects t o a number o f interested citizens.
In addition,drawings o f basic site plan formats were presented
for discussion and comment.After each presentation a
questionnaire was submitted t o each person i n attendance.
These were returned t o the Planning Office for tabulation.
The following results were responded t o overwhelmingly.
1.Residents would prefer a City Complex consisting
o f one story buildings.
2.Residents prefer a City Complex o f several
buildings.
3.Residents prefer a City Complex with a non-
geometric design.
4.Residents prefer a City Complex with a specific
architectural style.
5.Residents prefer a City Complex with a
Territorial Western o r Spanish style o f
architecture.
6.Residents prefer a City Complex with a
stuccoed exterior siding.
7.Residents prefer a City Complex with desert
o r earthtone exterior colors.
8.Residents prefer a City Complex with dense desert
style o f landscaping.
9.Residents prefer a City Complex with usage of
courtyards and patios.
10.Residents prefer a City Complex representing
quality o f style and workmanship i n a conservative
but beautiful manner.
11.Residents prefer a City Complex which would include
some other County,State and Federal Offices.
SELECTION OF SITE AND GENERAL DESIGN
The City o f Apache Junction was fortunate t o have some State
land available within the newly incorporated boundaries t o
start the development o f their governmental obligations.
The City has obtained a lease for twenty (20)acres from the
State Land Department t o initiate their immediate corporate
needs on the basis that they would proceed with a future
needs study and overall master plan for the area they
would consider purchasing i n the future.The existing
municipal facilities,including the area being used for the
Public Works Yard,occupies most o f this twenty acre parcel.
The overall State property i n consideration i s that part o f the
South half o f Section 16,TIN,R8E,lying North o f Arizona
Highway 88 (Apace Boulevard).
Once the overall needs and general desires o f the City were
determined,PRC Toups looked a t the property i n question and
prepared several development alternatives o f the site.These
overall concepts were discussed with the staff and the following
general land use plan indicates an overall master plan o f the
State land.The City Complex represents a relatively small
area o f the total.
1,45
tvutomigliNIU1I NC
SCALE:1.-50'
1.0A
-4)e-9,
• /
CITY OF MBE JUNCTION
GOVERNMENT CENTER
PRC TOUPS
4131 NORTH 24TH STREET
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 8501e
TELEPHONE:(602)954-9191
FIGURE NO. L-9
41'
a
I<>r.xisrlua
>ELEMELITACY .
SCLica_ srrt ._J
A.Q.A
BM •4 .4 ,4414NW. IAA-
0 0
C71
1.111wouy. ...
YU.
Con....r•••
f -1
roe_resrtieE.
.Ciemadbc.
viharaz
1/9
SUGGESTED
11 PLAIM
/ 110k //CI
1.1.••.en
kJ e_T
I.ZOO
The site plan and architectural concept envisions a walled-
i n mission style complex consisting o f several buildings o f
Western Contemporary "Territorial"style architecture inter-
laced with courtyards,patios and walkways which may or may
not be covered.
The entrance will be a split road through massive double
arches.On the entrance axis will be the City Council
Chambers with a very distinct architectural facade.A
sunken intimate courtyard i s located t o the rear on the
same axis which can be used for a number o f purposes including
overflow crowds a t Council meetings and for political gatherings.
To the left o f the Council Chambers will be the Administrative
Building.This building should house all Administration
personnel a t the outset with the exception o f the Council
Chambers and the Public Safety functions.The Administration
Building should be planned so that i t can be expanded t o the
North and East around the sunken courtyard as future needs
dictate.Immediately across the entrance drive t o the West
will be the City Court and Public Safety Building.The
Court Building should retain the same exterior character and
treatment as the Council Chambers.The Court and Public Safety
Building will be connected t o the Administration Building with
a wide patio/court type esplanade.I t i s envisioned that only
about one half o f the Public Safety Building would be constructed
for the first phase o f construction with the second phase being
t o the West and additional expansion further t o the West and
North over the indicated parking areas.The Public Safety
Building i s also provided with a second entrance for official
access which will not be intermingled with the public use and
access.This second entrance also connects directly t o a short
cul-de-sac for the direct handling o f prisoners and security
purposes.This cul-de-sac can be further secured through the
use o f a remote controlled gate.
f.1
1.
1'12
V The smaller parking areas would be more heavily landscaped with
desert shrubs for screening and t o add color.The open building
To the East o f the Council Chambers i s located a Chamber o f
Commerce Building.This area i s then flanked by a series o f
smaller buildings which would house other County,State and
Federal offices creating a governmental complex o r mission.
To the North o f these buildings i s located an area for a
public library.
These buildings would be inter -connected with walkways,
courtyards and open patios which could be closed i n o r
connected together with expansion o f the original buildings
as future needs dictate.
The other governmental buildings can be constructed by the City
and then leased t o the various governmental agencies or the
land area could be leased a t a nominal fee and the governmental
agency would construct t h ,::buildings.However,the City o f
Apache Junction should retain arcitectural style and design
review and approval i n order t o retair an integrated architectural
style throughout the entire complex.
Parking i s broken up with a number o f smaller intimate,land-
scaped areas that provide a limited number o f spaces for very
short term visitors and restricted spaces for key personnel.
The main parking areas are t o the back and outer edges of the
complex so as to provide more pleasing entrance to visitors
and employees.
IF!
Landscaping will be primarily desert i n character.The undeveloped
o r open areas would be natural or graded decomposed granite
punctuated by large desert trees i n wells watered by a bubbler
system.
facades should also be broken up with proper placement o f a
few larger trees.The patios,courtyards and walkways should
be broken up with a few fountains,flower boxes,spreading or
canopy trees and large pottery pots which would grow flowers,
shrubs and ferns.
The overall site plan as indicated and including the existing
facilities on the original twenty acre leased site,covers an
area o f approximately fif ty (50)acres.The area housing just
the new proposed City governmental complex,which includes the
Administration Building,Council Chambers,Public Safety Building
and Courts Building,contains approximately six (6)t o eight (8)
acres.The area for a proposed Library and an area for Federal,
State and County offices would occupy an additional three (3)t o
five (5)acres.
I t i s suggested that the City continue t o retain the existing
facilities for interim uses o f expansion between major construction
phases and for quasi -social o r political uses undetermined a t this
time and possibly for interim office uses for department or divisions
that will be housed i n separate facilities such as the Airport,
Parks and Recreation,etc.,during periods o f construction for those
facilities.
To ensure for future needs and to provide for other governmental
needs and functions,i t i s recommended that a minimum o f fifty (50)
t o sixty (60)acres be set aside o r retained from the State for the
Governmental Complex and future governmental buildings and facilities.
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
1001 N.IDAHO ROAD
CITY CLERK
rAPACHt JUNCTION,AZ 8$210
ALE COPY
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA
APACHE JUNCTION PROJECT NO.PL80-1 (IN PART)
MAY 1981
Prepared By:
PRC TOUPS
4131 North 24th Street
Suite 110
Phoenix,Arizona 85016
(602)954-9191
(This report was funded in part by grant FCRC No.101-811-082-2
awarded to the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,by the Four
Corners Regional Commission,Albuquerque,New Mexico.)
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA
REPORT SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION.
Apache Junction i s a rapidly growing community located slightly over
thirty miles east o f downtown Phoenix,Arizona.I t i s situated prin-
cipally i n Pinal County;however,a 1980 annexation added a small area
i n Maricopa County.The permanent population i n 1980 i s approximately
10,500 persons.I t i s estimated that winter visitors t o Apache Junction
raise the population t o over 30,000 persons.
The City o f Apache Junction was incorporated i n November,1978.Since
that time,the need t o establish staff and procedures has dominated the
program agenda o f the City.City officials are desirous o f establishing
a General Plan for the Apache Junction service area,defined i n Figure
1-1.With this goal i n mind,the City applied for and on June 1,1980,
received a grant from the Four Corners Regional Commission t o assist i n
the development o f a general plan.The areas specifically addressed i n
the terms o f the grant included the following:
1)Sewer Needs Determination
2)Water Systems Evaluation
3)Transportation Facilities Plan
4)Municipal Complex Development
5)Land Use Plan
The purpose o f this particular report i s t o address the first o f the
above listed topics,namely 1)Sewer Needs Determination.The City of
Apache Junction i s rapidly approaching a decision point relative t o
wastewater planning.The major issue i s whether the City should con-
tinue with individual septic tank/disposal systems for wastewater
management or i f a gravity sewer system feeding a central wastewater
TIN
TIS
o 0
4:z
8 I
I 6
L i
CC
7
31
6
5
8
5
NATIONAL FOREST
7 8
4
9
q4z
33
3
10
2
II
14
'23
alt
SE
34
3
11VICE
10
2 6
35
2
11
A
1
12
13
24
25
36
1
REA
12
MAR1COPA CO.
P1NAL CO.
L i
03
CC
TOTAL SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY L i
CO
CC
NATIONAL
FOREST
TIN
LLJ
CY)
CC
TIS
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
PLANNING AREA MAP23
22111841Z611=21:1114
SCALE IN MILES PRO.TO UPS I
4131 N 24 ST.PHX., AZ.1
FIGURE
NO."
treatment facility should be constructed to serve the City and the
surrounding service area.The final decision will depend in part on a
determination of the threshold level at which wastewater treatment using
septic systems can be permitted without creating a hazard to the public
health,safety and general welfare.This report describes the work
performed in assessing the alternatives and the conclusions reached as a
result of the study.
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS.
1.This report takes a somewhat conservative look at the potential for
population growth in the Apache Junction service area.Major fac-
tors which could increase the rate of growth include completion of
the Superstition Freeway,development of a municipal airport,
opening of a community college,and the further development of
industrial parks and shopping centers.
2.When comparing population densities in the report,i t i s important
to keep i n mind that they are gross averages based on the conser-
vative projection described above.Individual sections of the out-
lying service area,for example,may develop rather quickly,while
other sections may not develop at all.
3.Wastewater flow and strength projections are based on conveying
sanitary sewage only;collection and conveyance of stormwater is not
considered in the analysis.Also,residential sewage flows make up
the majority of the total;the contribution from commercial and
industrial sources is a relatively insignificant portion of the
total.
4.The design and installation of septic systems is generally not con-
sidered to be an exact science.Rather,the accepted techniques are
based on empirical data which have been gathered over a number of
years,such as the percolation rate,the size of the dwelling to be
served,and the replacement capacity required.
-g-
5.It is assumed that the shallower and more land -intensive leach
field method o f effluent disposal must be used with septic tanks
i n the northern and eastern parts o f the service area,resulting
i n a desirable lot size o f one acre for a singlefamily residence.
6.Desirable lot sizes i n the southwestern part o f the service area are
14,000 square feet for a singlefamily residence,6,000 square feet
per unit i n a mobile home park,and 3,000 square feet per unit i n a
travel trailer park.I t must be kept i n riH that these are very
conservative figures and attempt t o accoL•,-)r -the varieties i n
sizes o f dwellings for a given category.
7.The city planning staff perceives that long-range development will
occur as a more even distribution o f the types o f residences than
exists a t present.This report assumes that,over the long term,
development will evolve into a ratio o f 60 percent single-family,
20 percent mobile home and 20 percent travel trailer.
EXISTING CONDITIONS.
1.The final 1970 census listed Apache Junction as having 2,390
persons,and 1,161 housing units.The preliminary report o f the
1980 census showed that Apache Junction has a population o f
9,935 and a total o f 6,837 housing units.However,the pre-
liminary 1980 report also indicated that 2,632 housing units
were vacant at the time of the survey,leaving 4,205 occupied
units for an average of 2.36 persons per occupied unit.
2.A report entitled "Population Analysis for the City of Apache
Junction,Arizona",completed by PRC Toups i n December,1980,
estimated the total 1980 population for the Apache Junction
service area t o be 30,348,comprised o f the following:
A permanent resident population of 10,500 within the city
limits.
2)A permanent resident population o f 2,200 i n the outlying
service area.
3)A seasonal resident population o f an additional 17,648
persons i n the city and outlying service area.
3.Due t o the low population density historically present i n Apache
Junction,nearly all o f the community's wastewater i s handled by
individual septic systems.The majority o f these systems uti-
lize a septic tank with the disposal pit for treated
effluent disposal.However,i n the poorer sc 11 areas near the
Goldfield and Superstition Mountains,a septic tank i s usually
combined with a leach field for treated effluent disposal.Con-
versations with representatives o f the Pinal County Health
Department indicate that design and installation practices i n
the Apache Junction area have generally been acceptable.
4.The larger systems i n the Apache Junction service area generally
utilize some form o f secondary biological treatment t o decompose
and stabilize the organic matter i n the wastewater.At the
present time,there are four establishments which operate actual
wastewater treatment facilities:Superstition Inn (20,000
gallons per day;Mining Camp Restaurant (10,000 gallons per
day);Sierra Entrada Subdivision (60,000 gallons per day);and
Rock Shadows Travel Trailer Park (40,000 gallons per day).
FUTURE CONDITIONS.
I .According t o the previously mentioned report,"Population Ana-
lysis for the City of Apache Junction,Arizona",the population
o f the service area i s expected t o grow a t a rate o f 5 percent
per year for the next ten years,4 percent per year for the
years 1991-1955,and 3 percent per year for the years 1996-2000.
By the year 2000,there i s projected t o be 60,161 permanent and
seasonal residents i n the city and 8,268 permanent and seasonal
residents i n the outlying service area,for a total population
o f 68,429.
-5-
2.Based on a developable land area within the city limits o f 11
square miles,population density will rise from 2,427 persons
per square mile i n 1980 t o 5,469 persons per square mile i n
2000.For comparison,the average population density for the
major valley cities o f Glendale,Mesa,Phoenix and Tempe (based
on the preliminary report o f the 1980 censu.)i s about 2,400 persons
per square mile.Thus,population density .:1 -thin the city limits o f
Apache Junction i s comparable t o these other larger valley cities,
where complete municipal services have been provided for many
years.On the other hand,based on a developable land area i n the
outlying service area o f 13 square miles,population density will
rise from 281 persons per square mile i n 1980 to only 636 persons
per square mile i n 2000.
3.Generally speaking,the soil i n the southwest portion o f the
study area i s a sandy loam with moderate permeability,while the
soil i n the northern and eastern portions o f the study area i s a
loam containing a relatively high percentage o f gravel,cobbles,
and clay with a lower permeability.As a result,septic tanks with
the deep pit method of disposal can be readily utilized i n the
southwest part o f the area;however,the shallower and more land-
intensive leach field method o f disposal must be used with septic
tanks i n the northeast part o f the area.
4.In the poorer soil area,a lot size of one acre would probably
be needed for a single-family septic system (mobile home or con-
ventional construction).When subtractions for street rights -of-
way and other open spaces are considered (which account for approx-
imately 25 percent o f the gross land area),a total o f 480 one-
acre .units can be constructed per square mile o f gross land area.
Using the 2.36 persons per unit from the existing popoulation
analysis yields an overall population density figure of 1,120
persons per square mile as the threshold level in the poorer soil
area.
5.Assuming that i n the better soil area development will evolve
into a ratio o f 60 percent single-family,20 percent mobile
home,and 20 percent travel trailer gives an average lot size o f
10,200 square feet.When subtractions for street rights -of -way
and other open spaces are considered (which account for approxi-
mately 35 percent of the gross land area),a total o f 1,760 lots
o f 10,200 square feet can be constructed per square mile o f
gross land area.Using the 2.36 persons per unit figure from
the existing population analysis yields an overall population
density figure o f 4,100 persons per square mile as the threshold
level in the better soil area.
6.The population density i n the outlying service area remains low
enough through year 2000 t o continue t o successfully utilize
onsite methods for wastewater management.Within the city
limits,on the other hand,unless the population i s more evenly
distributed according t o the threshold capacity,the population
density will surpass even the threshold limit i n the better soil
area i n about the year 1996.
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES.
1.Alternative 1 i s basically the provision for the "no action"
plan mentioned a t the end o f Chapter 4.Individual homes and
businesses in the entire Apache Junction service area would
continue to utilize onsite techniques as the primary method of
wastewater treatment.In good soil areas,septic tank effluent
would flow t o seepage pits for ultimate disposal.In poorer
soil areas,leach fields o r mound systems could be utilized.
Evapotranspiration systems following septic tanks might find use
o n unusually large lots i n the better soil areas.Institu-
tional,commercial and industrial establishments could inves-
tigate use of aerobic treatment with an absorption bed,as i s
currently i n use a t the Superstition Inn (Chapter 3).
-7-
2.Alternative 2 allows homes i n the low -density outlying service
area t o utilize any o f the acceptable individual treatment/
disposal methods,including septic tank with absorption bed,
septic tank mound system,aerobic treatment with absorption bed,
and evapotranspiration system.Homes and businesses within the
higher -density city limits would be served by a gravity sewer
system which would convey raw wastewatr..-to a 5.4 mgd WWTP
located roughly a t the southeast corner f lliot and Meridian
Roads.The plant would be capable o f providing secondary treat-
ment plus disinfection,with the effluent either reused o r
discharged t o Siphon Draw.Dried sludge would be hauled away
and disposed of i n an acceptable landfill.
3.Alternative 3 allows homes i n the low density outlying service
area t o utilize any o f the acceptable individual treatment/
disposal methods,including septic tank with absorption bed,
septic tank mound system,aerobic treatment with absorption bed,
and evapotranspiration system.Homes and businesses within the
higher density city limits would be served by a gravity sewer
system.Wastewater would be conveyed out o f the Apache Junction
service area by a 27 -inch diameter interceptor sewer,which
would eventually combine with an interceptor sewer i n eastern
Mesa and proceed t o a 17.4 mgd WWTP located i n the vicinity o f
Higley and Recker Roads just north o f Baseline Road.The plant
would be capable o f providing secondary treatment plus effluent
filtration and disinfection,with the effluent pumped to a
Roosevelt Water Conservation District canal for reuse.Dried
sludge would be hauled away and disposed o f i n an acceptable
landfill.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES.
1.The wastewater management alternatives were compared and eval-
uated using the following parameters:annual costs,ability t o
implement,flexibility and reliability,system experience,land
requirement,and environmental assessment.I n terms o f annual
costs,Alternatives 2 and 3 are initially about 63 percent more
costly than Alternative 1;however,by the year 2000,they are
about 27 percent less costly than Alternative 1,with the break
even point occurring about 1991.At that time,the cost to an
individual homeowner for a new septic tank/disposal system would
be about the same as that for a complete gravity sewer/WWTP
system.At any time after that,the latter system becomes more
economical.
2.Table 2-1 shows the "Technical and Envi -ormental Evaluation
Matrix"used t o compare the alternatives i n terms o f the above
parameters.The point totals and relative standing o f the three
alternatives are 15 for Alternative 1 (third),20 for Alterna-
tive 2 (first),and 19 for Alternative 3 (second).
SELECTION OF THE BEST ALTERNATIVE PLAN.
1.The major conclusion which can be drawn from the alternatives
evaluation i s that,over the long term,pursuit o f either Alter-
native 2 or Alternative 3 i s a wiser choice than continued
reliance on Alternative 1.Beside having the lowest point total
i n Table 2-1,i t i s shown i n Chapter 4 that Alternative I would
exceed the threshold level of development within the Apache
Junction city limits i n the middle 19FD's.Furthermore,Alter-
native 1 loses its economic advantage t o the individual home-
owner over the other alternatives in about 1991,as shown in
Chapter 6.
2.I t should be emphasized here that elimination o f Alternative 1
does not mean that onsite methods for wastewater management
within the city limits must be abandoned overnight.On the
contrary,with proper supervision,onsite methods should con-
tinue t o adequately serve the Apache Junction area for another
ten years.The point to be made is that at the end of that
period,Apache Junction should at least be in the position where
i t could pursue construction o f an alternative wastewater manage-
ment system.
1ALTERNATIVE
TABLE 2-1
TECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION MATRIX
SHOWING RELATIVE STANDING OF ALTERNATIVES
I=1
).-›.-
C:3 1---I -
F -1 ---
Z _3 - J
> -w --
- I V -CO 0 0
<V )-1_0 -<U.1
D 1 -_ I - I › C -
Z V )-o_U.1 - J v")
z 0 CO ..-1 Li..1 >--
V I
EX
P
E
R
I
E
N
C
E
- J
Z
U J
t -U
U.J
CC 1.11CC V)
-w
LP)
w Lr)
PO
I
N
T
T
O
T
A
L
C_1
-
C:1
<
- J <
3.11
l n
ALTERNATIVE 1
2 4 2 4 1 2 15 .3
ALTERNATIVE 2 B C B C C C!'
f,
P 4 3 4 .3 3 3 20 1
t,i .
L
LTERNAT I VE 3 B C C C C C
r
I
4 3 3 3 3 3 19 2
13
3.I f an alternative wastewater management system i s eventually
pursued,i t i s recommended that Apache Junction present a copy
o f this report t o the Central Arizona Association o f Governments
(CAAG)and get on the construction grants priority list no later
than the middle 1980's.I t i s important for the city t o remem-
ber that its plan must be i n compliance with the CAAG 208 Plan
t o be approved by the federal governmen,.
4.I f a sewer system i s eventually constructed i n Apache Junction,
i t i s recommended that bonding be required t o cover damage to
existing utilities from sewer and other new utility construc-
tion.
-11-
:44
•
`;',11-90.7147Eta
!AAP,. a:0101,1A A
.• - .12;.•,
• -.--' •-
•,
•,,:(
s'
‘,:ty-•17.11,1r..01:XiNki*!i
1-•mr.r•r ...........
l e.AJW.:i
•
10.y .
'. • V....
•A.,r•
-„
..11.7
•
IN•.•••in- •vv.vir
.••
14"1 ..... •-• •....
•f•I .
-1 , 1 .....• ....
I ''• ' '..' ••'• ' s'1 •: '' '1 1 . '.I
S T,k_siyt i •; , ..1
- 'A.7 ,. • ,:........."
I
.......•
-
---' • •'N..--ki I .,t '-•
.__r •• ...•...•_.•.•.•
1
•-•--4 '`• •‘.i•
Vs;13't :•-`•••i;)—. •cc•, 1.. • • •. - n ....•rort41,-.•;A 4 'r (2 •g'FV;I:N-t f l.1_•1:"1.-:'Ir.1.;•.27:.&.7-ti t.)4*.k.:-7.(.9.!:;YZ4;i:••—Lc "r•CA';.• •
L1.4>d ;.41.;1:1.!`"F -',r.4 •-.5c,p1 . •• 1::„41 f '1 -17.1tk-7 • •\•Il',..N-`!;?K'7)(“1/4'.'":‘,./‘...4 2'1 (f':.:t 1.?•.'•;
..••-
-511 st;t •'fzL"-•
r*- et°zn`-'?r 4e, • k'';e:A...-`r,");•.* CZ. •s'•••\':.Y,111:.6_1-44 - 5
‘1•..!•-r Nyr.--r ;Vt,'ilo.,"-41•.r.si ".'"! ••,/ •,u • ••,i I.",
5 t i ?,7 ",T .•I ''." .1 •,':‘
-"';'1149 l•f.ATI"111.1,1
•••'P .
;..........t r •r vnca
4,.:".•••••••.................................,114.1.114-U7
dt/PL:,-..:,,',7,0a6;2...........•45::)31r;A:777trilli .............PAN-A i —Cc)...........r!..91".4!"'............................
• I :•••
)
)•. =
l •,
•.•
6
5 .
;4;km.=
•--
]7 -•
_t'
I.-.. 1._?;"
.....1..............................
tst0=111-er:
••• .....
r r l 1/`
\
--
3141101i 5: i i ;IA..• •
•
r•
•
•'
)
‘.e ,
(
,
,'•.
.....:AKA ............z
t ,
.......I .....1,..........•••"‘?14 )1•••....yl ,
::.•1411tH
ttremtfotr:,:.verrr
z
, • ,„ ,,
Sc.t..la'
• ...
:•••1.
\( •
•'19 •
.74
:".•
.1 I '''•••••77
1 1?9 '41:1'4111 in I —...........
..:
i LL:14.14444
•61
•--:".";•
;t I•' cir"; ;PROPOSED ;
I • _.1_1172:••.(-31 4 4.
I _Li _cr.146 -
'171
I
\•
,
1-,
._ V.„;
••••••L • - -I
/ 1 7 ‘•.
-_I 1 7 7 a r A k._
.1"--•••••••'-m " 7 —0•)•--.......•Atilt •I
-•. •• " , ' "\
C c.
..""•
r ‘ .-----i I
.))"?1." ,',
I ,„,\e _,•
;L'<1.10.•,
2
A i
• ?.1
.7-06
-7.—.1 ,41_4 •
I .g•••‘
;tom.1.14,ptivitriMi
;
Fir -7v
IAA
SUPERSTITION
A l •
_11.•?Ai7 ',•ri
h.jV -1/J
+r•P •
-7 -..1 r I ._.'•-•49
'1.11 -4 1.1.Uk-q/1
LEGEND
- -TOTAL SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
- - AREA WITHIN CITY LIMITS
'1
SOIL TYPE HA -I:ETAORRIFLUVENTS ASSOCIATION
BL7TER SOIL AR
..............................OIL TYPE HA -3,1 MOHALL -VECONT -PINAMT ASSOCIATION..................................POORER SOIL AREA
111111ME TRANSITION ZONE
______
...................................., ..............
....... T:.........Ar.
•
•I
131ewri.......................
1::•••••r:
.....
0 I/4 I 34 I
SCALE IN MILES
(ie• -4
, 11
11
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION ARIZONA
SOIL DISTRIBUTION MAP
PRC TOUPS
4131 N 24 ST.PHX,AZ.
FIGURE
NO.3- 4
I
A
;
!
V
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
APACHE JUNCTION PROJECT NO. PL-80-1(IN PART)
SEPTEMBER 1981
PREPARED FOR
THE CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
PREPARED BY
PRC VOORHEES
10960 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90024
(213) 477-2051
(This report was funded in part by grant FCRC No. 101-811-082-2 awarded
to the City of Apache Junction, Arizona, by the Four Corners Regional
Commission, Albuquerque, New Mexico.)
Contributing Professional Engineers (Transportation):
;
IDick S. Kaku, Registration No. TR 494,Signature:A Date:vi;_l
Richard D. Garland, Registration No. TR 1384, Signature:TO,IdULLA, Date:/
Joseph Gero
Director of Planning
(Project Manager)
TRANSPORATTION PLAN
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
AUTHORIZING CITY COUNCIL
Virginia Seeman
(Mayor)
John Granillo
(Vice -Mayor)
Jerry Burgess
Thomas Damiano
Jimmy Eidson
Norman Hill
Marie Shanks
G. Ray Lee
City Manager
Richard Broman
Director of Public Works
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.INTRODUCTION 1
History of Project 1
Authorization 1
Purpose and Scope of Study 4
II.EXISTING CONDITIONS 5
Population 5
Land Use 5
Existing Transportation System 8
III.PRESENT TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS 16
Regional Highways 16
Local Streets and Roads 19
Traffic Control Devices 21
Safety 22
Drainage 22
IV.FUTURE NEEDS 23
Land Use and Population ,23
Future Travel Patterns 25
Future Transportation Needs •28
V.TRANSPORTATION PLAN 31
Regional Highways 31
Local Streets 40
Traffic Control Devices 44
Guidelines for Other Modes of Transportation 45
48Other Issues
APPENDIX A-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1.Vicinity Map 2
2.Apache Junction Service Area 3
3.Major Traffic Generators 7
4.Existing Transportation System 9
5.Traffic Flow Map 12
6.Accident Locations, January -December 1980 14
7.Intersection U.S. Highway 60 & State Route 88 18
8.Regional Highways Average Daily Traffic Volumes 27
9.Skewed Intersection 34
10.Alternatives for Freeway Access 39
11.Street Classification System 42
I.INTRODUCTION
HISTORY OF PROJECT
Apache Junction is a rapidly growing community located slightly over thirty
miles east of downtown Phoenix, Arizona, as shown in Figure 1.It is
situated principally in Final County; however, a 1980 annexation added a
small area in Maricopa County.The permanent population in 1980 is approx-
imately 10,500 persons.It is estimated that winter visitors to Apache
Junction raise the population to over 30,000 persons.
The City of Apache Junction was incorporated in November, 1978.Since
that time, the need to establish staff and procedures has dominated the
program agenda of the City.City officials are desirous of establishing
a General Plan for the Apache Junction service area, defined in Figure 2.
With this goal in mind, the City applied for and on June 1, 1980, received
a grant from the Four Corners Regional Commission to assist in the develop-
ment of a general plan.The areas specifically addressed in the terms of
the grant included the following:
1) Sewer Needs Determination
2) Water Systems Evaluation
3) Transportation Facilities Plan
4) Municipal Complex Development
5) Land Use Plan
AUTHORIZATION
Upon receipt of the planning grant, the City was authorized by the Four
Corners Regional Commission to proceed with the selection of a consul-
tant to perform those parts of the scope of work set forth in "Bid
Specifications for Apache Junction General Plan of Selected Elements,
Project No. PL -80-1".Through a competitive bid process, PRC Toups was
1
PHOENIX
AND VICINITY
S•61•nt nide.•
n vol
1
• F••••• •.rr 4
-- -—••
..144•4.4 noon.••••..4
..................
r
---F\—don at
111.A:rot 27'
GILA %.
I, IR I V E R ••
I
INGIAN
_I0
•
R rSE1R VA TION
I i
3 •4
-1 I
Con enet
t wenn.
.1/-
7 :1 1:!"•
_011
P.I
(
I
(_••,5 "
I,...... „..
Cm,. ten.
n V
Ste
I
snel
?•••1
;
.11 1•-•
G.
GG.
NA FIVIGAL
FIGURE 1. VICINITY MAP
d•C •101•11.1.
6 ,0•111.
I /An
P
SALT RIVER
INOIAN RESERVATION
or adopt( 1001”
14•1e•rro•
TON TO
NATIONAL
.--,
I..r 1 t--•---- -, ,,---4.--,--...,..‹.....
Y i ; .::::.... R.,*
INA
iAPACHE JUNCTION S
7—:
•r J _L•0
na LJ L4• • • •1.4.14•440dip.nilmelpiR.!.6.1p.641
4o.n.Oa.
PORES,.
vIRAL co.
PROPOSED SUPERSTITION FREEWAY
.1 .1
;-
•
J
Li
1 1 1 71 1 ;1
1 ;;1 1 1
J.! 1
'4_a _ I (l•
- - - - - - -\.3./
y•4s.\-If
51;•-•I .'•.‘,.-•,1:::.r,
•;i " "'el:1
;1
..".• _?•—:!
I I
. 1 on I
Onvons [no
I •'
9
PRC Voorhees
TIN
d .0
4%
4%
Er-CL
NATIONAL FOREST
McDOWELL STREET
6 I 5 1 4 1 3
McKELLIPS BLVD
I /IC T flhlTnhI.1 n n a M I tiff,a-Li Li I L.rimmni DL VI).‘„\\..„
. _\\
1/4.-.\sit3i3E1;?a=1-1-1-io—N BLVD•
.
'...,
23
t\\WSOUTHERN AyENUE .
A N N
31 N-33 g
t s\ \ \ \ \ \ ‘
10
2
11
TIS
ME
R
I
D
A
N
D
R
I
V
E
LU
t•-
LU
co
cr
BROADWAY AVENUE
0
0
26 c`
LLI
35
8
BASELINE AVIENUE
.I
MARICOPA CO
12
13
24
25 0
0
36 a
co
4 3 2 I I
GUADALUPE AVENUE 1
SERVICE I AREA
9 10
ELLIOT AVENUE
SERVICE AREA
2
SCALE 114
II 12
BOUNDARY
3.
MILES
LU
co
cr
PINAL JO.
NATIONAL
FOREST
TIN
LU
FIGURE 2.APACHE JUNCTION SERVICE AREA
TIS
Vo
o
r
h
e
chosen to perform all of the items listed in the scope of work.The
term and effective date of the contract with PRC Toups was from October
29, 1980, through September 30, 1981.PRC Voorhees, a sister subsidiary
of PRC, was asked to conduct the Transportation Facilities Plan portion
of the study.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
The purpose of this particular report is to address the third of the
above listed topics, namely, 3) Transportation Facilities Plan.The
transportation system for Apache Junction is incomplete and is still being
developed.There are many unpaved streets and there are many dirt trails
which are used as access as they wind their way among cacti, rocks, washes,
and desert plants.The purpose of this study is to develop such a trans-
portation system into a form which can meet the needs of this growing com-
munity, yet maintain the uniqueness and attractiveness of the desert appeal.
Topics covered in this report include the following:
e Existing System
e Existing Conditions
•Future Needs
e Transportation Plan
This report is an independent analysis by the consulting engineering firm
of PRC Voorhees.Conclusions and recommendations contained herein are
those made only by the consultant after consideration of all the data,
and do not represent individual views of the staff of the City of Apache
Junction.
4
II.EXISTING CONDITIONS
POPULATION
The population of the City of Apache Junction according to the preliminary
counts of the 1980 census is 9,935.This represents a 77 percent increase
over the 1975 counts which was approximately 5,600 residents.
The population as determined by the census count does not, however, accu-
rately reflect the number of people which should be considered in developing
a transportation plan.Apache Junction is unique in that there is a very
large seasonal variation in population.According to a recent population
study , these seasonal (winter) residents include 17,648 people, some of
which reside on individual lots and some of which reside in mobile home or
trailer parks.Regardless of whether these people are classified as perma-
nent residents by the Census Bureau definition, they make use of the trans-
portation facilities and should, therefore, be considered in the planning
process.
The official population plus the seasonal residents, plus the people who re-
side outside the corporate boundary yet within the City's service area (ap-
proximately 2,200) indicate a present maximum effective population of 29,783.
LAND USE
A transportation plan must take into consideration the types of land use
that will be served. Information regarding land use has been provided by
the City of Apache Junction including a map designating existing land use
categories and a listing of major traffic generators with the location of
each.The land use map depicts the following categories:
•RESIDENTIAL
Single Family
Multi -Family
Mobile Home & Travel Trailer Park
1/— PRC Toups, "Population Analysis for the City of Apache Junction, Arizona,"
October, 1980.
5
• -COMMERCIAL
•PUBLIC, QUASI -PUBLIC
This map indicates that the commercial areas lie primarily along W. Apache
Trail with the heaviest concentration located at the intersection of U.S.60
and State Route 88.Residential areas are scattered throughout the City.
As indicated on a residential densities map provided by the City, the south-
west side of town contains the most densely populated areas, while the north-
east area is relatively sparse.
A list of major traffic generators is shown below.Figure 3 indicates the
location of each.The numerical order is not indicative of the relative im-
portance of the generators.
.a
?
,t
f lq
11) Junior and Senior High School
ii
1) Apache Greyhound Park
- Races - April thru June
- Park 'N' Swap - winter
2) Strip commercial
3) Two large churches
4) Superstition Plaza
5) Travel trailer park (727 spaces)
6) Bayless Plaza (shopping center)
7) Apache Junction Post Office
8) Superstition Inn and Grand Old Cars Museum
9) City Hall
10) Travel Trailer Park (681 spaces)
12) Moose Lodge
13) Recreational areas
14) Superstition Elementary School
15) Four Peaks Elementary School
16) Fire Station/County Complex
17)County dump
6
11.00.1110/OLIO
•_,,.- ..
•"rt _"...i"
-1 it 11,.,•1 „_I 1
,I -,....„_._..11...._ ____• i , i
'L. '......11 . 7 f ll RI Al l
;:
'I
I .• . , 1 I '..X.,. rat -:1 ' ..22—..."t = t ,' !I •t I 1
• ..... "'*61.4i•'.1.v s ®,,(_1...'' Z.,,,:,....,.",,,,mr...i•*
19 • I r . , „,,4 •PactiVeiL ,1:7irMaiat... "'
CI .IFI.1—w 4.......:.— .!L .. il.b.; I V.
.1 .4 : ;li -.1 0,';.: ..••;
7.1-,.7 '. 'r ,,I ‘1 !I - f -.4.1 ,-,-,,-.'''
'-.4-1=i4--?I ,11 .. 11 'i _,..J '
.r _.,21 A :
1 ..I q
./
..,1!.7!
•
FIGURE 3.MAJOR TRAFFIC
GENERATORS
32
•• •••••• • 4.11,IM1 1•111=1=1,
=LI 16
N T OUTC01141.SAO
;r i
1 4_•1_22 ••
r
'l i t
•••k 14.
!;N
1 --1
O F F I C I A L
S T R E E T N A M I N G M A P
A P A C H E J U N C T I O N ,
A R I Z O N A
1
11
g
PRC Voorhees
amme
V!
EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The City streets and roads in Apache Junction are arranged basically in a
grid pattern, as shown on Figure 4.The regional highways of U.S. 60/89
and State Route 88 cut diagonally through the grid.The facilities in each
of these classifications are discussed in the paragraphs below, followed by
a discussion of traffic control devices.
Regional Highways
A major regional highway which passes through Apache Junction is U.S. Highway
60/89, part of which is called Apache Trail.The highway is divided with
periodic median crossovers and left turn deceleration lanes.It approaches
from the west, connecting Apache Junction to Phoenix and points west of
Phoenix.As shown on Figure 4, this highway is oriented in a east -west direc-
tion until it reaches the intersection with State Route 88 in the heart of
Apache Junction, at which point it heads southeast connecting Apache Junction
with Globe (via U.S. 60) and Tucson (via U.S. 89).U.S. Highway 60/89 has
six lanes west of Ironwood Drive, five lanes east of Ironwood Drive (two
lanes eastbound), and two eastbound and two westbound lanes east of the
intersection with State Route 88 (North Apache Trail).Access to Apache
Junction from Phoenix is limited to three through routes:Superstition
Boulevard, Apache Trail, and Broadway Avenue.Although there are other
east -west routes in the city, they terminate at, or west of, the city limits.
For example, Brown terminates at the City limits, Baseline at Ellsworth,
•;and Southern at Power Road.t,
2
a State Route 88 (continuation of the Apache Trail) begins at the intersec-
gi41;.•-tion with U.S. 60 and continues northeasterly through Apache Junction.It
t4IJ provides a route to the recreational areas of Apache, Canyon, and Roosevelt
1.1
Lakes.State Route 88 is two lanes wide.
8
LOS?14•TCM1411 tot
1 .
1 8
5
-•
1 .•
5.
Ii
!•
;I
119
Ri _-
1
• p.p.., i• •
1
I--p
.
: , • . ii •r- ' • 4 --- - .- '- .--
L
--' ili
3 0 29
!
SOU T•4 5.Awl
.5•11.5.0111
raw ••
;.1 1
•
I r
t .
•'• 20
&PACK I 1 1 ,•5 . l
!I
a
6.
‘Isio•yr•
4
FIGURE 4.EXISTING
TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM
•
'
_
32
••1
•• •i •Er
:re •••••
bm simmwm••••••••••dm.limm•••.••••Im••1 1,
115 41•11M0 Mi•••••
!I16
1/1115fir•Oe
1: 21
II '.J 1
.1 5505D•••a n
-11
1
Lawn .1,
r
11 1
g
. —
551A R
customer Ian
I 't
15
I
ner!
5
1 1i,,_i„
-r-r-tt- --- —1t. 1.........;.!1,---,
:L22
'4-•
,•;
r
:spurn.
OFFICIAL
STREET NAMING MAP
APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA
1.-
,.
27
.....
521__
;
PRC Voorhees
•!-'t13i
The intersection of these two highways is at the center of the present
Apache Junction business district.It is a major unsignalized "Y" inter-
section with extensive channelization.Within the intersection there are
a possible fifty-seven legal driver decisions and other improper driver
decisions including lane changes, crossover, turns, etc.The complexity
of this intersection is compounded by the presence of adjacent commercial
development which has access onto the highways at several locations near
the intersection.
Local Streets and Roads
The City streets and roads in Apache Junction are arranged in a grid pattern
oriented north to south and east to west.The pattern is not complete as
there are many undeveloped land parcels.
According to a City inventory, there are approximately 109 miles of City
streets of which 64 miles are paved and 45 miles are dirt.A map of
these streets is shown on Figure 4.A list of all the streets with the
corresponding mileage of paved and dirt sections is given in the Appendix.
The current major north -south streets in the City are Meridian Drive,
Tomahawk Road, Ironwood Drive, Idaho Road, and Plaza Drive north of U.S.
Highway 60.The major east -west streets, other than the regional highways,
are Superstition Boulevard and Broadway Avenue.
Traffic Control Devices
As part of this study an inventory of traffic control signs has been con-
ducted.The results of this inventory have been submitted as a separate
document.Recorded information includes the type of sign, locations, pole
type, condition, and whether the sign is standard.or non-standard.
10
Included in the inventory is a listing of all street name signs which
have recently been erected by the City of Apache Junction.
There are presently two traffic signals operating within the City.Both are
on U.S. Highway 60/89:one at the intersection of Ironwood Drive and the
other at the entrance to the Greyhound Race Track west of Delaware Drive.
Traffic Volumes
A traffic flow map obtained from the City of Apache Junction and based
on machine counts conducted in March, 1980, by the Arizona Department of
Transportation is shown in Figure 5.The 1980 average daily traffic volumes
for key facilities are as follows:
Facility:ADT
W. Apache Trail (U.S. Highway 60)
- east of Meridian Dr.
- east of Ironwood Dr.
- west of S.R. 88
- east of S.R. 88
Highway 60
- east of Idaho Rd.
- west of Tomahawk Rd.
- west of Goldfield Rd.
N. Apache Trail (State Route 88)
24,300
25,600
23,100
15,100
11,500
8,800
6,600
- north of Highway 60 5,300
- north of Superstition Blvd.2,900
Superstition Blvd.
- east of Meridian Dr.
- west of Irorwood Dr.
- west of Idaho Rd.
- east of N. Apache Trail
4,700
5,500
3,200
2,100
1 1
-.
SWUM'.
CI
T
Y
BO
U
N
D
A
R
Y
FIGURE 5.TRAFFIC
FLOW MAP
•
CITY OF
APACHE JUNCTION
Oa ..... •
Mil• • • • •t• • • •11
TRAFFIC FLOW MAP
March 19R0
Note:The thickness of the lines denote various degrees of traffic volumes.
The thicker the line the more traffic is being accommodated.
oornees
Broadway Ave.
- east of Meridian Dr.
- east of Ironwood Dr.
- west of U.S. 60
Meridian Rd.
4,600
2,400
2,100
- north of Broadway 2,400
- north of Apache Trail 2,300
Delaware Dr.
- south of Apache Trail 2,000
- north of Apache Trail 2,300
Ironwood Dr.
- south of Broadway Ave.
- south of Apache Trail
- north of Apache Trail
Plaza Dr.
- south of Supersitition Blvd.
Idaho Rd.
- south of Highway 60
Accidents
2,300
4,300
2,400
3,300
3,400
A spot map has been developed based on accident data provided by the
Arizona Department of Transportation.Figure 6 is an illustration of
this map, with each dot representing the location of a traffic accident
which occurred in 1980.
13
de
•1,••••••,P
L4----:
•
!
1
tt
r_1_
C
r t••••R
24.4 MIN
:
wow I .
-r
fa!'r t
. _ L t . 1 •- '••• .4 .1.,. .
...,•1 .1 .1.4r1 ' ; '
i '9,...,....a
.-111 -I :1
I :' •‘11.••--...:..
1
30
RI •
brae-
r Pie
FIGURE 6.ACCIDENT
LOCATIONS
January - December 1980
•t
P-ARROMER.
1111.7r
I CI•
29-
1
.L1
!B M ..MMEMM,
32
dmMR.
OM MEM,M .
16
_
L .
„dd
mMIND •• •MP
A
Sun NSW*,
R•01110•••
V .21 3 ;i
0. •11
•
,
I ,
.,
J
_iirt
_„;
1 ;1
I
1 1
"t
•.;
.18_4
d
11 .
27
StRI,R1••
OFFICIAL
STREET NAMING MAP
APACHE JUNCTION,
ARIZONA
;;
PRC Voorhees
As can be seen, the largest number of accidents is along U.S. Highway 60,
with the heaviest concentrations at the intersections of State Route 88,
Ironwood Drive, Delaware Drive, and the entrance to the dog racing track.
There is also a concentration of accidents at the intersection of State
Route 88 and Idaho Road.
15
III.PRESENT TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS
This section discusses the needs and deficiencies of the Apache Junction
transportation system as it exists today.Future transportation needs,
as determined by projected changes in population, land use, transporta-
tion facilities, and travel patterns, is dealt with in Section IV.
REGIONAL HIGHWAYS
The primary function of a regional highway is to accommodate long distance
travel, although those sections which are in the vicinity of a community
also serve local trips which are much shorter in duration.The two region-
al highways passing through Apache Junction, U.S. Highway 60/89 and State
Route 88, must serve this dual purpose.This results in a situation in
which there are two separate sets of objectives for serving the two types
of traffic, and often a treatment which is beneficial for through traffic
may be a hindrance to local travellers, and vice versa.As an example,
an objective for regional traffic is to minimize travel time which implies
maximizing speed.A tactic which would help meet this objective would be
to reduce the amount of interference from other traffic by incorporating
such measures as access control, elimination of left turns, and restric-
tion to cross street traffic.These treatments would, however, be detri-
mental to local travellers because they have different objectives; among
them are convenient access from either direction to the development which
is adjacent to the roadway and ease of travel across a highway.This
dichotomy cannot feasibly be avoided and must be recognized in the develop-
ment of needs for regional highways.
Intersection of U.S. 60/89 and State Route 88
The most obvious need with regard to regional highways is the improvement
or modification to the intersection of U.S.Highway 60/89 and State Route 88.
The intersection is designed not only to provide for all movements related
16
to the three highway approaches, but to also provide access to Phelps
Drive, Plaza Drive, and the commercial development which surrounds the
intersection.The extensive channelization serves all the movements
without the use of a traffic signal, but results in numerous driver de-
cisions, which is undesirable with respect to safety.This complex
intersection is the result of an attempt to serve the needs of both the
through and local traveller.A sketch of this intersection is shown on
Figure 7.
Recreational Traffic
One of the needs regarding regional highways is to adequately serve the
recreational traffic which is generated by the lakes northeast of Apache
Junction.Virtually the only route between these lakes and the people
of metropolitan Phoenix is State Route 88 through Apache Junction.The
last major access to SR 88 is on Superstition Boulevard.
Access to and from Local Streets
Another issue is the treatment of intersections between the regional high-
ways and local streets.The streets of Apache Junction are oriented in an
east -west and north -south grid pattern while the highways east of the junc-
tion have an alignment which cuts diagonally across the grid.This results
either in skewed intersections, which are undesirable for safety reasons,
or curved alignments of the local street approaches, which uses more land
and is more costly to construct.
Access to and from Adjacent Property
Along much of their length, the regional highways operate in such a manner
as to allow unrestricted access from adjacent land.There are many loca-
tions at which drivers have created unauthorized access points for conven-
ience.Also, there are several locations at which roadside vendors set up
stands on or near the shoulder of the highway.
17
N..—r ......, . . . . . . „ ,_.,.........,.......,.........7.................7„,....71.
--\FICUIRE 7 INTFRSECTION HS 1-11n1.1WAY RC)it,STATE ROUTE RRMMIMI 11 • MEM ••N M l a IN .•• ••• ••••••• •••,• •••,“NW,/•• •• ••• ••• ••••W .Mk/•/M N MEM 11.• , / • • ••MI=MI MI
Vertical Alignment
Some sections of U.S. Highway 60 have been constructed such that the east-
bound lanes are at a different elevation than the westbound lanes.At some
locations along the median crossover, this results in steep grades and poor
visibility, both affecting safety.
Sight Distance
On U.S. Highway 60, which is divided, there are several locations at which
visibility is obstructed by the presence of dirt mounds or brush in the
median and beside the road.These conditions create a potential hazard
for turning traffic, crossover traffic, and traffic accessing the highway
from adjacent property.
LOCAL STREETS AND ROADS
The primary function of local streets and roads is to provide for traffic
circulation within a community and to provide access to the adjacent land.
The paragraphs which follow discuss the needs of the Apache Junction street
and road network.
Functional Classification
A desirable characteristic of a traffic circulation system is to have each
street classified in a hierarchy according to function.There are four
basic categories under which the streets would be classified:arterials,
major collectors, collectors and locals.A description of the function of
each type of street can be seen on page 40.Additionally, each of these
classifications should have performance standards for future development
of roads.
Traffic patterns in Apache Junction have arbitrarily developed because of
the absence of a transportation plan.For example, certain streets are
being used as arterials simply because they are continuous or have pavement.
Another example is a particular route being used as a collector street
19
although it is actually lacking a roadway easement.This type of street
development for traffic circulation is not desirable and could lead to
problems, especially as traffic volumes increase.
Uniformity of Geometrics
As the streets of Apache Junction have developed over the years, various
geometric standards have been applied in determining such features as
pavement width, curb placement, pavement design, etc.This has resulted
in a lack of uniformity as the streets were constructed.In several in-
stances, the inconsistencies occur along a single street segment.There
are several causes for this lack of uniformity, among them the absence of
a classification system, the lack of development performance standards, the
various jurisdictions previously involved, and the developers involved.
Right -of -Way
There are several issues regarding street right-of-way which need to be
cited.First, as with geometrics, there are inconsistencies in the right-
of-way widths, again resulting from the lack of a uniform street classifi-
cation system, the lack of development performance standards, the various
jurisdictions and developers involved, and the federally patented lands.
Second, there are several locations where a private structure is located
within the public right-of-way.
Third, there are some instances where a developer of land adjacent to a
planned street has not been required to dedicate the strip of property
or easement for future public right-of-way.
Fourth, development of roads through state trust properties must be done
by developers who in turn may dedicate such lands for public right-of-way
purposes.The Arizona State Constitution forbids the State Land
Department from dedicating land even for right-of-way without being
reimbursed at fair market value for the land.
20
Sight Distance
Much of the terrain in and around Apache Junction is undulating, having
many dips, mounds, washes, etc.The streets often follow the contour of
the land regardless of the irregularity.This results in numerous loca-
tions at which there is inadequate vertical sight distance for safe opera-
tion.This is especially hazardous at intersections.There are also
some intersections which have obstructions preventing the clear view of
oncoming cross street traffic.
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
Signs
A traffic sign inventory which was conducted as part of this study pointed
out signs which are in need of maintenance or replacement, usually due to
old age, poor conditions or vandalism.There are also many signs which are
nonstandard or unwarranted as determined by the "Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices."For details regarding these findings refer to the inven-
tory results which are on record with the City Engineer at the Department
of Public Works.
•
Signals
There are two signalized intersections in Apache Junction:U.S. 60/89
at Ironwood Road and U.S. 60/89 at the entrance to the Greyhound Race
Track.Both are the responsibility of the Arizona Department of Transpor-
tation.The signal system at U.S. Highway 60/89 and Ironwood Road needs
to be analyzed and re -worked.Because of the wide median on U.S. 60/89, the
signal placement and phasing creates situations which are sometimes con-
fusing to drivers.A more detailed traffic operational analysis is re-
quired to develop a modification to the signal design.
SAFETY
The best measure of safety or lack of safety with a transportation system
is past performance, which is determined by accident records.The traffic
accidents in Apache Junction for the year 1980, as discussed in Section II
and indicated in Figure 5, reveal that the only concentration of accidents
occurs along the regional highways.There are five locations at which
accidents repeatedly occur -- all at intersections.The most significant
of these is the intersection of U.S. Highway 60/89 and State Route 88.
The second is the intersection of U.S. 60/89 and Ironwood Drive.Third
is State Route 88 at Idaho Road.The other two are the adjacent inter-
sections of U.S. 60/89 at Delaware Street and at the entrance to the grey-
hound race track.There are, of course, other reasons for the safety
problems, including high speeds, failing to yield, etc.
DRAINAGE
Contours in many of the local streets create gullies in the drainage
system.During the rainy season, many of these streets become filled
with water and are impassable.These streets become part of the drainage
system indicating a need for better off -road channelization of rain
runoff.
4 -
IV.FUTURE NEEDS
LAND USE AND POPULATION
The -population of Apache Junction is expected to continue its upward
growth over the next twenty years.It is also expected that the general
characteristics of the inhabitants of Apache Junction will remain similar
to those of today; i.e., that there will be a substantial seasonal varia-
tion in the number of people who reside in Apache Junction.According to
the population study conducted by PRC Toups, the population of Apache
Junction for the year 2000 is estimated to be 22,970 people.This reflects
an increase of 131% over 1980 figures.Table 1 shows the population
figures for 1980 and 2000 broken down into city, service area, and seasonal
residents.As can be seen, the maximum effective population is projected
to be approximately 68,430 people, an increase of 130% over 1980.
Land use projections in Apache Junction indicate that residential and com-
mercial development is expected to continue much in the same pattern as it
exists today.In order to accommodate growth, currently vacant land will
be developed into subdivisions, mobile home parks, and other types of dwell-
ing units.The basic trends, however, will most likely remain unchanged,
with the northeast area having low density single family dwelling units
and the southwest area having higher density residential development.Com-
mercial land use will continue to be concentrated along Apache Trail, espe-
cially in the area of the intersection of U.S. 60/89 and State Route 88
and along the future Superstition Freeway corridor.Industrial development
including warehousing is expected to increase in the southern corridor south
of the freeway.It should be recognized if an airport is built in Apache
Junction, it may serve to change the land -use pattern in the City.The
tentative location for a proposed airport is six miles south of Apache
Junction.
23
Table 1
POPULATION INCREASES
Category of Population by Year
Residents 1980 2000 Increase
In City 9,935 22,970 131%
In service
area 2,200 4,940 125%
Seasonal 17,648 40,520 130%
TOTAL 29,783 68,430 130%
Sources:1) PRC Toups, "Population Analysis for the City of
Apache Junction, Arizona," October, 1980.
2) U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census Count.
24
FUTURE TRAVEL PATTERNS
Projections for future travel patterns and traffic volumes are based on
various criteria which affect the demand for travel such as population,
land -use patterns, location of traffic generators, and employment statis-
tics.Also taken into consideration are such factors as the physical
transportation network, the availability of alternative transportation
modes, driver habits and preferences, and the cost and availability of
gasoline.
The discussion of future traffic patterns in Apache Junction is divided
into two categories, regional highways and local facilities.These are
treated separately because of the differences in function, traffic charac-
teristics, and needs.
Regional Highways
Future travel on the regional highways, which include U.S. Highway 60/89,
State Route 88, and the proposed extension of the Superstition Freeway
can be treated as two possible scenarios.One is with the complete ex-
tension of the Superstition Freeway from its present terminus to an inter-
section with U.S. 60/89 southeast Of the current city limits of Apache Junc-
tion.As shown in Figure 1, the alignment for this proposed facility is
south of Apache Junction in the vicinity of the mid -section line between
Southern Avenue and Baseline Avenue, extending in an east -west direction.
The second scenario is without the completion of this freeway link.
If the Superstition Freeway were extended as proposed, it would attract
most of the through east -west traffic which otherwise would use U.S. 60/89
through Apache Junction.In the vicinity of Apache Junction, the year 2000
25
average daily traffic volume on this freeway is projected to be 15,000
1/vehicles —.The corresponding traffic volumes on U.S. 60/89 in Apache
Junction are projected to be 14,000 vehicles per day.If the freeway were
not extended, traffic which has been assigned to it would seek an alter-
nate east -west route, the most probable being U.S. 60/89.With this
scenario, traffic volumes on U.S. 60/89 would approach 30,000 vehicles
per day.Figure 8 shows the year 2000 traffic volumes for each of these
scenarios.
Another issue regarding regional travel patterns is the traffic generated
by the lakes and recreational areas northeast of Apache Junction.These
facilities will continue to generate traffic on State Route 88, especially
in the summer months.If the Supersitition Freeway were complete, most
of this recreational traffic would use it and State Route 88 for access.
The primary concern with regard to Apache Junction would be the route
choice of travellers between the Freeway and State Route 88.If this
route were along a north -south arterial west of the junction of U.S. 60/89
and S.R. 88, the recreational traffic would be added to Apache Trail and
to the intersection.If the route were east of the junction, this traf-
fic may avoid some of the congested areas of Apache Junction.For the
scenario of the freeway not having been completed, this recreational traf-
fic would be using U.S. 60/89 and State Route 88, as it presently does.
A final issue regarding the Superstition Freeway is the access route from
the freeway to the city of Apache Junction.The arterial streets which
will have an interchange with the freeway will experience increased traf-
fic volumes because they will be the link between Apache Junction and the
freeway.Current plans by the Arizona Department of Transportation indi-
cate that interchanges are proposed for Ironwood Drive and Tomahawk Road.
1/— Source for traffic volume projections is the Maricopa Association of
Governments (MAG).
26
7 „.1
k •
U.S.6 0
.1.00051111•11..11
PROPOSED SUPERSTITION FREEWAY
24,000
EXISTING
t U.S.6 0 14,000
r •
1.14
7 'r
SUPERSTITION FREEWAY
15,000
2,000 WITH FREEWAY
U.S. 60
PROPOSED *SUPERSTITION FREEWAY'
,a•-• • o.t.
30,000
SR 8 8
U.S.6 0
SR 8 8
U.S.6 0
SR 8 8
2,000 WITHOUT FREEWAY -141 U.S. 60
FIGURE 8.REGIONAL HIGHWAYS
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES
PR
C
V
o
o
r
h
e
e
s
Local Facilities
Local streets in Apache Junction primarily accommodate traffic with
origins and/or destinations within the City.Travel patterns on these
facilities are, therefore, determined by such things as population,
employment, and major traffic generators.As Apache Junction develops
between now and the year 2000, the basic land uses will most likely
remain as they are today and open areas will be developed.The density of
development will increase, however, as indicated by a doubling in popula-
tion.The economy of Apache Junction will most likely continue to be
retail and service based, unless industrial development is attracted to
the area south of the proposed city limits.
The resulting traffic patterns will be similar to those of today, except
that traffic volumes will increase twofold, as it is related directly to
population.The automobile will continue to be the primary mode of
transportation, although there will be increased emphasis on public transit
and the use of bicycles.Today many persons can be seen bicycling for
recreation and for travel to commercial areas.Traffic volumes will
experience seasonal variations relative to population fluctuations, with
the winter months experiencing up to three times the volume of traffic
as that of summer.
FUTURE TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
In general, the transportation system for Apache Junction in the year 2000
must provide sufficient roadway capacity to serve the greatly increased
population.It must also provide for a more complete network of arterial,
major collector and collector streets on which automobile traffic can
smoothly travel from point to point.The transportation needs for the year
2000 are basically similar to those of today except that the volume demand
for travel will be increased.The issues, therefoie, are the same as dis-
cussed In Section III with the addition of the following items.
28
Completeness of Network
In order to serve
and roads must be
continuous in all
the increased traffic volumes,
more complete.
developed areas
the network of streets
Arterial and collector streets must be
in order to provide for traffic circu-
lation in an east -west as well as a north -south direction.This will
necessitate that the additional lanes currently undeveloped be developed
according to city standards, except that certain areas north and east of
the study area may not need full expansion due to lesser traffic volumes.
Section line roads such as Lost Dutchman Boulevard, Baseline Avenue,
McKellips Boulevard and other arterials will have to be extended.
Through Traffic
Because of the increased volume of through
that sufficient capacity be provided in an
around Apache Junction.If completed, the
serve through traffic.
traffic, it must be ensured
east -west direction through or
Superstition Freeway will
Access to Apache Junction from the Superstition Freeway
Assuming the completion of the proposed Superstition Freeway south of Apache
Junction, access must be provided for traffic using this facility with
an origin or destination in Apache Junction.The arterials selected to
have an interchange with the freeway will provide this route and will,
therefore, experience increased traffic volumes.Such arterials need to
be capable of handling the traffic flow and must be compatible with the
adjacent land use.Such existing arterial roads will have to be expanded
to the full width at least to Superstition Boulevard in order to carry
the additional traffic volumes.
Recreational Traffic
The issue of traffic to and from the recreational areas northeast of Apache
Junction has been discussed on page 17, however, that discussion did not
29
•consider the impact of the Superstition Freeway.Assuming the freeway is
operating, there is a need for accommodating traffic which uses the freeway
and State Route 88 via the streets of Apache Junction.It is desirable that
this through recreational traffic have minimal adverse impacts on local
Apache Junction traffic.Expansion of arterial routes and State Route 88
to their full width will be necessary.
30
V.TRANSPORTATION PLAN
This section of the report presents the recommended actions based on an
analysis of the present transportation conditions as well as those anti-
cipated for the future.The approach taken is to treat each issue
separately, first discussing the proposed
then recommending a plan of action.
down into the following categories,
issues are interrelated.
•Regional highways
•Local streets and highways
•Traffic control devices
•Other modes
•Other issues
alternatives for improvements,
The discussion will be broken
although it is recognized that the
These recommendations are based primarily on an evaluation of how they
would improve the transportation system of Apache Junction, but such
other criteria as political approval, public acceptance, and financial
feasibility were also considered.
REGIONAL HIGHWAYS
This section presents several alternatives for improving the regional
highway system as it relates to the City of Apache Junction. The advan-
tages and disadvantages of each alternative are discussed and evaluated,
then recommendations are presented.
U.S. Highway 60/89
There are several issues regarding U.S. Highway 60/89 as it relates to
Apache Junction.First is the intersection with State Route 88, which is
discussed below as a separate issue.Second is the difference in roadway
31
levels along the divided highway, which is discussed below.The other
two issues, which apply to both U.S. 60 and State Route 88, are the
treatment of access to local facilities and access to adjacent property.
Different Roadway Elevations.There are three basic methods of dealing
with this situation.One is to reconstruct the road so that the two
divided roadways are on the same vertical alignment.Second is to pro-
hibit movement through the median.This measure may help in increasing
safety but would have an adverse effect on traffic circulation by elimi-
nating left -turns from U.S. 60 onto the cross streets and from the cross
streets onto U.S. 60.It would also eliminate the crossing of traffic
over U.S. 60.The third strategy would be to allow median crossovers
at selected locations, ensuring that these intersections include measures
to increase safety.This is essentially a compromise solution.It is
recommended that this third strategy be adopted at locations where there
is presently, or may be, a median crossover for section line, mid-
section line and collector roads.These locations should be designed
with adequate left -turn storage lanes in the median of U.S. 60/89 and,
where possible, deceleration lanes for right turns off of the highway.
In locations having visual obstructions, the obstructions should be
removed to the degree that the safety hazard is eliminated.
Private Access Onto U.S. 60.Access onto U.S. 60 from abutting property
should be prohibited except where a permit has been issued by ADOT and
approved by the City.In areas of urban -type design with curb and gutters,
access can be controlled through curb cut regulation.At sections without
curbs, access can be controlled by paved turnouts.
Access Onto City Streets.There are two issues regarding the intersec-
tions between U.S. 60 and the City streets.One is the intersection
spacing; the other is the design.With regard to spacing there are
trade-offs in determining the optimum spacing between intersections.
Traffic on U.S. 60 operates more smoothly if the spacing is kept at a
maximum;however, the requirements of local traffic circulation are
32
better served with shorter spacing.For U.S. Highway 60, the recommended
spacing for full intersections is 1/4 mile; i.e., at section line roads,
mid -section line roads, and collector roads.This does not include the
intersections which would occur at the U.S. 60/Route 88 junction.There
are some locations where additional intersections are presently needed
because of the lack of a complete local circulation network, such as the
intersections of Grand Drive and Saguaro Drive with U.S. 60.These loca-
tions should allow for turn -in and right turn -out only for the interim
period, then should be eliminated when a complete grid of collectors and
arterials and quarter section streets becomes operational in the area.
The other issue is the design of the intersections.For the intersections
at 1/4 mile intervals all turning movements must be provided for, which
implies the use of median crossovers where U.S. 60 is divided.
For the section of U.S. 60 east of the junction, which is aligned diago-
nally through the Apache Junction street grid, there are alternative
methods for designing the intersections.One is to have perpendicular
intersections, which requires curved alignments of the cross streets.
This is more costly and uses more land.The other alternative is to main-
tain a straight alignment for the cross streets, which results in skewed
intersections.This is potentially a less safe situation.
The recommended strategy is to accept the use of skewed intersections and
to allow for crossing of the U.S. 60 median. These improvements are de-
signed to increase driver and pedestrian safety by providing proper
sight distances, reduction of grades, and improved alignments of streets
across U.S. 60.A typical sketch of this type of intersection is shown
in Figure 9.This schematic diagram is for Tomahawk Road at U.S. 60,
but is applicable to all such intersections.
33
„
"6
3
1
:
1
1
1
0
1
A
N0
1
1
3
3
S
8
3
1
N
1
0
3
M
a
N
S
TOMAHAWK ROAD
•
”
:/F•I I :•I *leo I •ff..•/pairj •/Ai ••
I WAN,•f f ••
////••"7 •
/•like.I •I 175,/
•1.••••f f •
•
••••
••••I I I ••
•
:/•
•/I
••
•
IS••S.•_•e•
S.-/UV
•••
••
•••
••. 1 •
•••
•
•••
•
!•
•
•1 •
Nialgy
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
of
-PRC Voorhees
State Route 88
Issues regarding State Route 88 are similar to those of U.S. Highway 60.
The intersection with U.S. 60 is discussed in the next section while recom-
mendations for access to and from local facilities and abutting land are
exactly the same as discussed for U.S. 60.Recreational traffic has been
discussed under "Regional Highways - Superstition Freeway."The other
major issue regarding Route 88 is discussed as follows.
Rerouting of State Route 88.An idea which has been presented as an alter-
native for improving the traffic conditions at the intersection of U.S.
Highway 60 and State Route 88 is to reroute the segment of State Route 88
from its present location between Idaho Road and U.S. 60 to a new alignment
which follows Idaho Road.The new segment would begin at the intersection
of State Route 88 at Idaho Road, continuing to U.S. Highway 60 at Idaho Road.
This realignment would improve the situation at the existing junction by
eliminating the volume of traffic making turns from U.S. 60 onto State
Route 88.Utilizing the current design, the change would have a negative
impact on the intersection of Idaho Road at U.S. 60 due to increased traffic
voluMes and higher accident potential.Another disadvantage is that it
increases the travel distance for vehicles moving between U.S. 60 (west
approach) and State Route 88.In order to be effective in changing travel
patterns, the movements between U.S. 60 and State Route 88 must be re-
strained.A possible long-range advantage of changing the route of State
Route 88 is that if an interchange with the Superstition Freeway were con-
structed at Idaho Road, as discussed under "Regional Highways -Superstition
Freeway,"State Route 88 would be continued to the Freeway along existing
Idaho Road.This arterial would become an important transportation corridor
and the new alignment of State Route 88 along Idaho Road would be more con-
sistent with regional travel demand.The abandoned segment and the junc-
tion would then have a diminished degree of importance, and could be modi-
fied to be more responsive to local needs.For instance, access from Plaza
Drive onto existing State Route 88 could be eliminated and changed to a cul-
de-sac.Local access to this commercial area would then be from the north,
possibly aided by the extension of Scenic Street between Plaza Drive and
State Route 88.
An alternative corridor for the realignment of State Route 88 is along the
right-of-way for the transmission lines located east of the City Boundary.
With this alignment, State Route 88 would terminate at the location where
the Superstition Freeway is proposed to connect with U.S. Highway 60.
This alternative would require the construction of approximately four miles
of new roadway.If implemented, it would divert numerous through vehicles
from the business and commercial areas of Apache Junction.
Because of the long-term and regional benefits, it is recommended that
State Route 88 be relocated onto Idaho Road and abandoned along its pre-
sent alignment west of Idaho Road.This improvement could lead to greater
separation of internal city traffic and external through traffic.This
would improve the flow, safety and circulation of. both.Other safety
Issues can be reduced or resolved by a redesign of the current intersection.
Intersection of U.S. 60 and State Route 88
There are several possible alternatives for dealing with the intersection
of U.S. Highway 60/89 and State Route 88.One is to reroute State Route 88
onto Idaho Road as discussed above, providing new access to local commercial
areas,•and eliminating the intersection.Another is to allow the inter-
section to operate as it currently does but to reduce interference by
eliminating access to adjacent property such as the Superstition Inn and
to local streets such as Plaza Drive.This would improve the operation of
the intersection for through traffic but would be highly objectionable to the
local travellers and to the owners and users of the nearby establishments.
Another alternative is to construct a grade separation to eliminate the
conflict between left turning vehicles and opposing through traffic.
This would greatly increase the capacity of the junction, but has the dis-
advantages of encouraging higher speeds, using important commercial area
land, and being expensive.It would also alter the local commercial/
retail character of the area.
36
Another alternative is to reconstruct the intersection into a form which
would increase safety, simplify operation, and maintain capacity.The
design for such a reconstruction could be a "T" intersection or a varia-
tion thereof.The intersection could be signalized as warranted by traf-
fic volumes.Access to adjacent land could be maintained.
The last alternative is to allow the intersection to remain unchanged.
This alternative is, of course, the easiest and least costly, but it
would result in a less desirable situation than exists today as traffic
volumes would increase through the years.
Although the ultimate decision on this particular location should be
tied to other regional issues (e.g., the Superstition Freeway), it is
recommended that State Route 88 be rerouted onto Idaho Road and the pre-
sent junction eliminated.This improvement would be most consistent
with a decision to construct freeway ramps onto Idaho Road, but would
increase safety within the city regardless of that decision.
Superstition Freeway
Plans by the Arizona Department of Transportation call for the eventual
extension of the Superstition Freeway from its present terminus in Mesa
to a future intersection with U.S. Highway 60/89 southeast of Apache
Junction.For the purposes of this report, this proposed project is con-
sidered as "given".It will be constructed in stages, as determined by
the availability of funding, and the exact year of completion has not
yet been programmed, however, it is supposed to be fully operational
before year 2000.The freeway as currently planned will have two lanes
in each direction and access ramps located no closer than one mile
apart.In the vicinity of Apache Junction, the ramps are expected to be
less frequent.
37
Access Routes to Apache Junction.The major issue with regard to Apache
Junction is the choice of which arterials are to be provided with an
interchange.The routes onto which freeway access is provided will be-
come important links between the freeway and Apache Junction.
There are two scenarios which are under consideration, as shown on
Figure 10. The first one, which has already been designed by the Arizona
Department of Transportation is to have interchanges at Ironwood Drive
and Tomahawk Road.The second alternative is to have interchanges at
Tomahawk Road and Idaho Road.The first scenario is better suited to
widespread regional transportation needs and, therefore, has already
been designed and approved by ADOT.Interchanges at these two locations
are apparently more desirable in serving the area of Pinal County south
of the proposed freeway.A disadvantage is that increased traffic volumes
would be placed on Ironwood Drive, a facility which has the Superstition
Mountain Elementary School and the Apache Junction Junior and Senior High
Schools along that corridor.
Favoring the second alternative is the fact that traffic which travels
between the freeway and State Route 88, such as the recreational traffic,
would not be an added burden to Apache Trail and to the intersection of
U.S. 60 and State Route 88.It would instead traverse Idaho Road between
the freeway and State Route 88.Another advantage of the second alterna-
tive is the fact that there are a number of encroachments into the ulti-
mate right-of-way along Ironwood Drive whereas there are no such encroach-
ments along Idaho Road.Since the particular route connecting with the
freeway would undoubtedly have a more critical need for full build out,
it would be less disruptive to adjacent development to use Idaho Road
instead of Ironwood Drive.
Based on the above discussion, it has been determined that traffic flow
in Apache Junction would benefit most by the construction of freeway
interchanges at Idaho Road and Tomahawk Road.There is a possibility,
38
LEGEND
ALTERNATIVE 1
(AS DESIGNED
BY ADOT)
---ALTERNATIVE 2
(AS PROPOSED)
-"------t
1.. •
'I
0:11
rc
SAl
2
11.11111,14.11
'
11
--1-1-1
•4.0111 CIVEC.0.•
9
V .1 1•21 _OVECIIII•11 SAO
•1•••mi•MIM=M.••1 d=•11 .11.EIS
.1
11
L1,1„,
30
1
11MM.g •
.1 .1 .
f:
41.0
•1 .47 ].
i I
FIGURE 10. ALTERNATIVES
FOR FREEWAY ACCESS
.-.PRC Voorhees
111
1 3
:z
• r.
•
20
1!1
1
•••••••
o_m_vt_ne_
29 •.1;
)i• i-j•-
v,
I 6
11.1•11.111,1•0111 •••
1.1 1•1
1
11 21 .
I .7 -
t r .
I 111.11•11 11 10 .1 1
t
t 1111• • •11.
II
111.0•01...
I I 1
••
15
PIM"
' N•DE •
;
1,1E11..4
1--
';'"'" •
,•1 22 •
>
P.•.
24
,
S
1 2 .'.!o
1-
;
_i
27
SUPERSTITION FREEWAY
;;
however, that this cannot be implemented due to reasons external to the
needs of Apache Junction, primarily related to regional access to the
freeway from other areas in Pinal County.However, if the changes to
the U.S. 60/S.R. 88 intersection are made as described above, the align-
ment of S.R. 88 onto Idaho Road would make this an attractive route for
access onto the freeway.If S.R. 88 is not realigned, the use of
Tomahawk and Ironwood would remain as more attractive routes.However,
the expansion of both roads to full capacity would have to be accomplished.
LOCAL STREETS
This section presents recommendations as they apply to characteristics
of the local street network in Apache Junction.
Functional Classification
It is recommended that every street and road in Apache Junction be classi-
fied in a hierarchy according to function.The four major functional
classifications are arterials, major collectors,collectors, and locals,
which are described below:
e Arterials - provide for through traffic movement between
areas and across the city with some direct access to abut-
ting property.They are subject to required control of
entrances, exits, and curb use.
O Major Collectors - Provide for traffic movement between
arterials and collector streets.
•Collectors - provide for traffic movement from local to
major collector streets.
•Locals - Local streets provide for direct access to abutting
land and for local traffic movement.
These clasifications are consistent with the Street Classification Plan
which has been adopted by the City of Apache Junction.The relationship
between the two is as follows:
Functional Classification City Street Plan
Arterial Section line
Major Collector Mid -section Line
Collector 1/4 - 1/4 line
Local All other streets
A map showing all the City streets according to functional classifica-
tion can be seen on Figure 11.As shown, the pattern is fairly consistent
with the typical section having arterials on the section line and major
collectors on the mid -section line.There are deviations in Sections 19
and 20 as a result of U.S. Highway 60/89 being located on the mid -section
line.A meandering alignment such as Royal Palm Road in Section 28 is
also acceptable.
The pattern of arterials and major collectors should be continued in a simi-
lar manner for the sections of the service area outside the City.
Geometrics and Right -of -Way
The standards for pavement width and right-of-way width adopted by the City
are acceptable for serving the needs of each type of street.A listing
of these standards is as follows:
Street Section -
Back of Curb to
Right -of -Way Back of Curb
Classification (Width in Feet)(Width in Feet)
Arterial 100 64
Major Collector 80 50
Collector 60 42
Local 50 32
41
LEGEND
a l REGIONAL HIGHWAY
111.1.1 ARTERIALS
-- MAJOR
COLLECTORS
FIGURE 11.STRE
CLAS
SYST
111/111 It I IN ......i,n.
,•••.••.......,.I .
,.....,
-...s.
_s_...—sen.•..
._.____..,_.0111
.•
•1
'IL. IL
,
I
MPS,I/
f
las I i .ii
•......
t_r_,_
•IFFIT.3..,!
II
I.
9 7',.....--..—MS.• ..
WPM v t
ll .
_
ar.::,.d.
•
..
.:4
.•&
-+:-.;;:ii
i.,.......1 _,•=4-.:7.,.,-f...i.1:.•i
i
1!1 •i ...
.r......"
.-.,_
''''
,I .1 1 I .4-4 `1.'t .•
V...,
-' '•---.---•1 Z !I X1 1!i 1
1 ..!!I 'f .,
,
t ;1 k1 _1 I I ;•1
I •1 •
1 4 ..•l '
1 -1 l .:
-rrl •ri-._,
.r et.:
.-.
i •..a
,1 •v......_ii,.„..._-! r•.
_......_...
1.(!.., ..2729.
L,--.•__,....._
._ .., ,.- -_
.1....-____...,_. _,.I'.........- ,
IOWAN*• t
........it 1 i.• ,...
V :
SUPERSTITION FREEWAY
ET
I3IFICATION
EM .i
—PRC Voorhees
These standards are applicable to ultimate build out for each facility
and should be implemented in stages as development occurs.
An exception to maximum pavement width for arterials should be considered
between the Salt River Project KV lines and the area north and east of
said lines where the roads terminate at national forest boundaries.If
such areas are determined to remain at low density then road capacity
requirements may not justify full development.Assuming such is determined,
then the extra width should be allocated for equestrian trails connecting
trails along the power lines with the forest service area.
Intersection
Intersections of City streets should be treated in such a manner as to
ensure safe, smooth traffic operation.For an intersection of two streets
having different functional classifications, the one with the higher
classification must be given priority as determined by the type of traffic
control device.Adequate sight distance should be provided for safe
movement into the intersection.
Intersections of arterials and local streets other than those on quarter
section lines should be avoided if a feasible alternate access route is
available.Examples of this are at the intersections of Rennick Drive
@ Superstition Boulevard, Colt Road @ Broadway Avenue, and 22nd Avenue
@ Idaho Road.With low traffic volumes on the arterials there is little
immediate problem, but as volumes grow and the arterials become more im-
portant for traffic flow, operation could be hindered by such local
street access points.
Access Control
Access onto the City streets from abutting property should be controlled
by statute, by which the City permits only a limited number of access
points onto a street or by control by curb cut regulations.
43
Control of access from abutting property is most applicable to arterial
streets where access to the land is secondary to traffic flow.
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
Signs
The inventory of traffic control signs in the City of Apache Junction,
which was conducted as part of this study, should be kept up-to-date at
all times.It is recommended that a filing system for the traffic control
device inventory be implemented.The "edge -notched" card (ENC) system
is a relatively simple and inexpensive method which may be appropriate
for Apache Junction.It is further recommended that all non-standard
signs be replaced or removed and all signs in bad condition be replaced.
All of those falling into these categories are identified in the Traffic
Control Sign Inventory.
With regard to intersection, stop signs or yield signs should be used to
assign right-of-way, if warranted by the "Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices," (MUTCD).
At the intersection of two streets with different functional classifica-
tions, the less important street should normally have the stop or yield
sign.For intersections of two streets of the same classification, the
one with less traffic volumes should ordinarily be controlled with a sign.
If the traffic volumes are approximately equal, the use of a four-way
stop may be warranted.The recommendations of the MUTCD should be used
for all sign installations.
Signals
.A traffic signal warrant analysis conducted by ADOT indicates that the
intersection of U.S. 60 and Idaho Road does warrant a signal installation.
Signals are not warranted at any other locations at this time.However,
as volumes increase, needs will change.Analysis of the need for traffic
44
signals in the future should be done according to the methods outlined
in the MUTCD.There are eight warrants which should be investigated:
Warrant 1 - Minimum vehicle volume
Warrant 2 - Interruption of continuous traffic
Warrant 3 - Minimum pedestrian volume
Warrant 4 - School crossings
Warrant 5 - Progressive movement
Warrant 6 - Accident experience
Warrant 7 - Systems
Warrant 8 - Combination of Warrants
A detailed discussion of each of these begins on page 236 of the MUTCD.
GUIDELINES FOR OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
In order to encourage the use of modes of transportation other than the
automobile, provision for them must be incorporated into the Apache
Junction transportation system.This section contains a very brief dis-
cussion of general guidelines to follow in planning for these modes.
Bicycle
Use of the bicycle is popular in Apache Junction both for recreational
purposes and as a means of transportation, so it is desirable that bike-
ways be provided. A bikeway should be separated from vehicular traffic
wherever possible, but if not, they should be located on streets of low
traffic volume.Fixed bicycle racks or lockers should be provided at
points of destination, such as at Bayless Plaza, the Post Office,
Superstition Plaza, City Hall, the schools, and the churches.
Bike routes through residential areas could easily be established on
streets and roads, where paved.Facilities for parking and storage of
bicycles in residential areas would not be a significant issue because
of the nature of these areas.
45
In commercial/retail areas the most significant issue is safety and
bicycle parking.It is recommended that bicycle storage racks be placed
at locations where significant bicycle use is anticipated.The key
street planning issue to be considered is to ensure that bicycle-
pedestrian and bicycle -vehicle conflicts are minimized.Both are
important considerations.
Pedestrian
Provision for pedestrian flow is essential in nearly all developed
areas of Apache Junction.In areas of low density and low traffic
volumes, the shoulder of the road should be adequate.It is recog-
nized that during the rainy season these are not usable but very
little pedestrian activity normally occurs under these conditions.
Also, the shoulders are sometimes too steep or too close to brush
along the side of the road.Although these are potential problems,
it is not suggested that any special facilities be constructed in
these low density areas.However, in densely populated areas, in
the commercial/retail areas, and along streets equipped with curbs,
a concrete sidewalk is necessary.The width of these sidewalks
should be 4 to 6 feet.They should be set back at least 10 feet
from the curb or edge of pavement along arterials and major collec-
tors, and at least 6 feet from collectors and local streets.Inter-
sections in these areas should be marked with a pedestrian cross-
walk.
Horse Trails
Because of the popularity of recreational horseback riding in Apache
Junction, it should be a policy that certain areas or strips of land
be set aside to preserve horse trails as development occurs.Good
examples of potential land are along the various arterials which
would lead to the various parks which are currently being discussed
46
in areas north of the City.Equine trails which run adjacent to and
along these arterials would be most easily accomplished by preserving
these lands now.
Public Transportation
To serve the needs of the transit dependent population and to provide
an alternative to the automobile, public transit should be incorporated
into the Apache Junction transportation scheme. The population and employ-
ment densities of Apache Junction may not justify a regularly scheduled,
fixed route system.However, because of the type of population, espe-
cially the high percentage of elderly persons, it is ideally suited for
special transit services such as a demand -responsive system or subscrip-
tion service.A demand -responsive system, such as dial -a -ride, has vehi-
cles which are on -call to provide door-to-door service for its patrons.
This is particularly desirable for the elderly and handicapped.Subscrip-
tion service is intended to serve specific activity centers on a regular
basis, such as picking up a group of people who live near each other and
taking them to a prescribed destination.This service could be used for
regular trips from a residential area to the downtown area, for example.
Air Transportation
A study is currently being conducted for a master plan and site selection
for a proposed Apache Junction Airport.A need has been determined and
a preferred site has been selected by the consultant, which is approxi-
mately seven miles southeast of the center of Apache Junction, on the
south side of U.S. Highway 60.However, no official action has been
taken by the airport commission or the City Council to accept or approve
the study, as it is incomplete at this time.
47
OTHER ISSUES
Preferential Routing
For administrative, planning, and design purposes it is desirable that
traffic volumes on arterials, major collectors, collectors and locals
be consistent with the functional classification.To encourage travel-
lers to use arterials and major collectors for longer trips and to dis-
courage the use of collectors and locals for such trips, preferential
treatment should be applied to arterial streets over collectors, and
collectors over locals.This can be accomplished by several methods.
Because of the lack of pavement on many of the streets in Apache
Junction, when a decision is to be made as to priorities for paving,
an arterial street should take priority over a major collector if
other criteria are similar.As travellers generally prefer to use
paved facilities,this will encourage the desired travel patterns.
Traffic can also be encouraged to use arterials by using signing strat-
egies which make the arterials more appealing.
Right -of -Way Infringement
For those street corridors in which private structures are located
within the ultimate right-of-way strip the recommended strategy is as
follows.If the facility is not being operated at the volume required
for expansion and if the infringement is not causing problems, then let
it stand. However, at the point in time at which transportation demand
dictates improvement of the facility, all infringements must be removed
or condemned.As future development occurs, further right-of-way
infringements should be eliminated by requiring setbacks to or from
future right of way lines.This is especially true in the outlying
areas where arterials need to have their right-of-way preserved or at
least designated to prevent future infringement.
48
County Coordination
Where streets lie on the City -County Line, the County should require the
development of their side of the street to City standards.This is of
much greater significance to the City since many of these streets become
important parts of the City's circulation system.Lost Dutchman Boule-
vard is a good example where a section of road is not being developed on
the County side but would be on the City side.
It would be advantageous if the County institutes a requirement for
dedication of right-of-way according to county standards as appears
in the Final County subdivision ordinance for all developments.Further
for these dedicated streets performance standards should be developed
which determine time tables for requiring development and development
standards for improvements.
49
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
Road Mileage
Apache Junction, Arizona
Street Name Total Miles Paved Unpaved
Acacia Rd..84 0 .84
Apache Dr..42 .23 ..19
Arizona Rd..30 .30 0
Belair Rd..35 .20 .15
Belmar Ct..06 .06 0
Bowman Rd..75 0 .75
Broadway Ave.4.00 3.00 1.00
Buena Vista Dr..39 .39 0
Bulldog Mine Rd..39 0 .39
Cactus Rd.1.69 .72 .97
Cardinal Dr..13 .13 0
Cactus Wren St..52 .39 .13
Cedar Dr..94 .81 .13
Cholla St..31 .31 0
Coconino Dr..53 .23 .30
Cody St..67 .17 .50
Colt Rd..37 .37 0
Concho St..13 0 .13
Copper Dr..35 .35 0
Cornwall St..19 .19 0
Cortez Rd..2.25 .25 2.00
Datil Ave..13 .13 0
Delaware Dr.2.50 2.18 .32
Del Rio St..25 .25 0
Deniza Rd...21 .21 0
Descanso Rd..19 .19 0
Desert View Dr..81 .81 0
Desert View Pl..25 .25 0
18th Ave.1.01 .76 .25
Escondido St..06 0 .06
5th Ave..89 .89 0
15th Ave..54 .29 .25
1st Ave..10 .10 o
Foothill St.1.03 0 1.03
4th Ave.2.24 .44 1.80
14th Ave..50 .50 0FredAve..13 ..13 0
Gold Dr.1.25 .87 .38
Goldfield Rd.1.61 0 1.61
Grand Dr.1.20 1.07 .13
Greasewood St.1.19 .25 .94
Gregory St..41 .41 0
Hale Dr..50 .50 0
Higo Cr..04 .04 0
Hilton Rd.1.45 0 1.45
Street Name Unpaved
Idaho Rd.3.00 2.75 .25
Ironwood Dr.3.00 2.68 .32
Junction Dr.2.00 0 2.00
Lago Dr..17 .17 0
Lawson Dr..50 .50 0
Lawther Dr..66 .60 .06
Lost Dutchman Blvd..81 0 .81
Lucy Court .11 .11 0
Main Dr.1.00 .75 .25
Manzanita St..51 0 .51
Mara Dr..69 .69 0
Mariposa Rd..33 .08 .25
Meridian Dr.3.00 1.80 1.20
Mockingbird St..25 0 .25
Montebello Ave..28 .28 0
Monterey Dr..35 .29 .06
Moreno St..23 .23 0
9th Ave..43 .43 0
19th Ave..69 .52 .17
Ocotillo Dr.1.53 1.53 0
Ohio St..45 .45 0
Olmo Cr..04 .04 0
Padre Rd..17 .17 0
Palomino Ave..07 0 .07
Palo Verde Dr.1.13 1.13 0
Papago Dr...23 0 .23
'Phelps Dr..52 .52 0
Picana Cr..04 .04 0-
Pinal Dr..63 .63 0
Pino Cr..04 °.04 0
Pinto Dr..13 0 .13
Pinyon Dr..35 .35 0
Plaza Dr.1.34 1.34 0
Rawhide St..19 0 .19
Rennick Dr..50 .50 0
Roosevelt St..66 .66 0
Rosal Ave..20 .20 0
•Roundup St.• ..1.45 o 1.45
Royal Palm Blvd.2.02 1.10 .92
Sahuaro Dr.1.19 1.13 .06
San Marcos Dr.2.19 1.32 .87
Scenic St.2.19 .75 1.44
2nd Ave.1.33 .08 1.25
17th Ave.1.12 .93 .19
Ship Rock St.1.38 0 1.38
Sierna Vista Rd..31 .31 0
Siesta St..19 0 .19
Silver Dr..35 .35 0
Total Miles Paved
Street Name
6th Ave.
16th Ave.
Smoketree St.
Smythe Dr.
Solana Rd.
Southern Ave.
Stagecoach Rd.
Starr Rd.
Superstition Blvd.
Tamarisk St.
10th Ave.
Tepee St.
3rd Ave.
13th Ave.
Thunderbird Dr.
Tomahawk Rd.
12th Ave.
20th Ave.
21st Ave.
22nd Ave.
23rd Ave.
Valley Dr.
Vaquero Rd.
Virginia St.
Vista Rd.
Warner Dr.
Weaver Dr.
Wells Fargo Ave.
Wickiup Rd.
Winchester Rd -.
M.H.P.
-7;RAND TOTAL
•
Total Miles Paved Unpaved
.31 0 .31
1.34 .71 .63
.56 0 .55
.25 .25 0
.12 0 .12
3.00 1.87 1.13
.03 0 .03
2.50 0 2.50
4.00 4.00 0
.39 .39 0
.64 .36 .28
2.86 .69 2.17
.08 .08 0
.63 .44 .19
. 83 .83 0
2.00 .68 1.32
1.93 .99 .94
1.45 1.03 .42
1.14 .97 .17
1.00 .83 .17
. 71 .54 .17
1.38 1.00 .38
.25 0 .25
. 62 .62 0
1.77 .21 1.56
1.07 1.07 0
.04 .04 0
.06 0 .06
1.75 0 1.75
1.53 1.53 0
.60 .60 0
108.86 63.55 45.31
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA
APACHE JUNCTION PROJECT NO.PL80-1 (IN PART)
MAY 1981
Prepared By:
PRC TOUPS •
4131 North 24th Street
Suite 110
Phoenix,Arizona 85016
(602)954-9191
(This report was funded in part by grant FCRC No.101-811-082-2
.--•awarded t o the City of Apache Junction,Arizona,by the Four
V Corners Regional Commission,Albuquerque,New Mexico.)
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA
AUTHORIZING CITY COUNCIL
Virginia Seeman
(Mayor)
John Granillo
(Vice Mayor)
Jerry Burgess
Thomas Damiano
Jimmy Eidson
Norman Hill
Marie Shanks
G.Ray Lee
City Manager
Joseph Gero Richard Broman
Director of Planning
(Project Manager)
Director of Public Works
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER I -INTRODUCTION
HISTORY OF PROJECT 1-1
AUTHORIZATION 1-1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1-3
CHAPTER 2 -MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS,CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS 2-1
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 2-2
CHAPTER 3 -EXISTING CONDITIONS
SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION 3-1
POPULATION ANALYSIS 3-9
EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES 3-12
CHAPTER 4 -FUTURE CONDITIONS
POPULATION 4-1
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS 4-6
THRESHOLD CAPACITY 4-6
IMPACT OF "NO ACTION"4-15
CHAPTER 5 -DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND DESIGN CRITERIA
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE 1
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE 2
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE 3
CHAPTER 6 -EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
COST ANALYSIS
ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT
FLEXIBILITY AND RELIABILITY
5-1
5-1
5-2
5-16
5-27
6-1
6-2
6-14
6-17
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES FOR
APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd)
PAGE
SYSTEM EXPERIENCE 6-18
LAND REQUIREMENT 6-18
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 6-18
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 6-23
CHAPTER 7 -SELECTION OF THE BEST ALTERNATIVE PLAN
MATRIX EVALUATION 7 -1
ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION 7 -3
APPENDIX
APPENDIX A -LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS A-1
APPENDIX B -GLOSSARY OF TERMS B-1
APPENDIX C -REFERENCED C-1
APPENDIX D -ADHS ENGINEERING BULLETIN NO.12 D-1
APPENDIX E -PRELIMINARY 1980 CENSUS COUNT BY
ENUMERATION DISTRICT (ED)E-1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY OF PROJECT.
Apache Junction i s a rapidly growing community located slightly over
thirty miles east o f downtown Phoenix,Arizona.I t i s situated prin-
cipally i n Pinal County;however,a 1980 annexation added a small area
i n Maricopa County.The permanent population i n 1980 i s approximately
10,500 persons.I t i s estimated that winter visitors t o Apache Junction
raise the population t o over 30,000 persons.
The City o f Apache Junction was incorporated i n November,1978.Since
that time,the need t o establish staff and procedures has dominated the
program agenda o f the City.City officials are desirous o f establishing
a General Plan for the Apache Junction service area,defined i n Figure
1-1.With this goal i n mind,the City applied for and on June 1,1980,
received a grant from the Four Corners Regional Commission t o assist i n
the development o f a general plan.The areas specifically addresssed i n
the terms o f the grant included the following:
1)Sewer Needs Determination
2)Water Systems Evaluation
3)Transportation Facilities Plan
4)Municipal Complex Development
5)Land Use Plan
AUTHORIZATION.
Upon receipt o f the planning grant,the City was authorized by the Four
Corners Regional Commission to proceed with the selection o f a consul-
tant t o perform those parts of the scope o f work set forth i n "Bid
Specifications for Apache Junction General Plan o f Selected Elements,
Project No.PL -80-1".Through a competitive bid process,PRC Toups was
chosen t o perform all o f the items listed i n the scope o f work.The
term and effective date o f the contract with PRC Toups was from October
29,1980,through September 30,19 81 .
1-1
TIN
TIS
Zudoo
a. —18
a r -6
7
5
8
NATIONAL
4
9
FOREST
3
10
. \...
...• ,-;14 '6'4..
N.
la,„•'..
-
•
U i
CC
U i
COcr
31
6
OUTL
7
5
Y4N-G
8
33 34
4 I 3RVICE
9 10
2
II
14
23
2 6
35
2
11
A
12
13
2 4
2 5
36
RE -A
12
TOTAL SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
MARICOPA CO.
PINAL CO.
U.I
COcr
NATIONAL
FOREST
TIN
Iii
C)
cr
T I S
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
0tc,T IN MILES
PLANNING AREA MAP
PRC TOUPS
4131 N 24 ST.PHX.. AZ.
FIGURE
NO.'
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY.
The purpose of this particular report is to address the first of the
above listed topics,namely 1)Sewer Needs Determination.The City of
Apache Junction is rapidly approaching a decision point relative to
wastewater planning.The major issue is whether the City should con-
tinue with individual septic tank/disposal systems for wastewater
management o r i f a gravity sewer system feeding a central wastewater
treatment facility should be constructed to serve -City and the
surrounding service area.The final decision will depend i n part on a
determination o f the threshold level a t which wastewater treatment using
septic systems can be permitted without creating a hazard t o the public
health,safety and general welfare.This report describes the work
performed i n assessing the alternatives and the conclusions reached as a
result o f the study.
Topics covered i n this report include the following:
o Existing Conditions
o Future Conditions
o Development o f Alternatives
o Evaluation o f Alternatives
o Selection o f Best Alternative
In addition,t o assist the layman i n understanding the contents o f the
report,a list of abbreviations and a glossary of terms commonly used in
the sanitary engineering field are included in the Appendix.
This report i s an independent analysis by the consulting engineering
firm of PRC Toups.Conclusions and recommendations contained herein are
those made only by the consultant after consideration of all the data,
and do not represent individual views o f the staff o f the City o f Apache
Junction.
CHAPTER 2
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS,CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MAJOR ASSUMPTIONS.
1.This report takes a somewhat conservative look a t the potential for
population growth i n the Apache Junction service area.Major fac-
tors which could increase the rate o f growth include completion o f
the Superstition Freeway,development o f a municipal airport,
opening o f a community college,and the further development o f
industrial parks and shopping centers.
2.When comparing population densities i n the report,i t i s important
t o keep i n mind that they are gross averages based on the conser-
vative projection described above.Individual sections o f the out-
lying service area,for example,may develop rather quickly,while
other sections may not develop a t all.
3.Wastewater flow and strength projections are based on conveying
sanitary sewage only;collection and conveyance o f stormwater i s not
considered i n the analysis.Also,residential sewage flows make up
the majority o f the total;the contribution from commercial and
industrial sources i s a relatively insignificant portion o f the
total.
4.The design and installation of septic systems is generally not con-
sidered to be an exact science.Rather,the accepted techniques are
based on empirical data which have been gathered over a number o f
years,such as the percolation rate,the size o f the dwelling t o be
served,and the replacement capacity required.
5.I t i s assumed that the shallower and more land -intensive leach
field method of effluent disposal must be used with septic tanks in
the northern and eastern parts o f the service area,resulting i n a
desirable lot size o f one acre for a single-family residence.
6.Desirable lot sizes i n the southwestern part o f the service area are
14,000 square feet for a single-family residence,6,000 square feet
per unit i n a mobile home park,and 3,000 square feet per unit i n a
travel trailer park.I t must be kept i n mind that these are very
conservative figures and attempt t o account for the varieties i n
sizes o f dwellings for a given category.
7.The city planning staff perceives that long-range development will
occur as a more even distribution of the types of residences than
exists a t present.This report assumes that,over the long term,
development will evolve into a ratio o f 60 percent single-family,20
percent mobile home and 20 percent travel trailer.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
EXISTING CONDITIONS.
1.The final 1970 census listed Apache Junction as having 2,390
persons and 1,161 housing units.The preliminary report o f the
1980 census showed that Apache Junction has a population o f
9,935 and a total of 6,837 housing units.However,the pre-
liminary 1980 report also indicated that 2,632 housing units
were vacant a t the time o f the survey,leaving 4,205 occupied
units for an average o f 2.36 persons per occupied unit.
2.A report entitled "Population Analysis for the City o f Apache
Junction,Arizona",completed by PRC Toups in December,1980,
estimated the total 1980 population for the Apache Junction
service area t o be 30,348,comprised o f the following:
1)A permanent resident population o f 10,500 within the city
limits.
2).A permanent resident population o f 2,200 i n the outlying
service area.
3)A seasonal resident population o f an additional 17,648
persons i n the city and outlying service area.
2-2
3.Due t o the low population density historically present i n Apache
Junction,nearly all o f the community's wastewater i s handled by
individual septic systems.The majority o f these systems uti-
lize a septic tank with the disposal pit method for treated
effluent disposal.However,i n the poorer soil areas near the
Goldfield and Superstition Mountains,a septic tank i s usually
combined with a leach field for treated effluent disposal.Con-
versations with representatives o f the Pine:County Health
Department indicate that design and installation practices i n
the Apache Junction area have generally been acceptable.
4.The larger systems i n the Apache Junction service area generally
utilize some form o f secondary biological treatment t o decompose
and stabilize the organic matter i n the wastewater.At the
present time,there are four establishments which operate actual
wastewater treatment facilities:Superstition Inn (20,000
gallons per day);Mining Camp Restaurant (10,000 gallons per
day);Sierra Entrada Subdivision (60,000 gallons per day);and
Rock Shadows Travel Trailer Park (40,000 gallons per day).
FUTURE CONDITIONS.
1.According t o the previously mentioned report,"Population Ana-
lysis for the City o f Apache Junction,Arizona",the population
o f the service area is expected to grow at a rate of 5 percent
per year for the next ten years,4 percent per year for the
years 1991-1995,and 3 percent per year for the years 1996-2000.
By the year 2000,there is projected to be 60,161 permanent and
seasonal residents i n the city and 8,268 permanent and seasonal
residents i n the outlying service area,for a total population
o f 68,429.
2.Based on a developable land area within the city limits of 11
square miles,population density will rise from 2,427 persons
per square mile i n 1980 t o 5,469 persons per square mile i n
2000.For comparison,the average population density for the
major valley cities o f Glendale,Mesa,Phoenix and Tempe (based
on the preliminary report o f the 1980 census)i s about 2,400
persons per square mile.Thus,population density within the
city limits o f Apache Junction i s comparable t o these other
larger valley cities,where complete municipal services have
been provided for many years.On the other hand,based on a
developable land area i n the outlying service area o f 13 square
miles,population density will rise from 281 persons per square
mile i n 1980 t o only 636 persons per squa mile i n 2000.
3.Generally speaking,the soil i n the southwest portion o f the
study area i s a sandy loam with moderate permeability,while the
soil i n the northern and eastern portions o f the study area i s a
loam containing a relatively high percentage o f gravel,cobbles,
and clay with a lower permeability.As a result,septic tanks
with the deep pit method o f disposal can be readily utilized i n
the southwest part o f the area;however,the shallower and more
land -intensive leach field method of disposal must be used with
septic tanks i n the northeast part o f the area.
4.In the poorer soil area,a lot size o f one acre would probably
be needed for a single-family septic system (mobile home o r
conventional construction).When subtractions for street
rights -of -way and other open spaces are considered (which
account for approximately 25 percent o f the gross land area),a
total o f 480 one -acre units can be constructed per square mile
of gross land area.Using the 2.36 persons per unit from the
existing population analysis yields an overall population
density figure o f 1,120 persons per square mile as the threshold
level in the poorer soil area.
5.Assuming that i n the better soil area development will evolve
into a ratio o f 60 percent single-family,20 percent mobile
home,and 20 percent travel trailer gives an average lot size o f
10,200 square feet.When subtractions for street rights -of -way
and other open spaces are considered (which account for approxi-
mately 35 percent o f the gross land area),a total o f 1,760 lots
o f 10,200 square feet can be constructed per square mile o f
gross land area.Using the 2.36 persons per unit figure from
the existing population analysis yields an overall population
density figure o f 4,100 persons per square mile as the threshold
level in the better soil area.
6.The population density i n the outlying service area remains low
enough through year 2000 to continue to siJ:cessfully utilize
onsite methods for wastewater management.Within the city
limits,on the other hand,unless the population i s more evenly
distributed according t o the threshold capacity,the population
density will surpass even the threshold limit i n the better soil
area i n about the year 1996.
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES.
1.Alternative 1 i s basically the provision for the "no action"
plan mentioned a t the end o f Chapter 4.Individual homes and
businesses i n the entire Apache Junction service area would
continue t o utilize onsite techniques as the primary method o f
wastewater treatment.In good soil areas,septic tank effluent
would flow t o seepage pits for ultimate disposal.In poorer
soil areas,leach fields or mound systems could be utilized.
Evapotranspiration systems following septic tanks might find use
on unusually large lots i n the better soil areas.Institu-
tional,commercial and industrial establishments could inves-
tigate use o f aerobic treatment with an absorption bed,as is
currently in use at the Superstition Inn (Chapter 3).
2.Alternative 2 allows homes i n the low -density outlying service
area t o utilize any o f the acceptable individual treatment/
disposal methods,including septic tank with absorption bed,
septic tank mound system,aerobic treatment with absorption bed,
and evapotranspiration system.Homes and businesses within the
higher -density city limits would be served by a gravity sewer
system which would convey raw wastewater to a 5.4 mgd WWTP
located roughly a t the southeast corner o f Elliot and
Meridian Roads.The plant would be capable of providing secon-
dary treatment plus disinfection,with the effluent either
reused or discharged to Siphon Draw.Dried sludge would be
hauled away and disposed of in an acceptable landfill.
3.Alternative 3 allows homes in the low density outlying service
area to utilize any of the acceptable individual treatment/
disposal methods,including septic tank wiL:-absorption bed,
septic tank mound system,aerobic treatment with absorption bed,
and evapotranspiration system.Homes and businesses within the
higher density city limits would be served by a gravity sewer
system.Wastewater would be conveyed out of the Apache Junction
service area by a 27 -inch diameter interceptor sewer,which
would eventually combine with an interceptor sewer in eastern
Mesa and proceed to a 17.4 mgd WWTP located in the vicinity of
Higley and Recker Roads just north of Baseline Road.The plant
would be capable of providing secondary treatment plus effluent
filtration and disinfection,with the effluent pumped to a
Roosevelt Water Conservation District canal for reuse.Dried
sludge would be hauled away and disposed of in an acceptable
landfill.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES.
1.The wastewater management alternatives were compared and eval-
uated using the following parameters:annual costs,ability to
implement,flexibility and reliability,system experience,land
requirement,and environmental assessment.In terms of annual
costs,Alternatives 2 and 3 are initially about 63 percent more
costly than Alternative 1;however,by the year 2000,they are
about 27 percent less costly than Alternative 1,with the break
even point occurring about 1991.At that time,the cost to an
individual homeowner for a new septic tank/disposal system would
be about the same as that for a complete gravity sewer/WWTP
system.At any time after that,the latter system becomes more
economical.
2.Table 2-1 shows the "Technical and Environmental Evaluation
Matrix"used to compare the alternatives i n terms o f the above
parameters.The point totals and relative standing o f the three
alternatives are 15 for Alternative I (third),20 for Alterna-
tive 2 (first),and 19 for Alternative 3 (second).
SELECTION OF THE BEST ALTERNATIVE PLAN.
1.The major conclusion which can be drawn f l ,:m the alternatives
evaluation i s that,over the long term,pursuit o f either Alter-
native 2 o r Alternative 3 i s a wiser choice than continued
reliance on Alternative 1.Beside having the lowest point total
i n Table 2-1,i t i s shown i n Chapter 4 that Alternative 1 would
exceed the threshold level o f development within the Apache
Junction city limits i n the middle 1990's.Furthermore,Alter-
native 1 loses its economic advantage t o the individual home-
owner over the other alternatives i n about 1991,as shown i n
Chapter 6.
2.I t should be emphasized here that elimination o f Alternative 1
does not mean that onsite methods for wastewater management
within the city limits must be abandoned overnight.On the
contrary,with proper supervision,onsite methods should con-
tinue t o adequately serve the Apache Junction area for another
ten years.The point t o be made i s that a t the end o f that
period,Apache Junction should a t least be i n the position where
i t could pursue construction of an alternative wastewater manage-
ment system.
3.I f an alternative wastewater management system i s eventually
pursued,i t i s recommended that Apache Junction present a copy
o f this report t o the Central Arizona Association o f Governments
(CAAG)and get on the construction grants priority list no later
than the middle 1980's.I t i s important for the city t o remem-
ber that its plan must be in compliance with the CAAG 208 Plan
to be approved by the federal government.
t .
ALTERNAT I VE
ALTERNATIVE 1:
1-'
TABLE 2-1
TECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION MATRIX
SHOWING RELATIVE STANDING OF ALTERNATIVES
t=i
> -> -
C )I --I—
I —I———
2 —I —I
> -w ——
—J 1—X c o c a
<u l —w —<Li.,
F-z (A -(3_LLJ --I V )
2 0 CC)X —I U.1 > -
2 4 2
EX
P
E
R
I
E
N
C
E
4
—J
F -
2 I—
UJ W
W
LJJ 2 X
CC 0 V )
s=1 —w
2 C:0
<W 2 V )
PO
I
N
T
T
O
T
A
L
W
—
a i
<
- J <
W I—
CC V )
1 2 15 3
.LTERNATIVE 2
ri.
ALTERNATIVE 3
4 3 4 3 3 3 20 1
4 3 3 3 3 3 19 2
2-8
4.I f a sewer system is eventually constructed i n Apache Junction,
i t i s recommended that bonding be required to cover damage to
existing utilities from sewer and other new utility construc-
tion.
CHAPTER 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS
SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION.
GENERAL.The City o f Apache Junction i s located i n central Arizona
slightly over thirty miles east o f downtown Phoenix,as shown i n Figure
3-1.For purposes o f this report,the Apache Junction service area
consists o f slightly greater than 48 square miles,as shown i n Figure 3-
2.The service area includes:all o f Township 1 North,Range 8 East
and the northern one-third o f Township 1 South,Range 8 East o f the Gila
and Salt River Baseline and Meridian i n Final County,Arizona;and a 20-
acre area i n Maricopa County added by a 1980 annexation.The 20 -acre
parcel i s a mobile home park located just west o f Meridian Road between
Apache Trail (U.S.Highway 60)and Superstition Boulevard.The area
included i n the city limits i s slightly more than thirteen (13.03)
square miles,also shown i n Figure 3-2.Two square miles o f state land
and a school are located within the city limits and only about half (6.5
+square miles)o f the area i s actually developed.Most o f the 35-
square mile area i n the service area but beyond the city limits (22 +
square miles)i s either land i n trust t o the Arizona State Land Depart-
ment o r land controlled by the United States Bureau o f Land Management,
as presented i n Figure 3-3.
As used hereafter i n this report,the term "city"will be used t o des-
cribe the 13.03 square miles actually within the present city limits.
The term "outlying service area" will designate the remaining 35 square
miles which are outside of the city limits but still within the overall
service area of the study.The term "total service area"will refer to
the total 48.03 square miles.
CLIMATE.The weather i n Apache Junction reflects the city's location i n
the central Arizona desert and i s characterized by hot summers and mild
winters.High diurnal temperature variations are common.The pre-
vailing winds are from the east and are usually light,although severe
windstorms occur a t rare intervals.The mean annual precipitation i s
approximately 7-1/2 inches,equally divided between summer and winter
seasons.Three types o f storms produce precipitation i n the Apache
Junction area:general winter storms,general summer storms,and local
summer storms.Significant climatological data for Apache Junction i s
summari7.4
MOHAVE
1
YUMA
COCONINO
YAVAPAI
100 MILE
MILEj z50
MARIrrIPAMARICOPA
L1APACHE
NAVAJO
25 MILE \N.,GLA
PHOENIX 0 j k
N.4 _ 1 °APACI-IE
JUNCTION1__--xi/
0. .10'25 50 100
PINAL-C
(-1
I
REEINLEE
GRAHAM \,\.\I
PIMA A COCHISE
••••
I
ji SANTA
CRUZ J
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION ARIZONA
GENERAL LOCATION MAP
SCALE IN
STATE OF ARIZONA
MILES
I PRC TOUP8
4131 R 24 ST.MX.. AZ.
FIGURE
No.3-I
.far. ••• •'fro ••i• ••. ; • 1, •\••.' •••
v.•
N4177%'1:,•.
L•'' • ••• •‘1.V1(•L,
• • -••••.'unrinuni-p :c,-• -(,) •„.,,.„„„:2-1 NI AM I I.A.WIA s y••1111M111•11111.11.
rk/I•F ••-•••••-•• • •. -----:.) . ,n•,/)••,•1 •-- ----•-tr- ;-•.1(
"'II.'••,,:F11./2 " •
,•r 1
l j .11 • r •
I ..
PIN AL C O.
•• ••11/•1•1•,•.•/s„.•-• 1. • _..1 ••/i•••
•• 4S!((ci.a..!A ••••11:‘,I .1 ..!1•••• A .-74'''
,Lsh •-•1'''
•• 1,11,;
1 7..7 '1 •,(-......•.' .............721": 71.-;
r.f •. .
?'"1?
^.1.?"-i)-7 ,.4.-••
.1 .-;l-••'-.4.. •r ,•"9 "7 '.2 .• .r
.-•
1 I .••..1.••
111W .:.-, •on.:r .••••-•-•_
•• ';NI Z.1.:•-•v. •c<e -";Lta\R •S, ‘,•-•s.11.0 P••••;-.s,• • ••a S•(t,, •14,33 • •C ..\••L P..• .. '
I • ;'‘
•41`41.[C,;:igkZ• •C(••1•••,..).
•7/• -•1,1.1S,'s 'kV*.-
7 ):'1,c1 "4.1".1\V )\.%.9 "I*. • '
T7.S. ;c2 :f.1.•.!" • ' "11.. 7'7",,""),•:
• '‘:• ,v.V; ••vi ••_
:'..1 'L .•.•: •,/."
FOREST BOUNDAHT-14c1.\;
PIN AL Ca -,---'.'iloj•ak".30‘;/‘....,1•,•'''•:ts..,n L .• •A.'••-71 •""111A • )1•• •tad,••1`.11',,.••t„,.• ..r7,•t •
••••f .,k 1 .1144 ,‘1•I -PL --k -:.,••••..;'••J ••• ••j." r
ii. ‘,•,',.•C4 -v '‘'• .•Tr,1`.,,•r••••••••• •••.' ‘....• •••••.:I/ S. • ••/ IA,ii -,0, . ,,,,,,,..*.‘e I •,.''''•,—,•• •.;.Pr.5!.1dr.takir, , ,7011.J .' t :',I,......,k7•''.
.1 !.....1 . _1.•?;%7'?„,„1'.-',.... •••• it._„:......
._. .
•••'L.
-,i• • . • •,/,,7(,).• ,
„•\ ‘'1:3 -1.7• •...1 ‘. •!• •I n,i..
I al •.1,5 rammid•
r7-' • r). \II've.7,..8.'s4. ••'2ra• ,.1% 1 V)-4rait-fmk,_• --;1 .‘..r ..;1"r •A 7
•'I' •;....:-..,.-%-:;:".7:.,'.1-1•••A'•••1`.:14)-.•(•;p11"/,.... /..•)t.
••"E."".•.•••
:• •..•••fl,•1\1
r .7.",,•••A1.•.• r
.•7 '•;_
•,•,r ,---,.............
........•.•
j ).%i>".7 I ...............
u 031 I
..
t;,S 1 •)
_
....•
• -,•••
1.•i ;cs.".,M1.2 '
NILM-7 1 --,arir -.Ii•ZomailEMI=E=1.2
11311.715222.1111NEC11w-..1.1• •M_.•..0!
telt:
revio
'Ka
•
4..,2 •. •.
•7 '2 "-;ql,";7::•••..
7„,±; .1,J , •
-•".e"
IL).
I
'''• 1,.1.
- • !'!lc •••-•'?"_AA-
"h... •e .:-
•%,
.—,-•....
•.*.r'•t• •-i "(+PA 014 • .• •;•-•:•,
.—11J ;••ES We ,•,•J.I .1 2 •• •"
.•A ...
'••—
•t:•• •.
,.•
71i "
•:,;;1 4
/III'• ;"...,1.,
iFft ..
• • •7.1 •
`1.4 .t.,•
-1.
•1 ,
I ••••" •••1 ••.•..•.• •I -/ 1 ••/•••••/I.•
".
;..
.>11
_
".•_(''••
(.4
'
n
-• •-•,I1
'r
''2-
J
ç.,.••,• ••-4,A...,.0.A4/-*..1151-!, 1...•f-1,-1,11_,•...„ .. •-r?A pyhe •-./.21'(-; '/7 '71 ._..
.' ••• ••
.1/)'• •..•
..... -•";
• , •,r-•
e. • ,,•07%1;1.
• .1 ---.'•••!).
••
1 -
(`‘,-
' UNA!,etc
!
.•fs
'
2 ,
'
r :;•7
I-
-L •._
, • r
••• -•A kt.
t.r
•
Lt 1 0 w t.+.
al • I .1.1)'L"
1 4 .PROPOSED0
r4 91
'<I•--•-•",1
;7
7 ,
I
\
2 (.
n •.
`7.1.:
:
4
•-
••KT"
—3-0V<•.'•
"I
k
/I•r
•
•
-24 17
11—-• ....l a a I ,3 X' "7, I k-2
•••••••••.•
II•••
--1-`?">
cv l
•)•nr1:.;•,
V .
ri • -, • .•[14/1'•."".r-) .•,
1-A) I‘;•••.'
.111 1 •I ...• ••311
-4
!SUPERSTITION •FREEWAY
).$5,g4.•41i.Z,Tiflj 'irs".'In••••
• .;:.•,^);...1—' 0 V,11
I.,•;s2 ""fti ""'
1 1 7 I •I "-1.I I •,'RP. .
•-•.•-Jriv.kf‘.--.•
.„
........................
LEGEND
—TOTAL SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
— AREA WITHIN CITY LIMITS
e°•,.2 ,.'7.;2
01!!!14i
SCALE
r rzr
IN
-
‘71;Tii\
34 I
MILES
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA
SERVICE AREA MAP
PRC TOUPS
4131 N 24 ST.PHX.,AZ.1 '`"•
,..%1
rt:10;1:-
!cf 14•;lia1•1
.ft ql-rx-Vm:
4,1• •'..af.-7-4 4‘itt...*1.41fii)V
eSirc Nal;,r •
"!.•1 •
'!;
'11;244z L:•
.:A.r i se..lol v `a
••• i 1..ra I. •-a-7,
•;i•-••-•-•('•••• •
C11111.r .
r :17 J•,....,11..24. •r
'•'
I I ,14)11A!••,1-1
k :1.•''•Mr
Torl •e ,,••Liz;....
l.A
N1. 11.-a
•=1."I
.1.ro g
•,
•'• •••'1, 1 .
•....
•,'-14:•••••••--•-• 0
„ , • : .
•.
• I,1/41-4..,•1•••,','.4.',*
,.„
•
•!
-
P.;1- ••••
,411 --;$?-10.4 •r' .. •,•'-'',;',t`.4..)!Ne •'t•‘4'
-<L'••I.
&..sliPrI. ALL -4 . • so N1 ,fA.):-•.1,•' '•••1'. •),Wili',u•••e31-n--••••—• • •.-&-LX-e.,4•K,--• f --es -14'4/,'.2,1v•-•-1,• LIP
•-•q.,•• 0,•I• ••••10,.•,P•I,• f-•••.'5kg) ka'5'i14:S4 •s.th\AV .f••1.•-••.
,,e ••••... ••• I..,_11 ‘1 "Y°1 .o =
•••.:‘ •%•.1 I
.‘1"..:.\1.".NUMEROUS SMALL• .1, cz---i ;1 —3 .;I ••-
1 .•)1 •_t•-•....A ;a -J.',xi. •t‘!I '
,, • ,r
•.
..'-siA;p1,...)).•=••!?rif.'••,•••.`,C
-•• •••-:2 ."•`:•11!•-•• •11%.-•:,'YUAN I 1•14,
;!' •7--P •••c•-•'1 PIN AL Co.. .le: 7 •fi • •,, 4A.•, ".;,1 .1 '„,••,•.,
_. ;•. f;fr''N.f•-fr;•••1;','
•
,
I.'••
-;•
••-• I I 1./ •' 4L'cr-rir,
i.' IL .1,,•s ' "'•'„, I 1:.•-•1.
•=i IJ ''• -- •••- •r"
'•;i •''''';a;"•—a V%.
•••••••._. ••• • •• •-
•••
??:•-•• a-x
7 1/
? V-117.•%11 '
HOLDINGS BY OTHERS ..
..1.I .;._ ...
NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY
.....-4111111111111•11M11111111•14c.
s'1:••
;tal •,School •
.......-•p,•.paye'n .,vqy • y •• • • ••••,.,•• •
I • ,•
ICOPA G
\_.
' • 1
Jra
P."I
"
•1 • '
5••!,..??„).
:v
11 ''Al 4•••• a U.;
I
1.1 l•„ I.••••l t ITd
1 )1 ,
f f•-•1' •;i
•-•.P
'•',• •.'.."" '
I•\7,i•
'1
•• •..• •,x •
I'•••••••-1.'•e'• •••-.• '1 •.••
'•„".?i :
I',.:...-7,*?-"*.. -.•
•-.-...-r -I,....7..4.... ---, .
-
-1?
1.
,;i3N141.Artity.w.;
11 •-,,
61 r;_ -•
l e i •1/'..• ,,:.
1-7.711:41.4!.ga 1_,
1
: 2
_t„
1%
:
t C'
404-4' IC
•-••••• I
\ _1T I
N.;
-
_
7 S .'.I-,
('•
LEGEND
-TOTAL SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
111.11111PUM AREA WITHIN CITY LIMITS
\ \ \ \ M BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMEIVT
//////, ARIZONA TRUST PROPERTIES
048:
0
IN ILE
%
.I
:
-
4.-7
t .
•• •
.(
t;;1E117:
a
-
C.'L.7
SEWAGE DISPOSAL AIMINAVVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA
MONTH
TABLE 3-1
SIGNIFICANT CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
AVERAGE AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE (°F)HEATING TOTAL
DAILY DAILY DEGREE PRECIPITATION
MAX.MIN.DAYS (INCHES)
January 66.9 35.8 400
February 71.7 38.8 267
March 76.8 42.9 168
April 86.0 49.2 42
May 94.9 56.9 4
June 103.2 65.1 0
July 106.8 75.3 0
August 104.5 73.7 0
September 101.0 66.1 0_,-
October 90.2 53.7 13
November 77.0 42.1 160
December 68.2 36.2 391
0.92
0.76
0.69
0.34
0.10
0.09
0.74
1.24
0.74
0.44
0.57
0.93
t.EARLY 87.3 53.0 1,445 7.56
uncultivated areas,good covers of annual grasses occur after winter
r ains.The vegetation tends to be somewhat thicker along and adjacent
1,to washes in the area.
RUNOFF CHAR Little flow occurs except during and imme-
diately following heavy precipitation because climatic and drainage
-kar acteristics are not conducive to continuous runoff.Due to the
GEOLOGY.The rock materials in the higher regions vary widely.The
materials include fine grained,coarse grained,and metamorphosed
granites including gneiss and schist,sandstones,breccias,and meta-
morphosed sedimentary rocks.Various lava rocks including the basalt,
andesite,rhyolite,volcanic glass,and white tuff are also present.
The soils are typical of desert and semi -desert regions,being mostly
shallow,rocky and poorly developed.The northern and eastern portions
of the study area lie in the foothill ranges of the Goldfield and Super-
stition Mountains.The remainder of the Apache Junction area occupies
an alluvial plain built up from water deposited,soil -forming materials
and rock debris.These soils consist of various forms of clays and
loams.
SOILS.The soil in Apache Junction is of the hyperthermic arid variety
and is characterized by either of two major types:HA -1,the torriflu-
vents association;and HA -3,the mohall-vecont-pinamt association.
Generally speaking,the torrifluvents association is found in the
southwest portion of the service area,with the mohall-vecont-pinamt
association occupying the northern and eastern portions,as shown in
Figure 3-4.Table 3-2 presents distinguishing characteristics of the
two soil types.Conclusions which can be drawn from Table 3-2 are that
the soil in the southwest portion is basically a sandy loam with mod-
erate permeability,while the soil in the northern and eastern portions
is a loam containing a relatively high percentage of gravel,cobbles and
Clay with a lower permeability.
VEGETATION.Natural vegetation is sparse at best.Cacti grow through-
out the area along with other desert shrubs.Native trees such as
ID, 1 _"-'11-,verde,mesquite,and ironwooa are scarrerea among lfle SHF UL/b.III
Ct -t
•'f•wa.'•-..1 •i• • •}•;.),
- r 6 •• --•-'•-•-••••-••••••t•-•••••..-,r.msa
• .• -• ....'•41;.,•y.7.;_.
• !,-.7_1•1.'•-Oen,
•
• -••-•I '^
'14 •,o. • '•
" '• '.'-‘ •r:I •••LA
-. •
,J-4...• •„•
•.7 %,-`1 4,k •
•.-• -....._.••,,...
• ••••,.:N 1," r•••A
••••••
'.
• •
(1.
'......
43,45,w;-ro.wt I .z • • ,.•.)A ,„
'ellt•Pc .'04111;:DT0'•;.".-^4
•„tie_k)• :•',••••••its r -IZ‘A ; I ••••V•A •;,;';••••)1•71.•,;,`P 1 •
'„ W d:,•..-_,4 A7,1,,-••4 1 `LG.-.1 ••,,,,,•••••217
r .••••ISI Vola./1 ••- -:•`••••l •••••I •••••••••V OW.;•`• .211 •AO.," ••I,Vr.JI ••`.."•"•' •‘31 -I .••• ••- • Itl'',1_•••••:-• '•'A•-•t --.47 OVA ,n.•-I',,.•• •••••• , ••r•I. A •• • :7 .
•1' 7,':•:••-••- •(47.,c,:•,,
' 10 .;fre?'•••-•• t.11 1:!'Lin r)D A r kl A T I /1 IU AI CAOCCT lartilairiADV..
••••••-
10.ftg',.„.,t 6 r7 7.1/.--s&es - ••--ps' •Ali •,f •-•
:4'14••-A15.;-V f s'f'•• .v:14A1 /..t.P.‘"(••VA •s \k,t •V. •••.1.
• \•• •,• •/-••%Z.,. •I".• A.,I N.f 1..•,./5 7 C•V•!NI .1".••:,,r r
_‘pe.,.s ..r1 •-1,it • •'t ,1(•\k7.-,• f ..”,•-Y1 "'
...•A •i f:',.,11,1,tk A ‘ •• ‘'-'1) :'I'.•'
fser'•;*:
• •, • ..7i -(%1 tt•9"),•,1 ts ,_
•
.J.ti•! s'A," .4,-"I..--s •A •
1,••••''t /W.It let.."4•••••14;„C-....•‘••-;:.)• •11";•
AV•" '••
L .-N..',`4..\:cil,.1{:123.?"'.'•*•;.1.11\• •
}sr:Sr 't • `,
t .e ,•tkor •
4 .‘• ••;• •A cif'''.•
...............- .............:17 t'......c,•"1-•,......••••III>14• ••........ • ••••-• • • ••I • •••Ii ..........."zys).
• ‘ •10/1•Y,'," • • • • 1.• • • • 1'4..1: I 7_,,,,,r•rr•neer•f. • r 1• • • • •t1,-s•w•Porar......r..•••
•
•• •(
.1 I _•W-I " •
I
_
k
I
'
—7
:•7
•B
\
I
I•••••I .1 •••••••—..:.;
te •-f
-
•A i AVIA;dpket.
feedfew 1111•21 '• • „."• • -"`
•
_
,
r-:' 13r
_1 IF
.•„L • /.,.,
•. rvikAr&ur .•NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY
a•I•of•i .......of." ................
.,ir•P4r.tm -
.. 1 ;4•• ••••,..oi"0.......................P27:!.1:!•41!• • •.e........Pi ri kg .....leY .....•::e<""O'•ii:n••:•:,•..............................•,-4,4,•• •YiV
•
•7:1 I e•-or- .....I -
•
1
\-130
-•••_.L.,•
'7
L-7 -t 71 1..MO2
Le1+144
11•11,1!
........
ig!7. •
;.-O '
V ic :
•
_•
';N • ' •4-I.1-714rutiKAP
iq..X177;.q.!.1;e4,r4I
•of<?• 1
I
,•••
•
•4 ,- -•
7 -.4
1.....
1 1 cr
................Jill I •
•
1
•-;
—TOTAL SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
------ AREA WITHIN CITY LIMITS
w i n k .Sdit r gfEsoHLAA-/R:ETA R VOR-IFLU -ENTS ASSOCIATION
;;;;;;;;;:ain:::: ............SOIL TYPE HA -3:MOHALL -VECONT -PINAMT ASSOCIATION
.................POORER SOIL AREA
:14
....
.....
......;
•
1
•
•_1-j
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA
- ,
:'•t •V .wse
TABLE 3-2
DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS OF APACHE JUNCTION SOILS
DOMINANT DEPTH TO
SOIL TYPE AND SLOPE HARDPAN REPRESENTATIVE PERMEA-CORRO-LIMITATION FOR
CLASSIFICATION (percent)(feet)PROFILE TEXTURES BILITY SIVITY SEPTIC SYSTEMS
HA -1
Torrifluvents
Association
HA -3
Mohall-Vecont-
Pinamt Associa-
tion
0 to 3 >60 Mainly sandy loam Moderate Low 'Moderate
with some sandy
clay loam
0 to 5 >60 A mixture of Moderately Moderate Moderately
gravelly,cobbly,slow to severe
and clay loam with slow
some sandy clay loam
relatively flat slope,wide overflow area,and lack o f defined channels,
floods on the valley plain spread out overland and cause existing chan-
nels and washes t o shift over time.As one moves toward the mountains,
however,stream channels are more defined and generally deeper.Flow
velocities and depths are relatively small compared t o runoff concen-
trated i n stream channels and washes.
FLOOD HAZARD POTENTIAL.Proposed flood control structures which will
regulate the drainage area include the Weekes Wash Dam,the Apache
Junction Floodway,and the Apache Junction Dam.These structures are
under the jurisdiction o f the Flood Control District o f Maricopa County.
The runoff generated by the drainage area flows i n a southwest direc-
tion,where ground slopes are normally less than one percent (except i n
foothill areas o f the mountains).
A vast network o f intermingling washes i s found throughout the alluvial
fan.These erodable channels do not allow an accurate account o f flood-
ing limits,but lead t o the conclusions that overland flow and channel
flow will coexist for the 100 -year storm discharges.The preliminary
flood hazard boundary map for Apache Junction,dated June 10,1980,i s
presented i n Figure 3-5.This map identifies the special flood hazard
area,Zone A,which i s defined as an area inundated by the 100 -year
flood,determined by approximate methods.With the preliminary map,no
base flood elevations are shown and no flood hazard factors are deter-
mined.The final map,which will present a much more detailed breakdown
of flood hazard zones,i s being prepared by the firm o f Cella Barr
Associates and wil be available within the next few months.
POPULATIoNt ANV\L''SIS.
The final 1970 census listed Apache Junction as having 2,390 persons and
1,161 housing unit .The prel'minary report o f the 1980 census showed
that Apache sYn'tien ha a oopulat ion o f 9,935 and a total o f 6,837
llousing unitr.,-h-s,according t o the census 'igures,population ' n the
i n,r 'rate o l Derrent Der yea-ovr.r the 1ast decaee,
'Alle the 1 -,1 -7 e -c hou'ing
3i2,out 20
un t .;n'.-eased even ' ;ter,a t a rate o f
9 -vveYe-_the nre'",linnrv '!"IT")report
i.—ZONE A
ZONE •
i r r
amaacaal al
41
-,
it•ZONE A
"ij
CORPORATE Lows
'II
ZONE A ••11,•••1 ••
IC --al ..;•L-51 ,5 r-I -5
L=_ _ L
r T h i a 7 I r ="iiii --11 '5-11"85551_J1J-L11.;-r
•,1 H=1 .
r--'11 A _A••• .4'a 'ft.- :"•I
11
""311 II I 84 a
.....II-H
;I--—.II .("/,'11_r._
•• 11 .11 •-
"..117711 h
ca _11 t ......ji9NEiaoaa-.11
.11
e:
zoF1E
"
11
lal
.1LLdl`-7HE
1711!. i
II
IS
II
°Er1771 f t
a 3s,;,y L.
;;„
!II -I I • •
1,
' II _
r m
mn
515 31 I 1)
t_11_1J'
• ZONE A •/.1
11-1TIF11,•.1,5,
11 11
55 :5
••T
5^.1I 't- 5C5
SW
31
1-1,7 11
a
.zfir51
/
a MOM al!, I I I
//‘ IRE A l•'I..... e•
_ _VII -11
.11 1-11
II .41 II
3
=
ip rirJuu r
./ IENG1111
1-•
a ZONE A
—7 1
11
if
.1 II •
7 •11
HI .11 2=-1.!.-.:i.Vhr 11
*11 'II a A ii 3.t.•
II of.3°75.iLAAAILLIL_.r -41•34 IL II
1
JUNL Tip
n___
ill )1'2'
• II 5r.
•
;11
I 0,1EaT •tl
.•
11 .i.a •• • •
.AE
•55,',1
_1-- -ir--r---,-1
/:1___„.., --_,_,,Li ----
L.:71:,..•I f.
--i —if -4
-1)il l .1_zorotZONE A
CORPORATE LIMITS
KEY TO MAP
(
NE A
/-1
•••0
I 70,
IC •112.
ZONE A
,;'
//
//'II I/7 •I I I
III .11 .11 J1 I
-;- - JL _
II SI II
;
4t.
I
zoki A
Ali7A2
II
L L
!I
11
ii Ir
Li
I71
/I,
rs I 1
I v:
ZONE A-4 ::."
rini !
I!It
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD
AREA
Note: These maps may not include all Special Flood Hazard
Areas in the community After a more detailed study. the
Special Flood Hazard Areas shown on these maps may be
modified, and other areas added.
TO DETERMINE IF FLOOD INSURANCE IS AVAILABLE IN
THIS COMMUNITY. CONTACT YOUR INSURANCE AGENT.
OR CALL THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM.
AT (800) 638-6620. OR (800) 424-8872.
INI rIAL IDENTIFICATION DATE
JUNE 10. 19e0
FHBM COMMUNITY -PANEL NUMBER
040120 - 0001- A
(I OF I)
NOTE:MAP DOES NOT INCLUDE
AREAS ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF
APACHE JUNCTION AFTER JANUARY
I,1980.
ISEWAGE DISPOSAL. ALTERNATIVES4‘
FOR
AFACFE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
PRELIMINARY FLOOD
HAZARD BOUNDARY MAP
PRO TOW**P V .K 3-5asitUt 14 St 1411.. AL
indicated that 2,632 housing units were vacant a t the time o f the survey
leaving 4,205 occupied units for an average o f 2.36 persons per occupied
unit.A further breakdown o f the census count by enumeration district
i s included i n the Appendix.
Seasonal residents,who have not been included i n the above figures,
account for a large number o f Apache Junction's total population.I n
fact,i t i s quite likely that the 2,632 housing units reported vacant a t
the time o f the census are actually occupied during the tourist season.
Whether these residents should be classified as permanent residents from
a federal census definition i s difficult t o determine.For the most
part,these seasonal residents live i n mobile home or travel trailer
parks while i n Apache Junction and reside from anywhere between one week and
six months from September through March.They consider some other
location,where they may own property,as being their permanent place o f
residency.
A survey carried out by the City i n November,1980,showed that there
are 80 separately -owned mobile home or travel trailer parks located
within the city limits,containing 1,263 mobile home spaces,4,427
travel trailer spaces,and 473 spaces of unknown type.Seven additional
parks,containing 761 mobile home spaces,441 travel trailer spaces,and
38 spaces of unknown type,are located i n the outlying service area.
The survey estimated that 90 percent o f all mobile home and travel
trailer spaces are filled during the peak o f the winter season.Con-
sequently,i t appears that the seasonal resident population i n mobile
home and travel trailer parks could be as high as 10,850 within the city
limits,with an additional 1,450 i n the outlying service area.
A .report entitled "Population Analysis for the City o f Apache Junction,
rizona,"completed by PRC Toups i n December,1980,estimated the total
1980 population for Apache Junction t o be 30,348,comprised o f the
1)A permanent resident population o f 10,500 within the city
limits.
2)A permanent resident population o f 2,200 i n the outlying
service area.
3)A seasonal resident population o f 17,648.
Table 3-3 on the following page regroups these figures t o yield a total
1980 population i n the City o f 26,697,and a total population i n the
outlying service area o f 3,651.Population projections through year
2000 using this same method will be presented i n the following chapter.
EXISTING WASTEWATER FACILITIES.
SEPTIC SYSTEMS.Due to the low population density historically present
i n Apache Junction,nearly all o f the community's wastewater i s handled
by individual septic systems.The majority o f these systems utilize a
septic tank with the disposal pit method for treated effluent disposal.
The disposal pit i s generally a circular hole drilled vertically into
the ground and backfilled with a durable material such as rock or gra-
vel.Where the soil i s suitable,the disposal pit method i s preferred as
i t can be accomodated on an average size lot,with an increase i n abso-
rption area being obtained by simply drilling deeper.As one moves
north and east through the service area toward the Goldfield and Super-
stition Mountains,however,the deeper soil deteriorates t o the point
where disposal pits can no longer be utilized.In these cases,a septic
tank i s combined with a leach field for treated effluent disposal.The
leach field i s most commonly a series o f distribution pipes set i n
Shallow trenches backfilled with rock or gravel.The shallower nature
Of the leach field requires a much larger surface area than the disposal
Pit and,thus,its use i s usually restricted t o those areas where the
•soil i s too hard or rocky t o permit deep drilling.
??operly designed,installed and maintained septic systems using either
n e disposal pit or the leach field method for treated effluent disposal
3hou1d have a useful service life o f a t least twenty years.To date,
,.'Plic systems i n the Apache Junction service area have apparently been
rhoeming adeauately.The Central Arizona Association o f Governments
;208 Project,HAreawide Water Quality Management Plan",published
er 1,1978,does not identify Apache Junction a high priority
TABLE 3-3
1980 POPULATION IN THE APACHE JUNCTION
SERVICE AREA
.CATEGORY POPULATION
Permanent Population i n City
Seasonal Population i n City
Total Population i n City
Permanent Population i n Outlying
Service Area
Seasonal Population i n Outlying
Service Area
Total Population i n Outlying
Service Area
10,500
16,197
26,697
2,200
1,451
3,651
Total Population i n Service Area 30,348
problem area with regard t o onsite treatment/disposal systems.I n
addition,conversations with representatives o f the Pinal County Health
Department indicate that design and installation practices i n the Apache
Junction area have generally been acceptable.
LARGER TREATMENT SYSTEMS.The larger systems i n the Apache Junction
service area generally utilize some form o f secondary biological treat-
ment t o decompose and stabilize the organic matter i n the wastewater.
Activated sludge i s a secondary treatment process that removes organic
matter from sewage by saturating i t with air and adding biologically
active sludge.The activated sludge process i s reliable and capable o f
providing a high degree o f treatment provided that the characteristics
of the influent wastewater do not change drastically over a short period
o f time.A rapid increase i n influent flow may wash the microorganisms
right out o f the system,while a rapid decrease i n influent flow can
starve the organisms and cause many o f them t o die off.This i s an
important constraint i n Apache Junction,where large numbers o f people
move into the area i n the fall and move out again i n the spring,and i t
makes the provision for knowledgeable plant operators a necessity.
At the present time,there are four establishments i n the total service
area which operate actual wastewater treatment facilities:Superstition
Inn,Mining Camp Restaurant,Sierra Entrada Subdivision and Rock Shadows
Travel Trailer Park.The locations o f these facilities are shown i n
Figure 3-6.The Superstition Inn has a revitalized 20,000 gallon per
day (PO package treatment plant consisting o f a l i f t station,an
axtended aeration unit,and clarifier.Effluent i s disposed o f i n four
drY wells,each 4 feet in diameter by 100 feet deep;thus,the plant has
Tto discharge.The effluent is routinely sampled for dissolved oxygen
ntent;however,other effluent quality data are not available.
The'Mining Camp Restaurant,located northeast o f the city,has a forced-
type package treatment plant,recently upsized from 5,000 t o 10,000
U .Treated effluent i s discharged t o two aerated lagoons.Although
restaurant does have a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
'13 "(NPDES)Permit,the lagoons are large enough t o hold all the
"'Fluent without discharging.Since the facility does not discharge,
'%qqluent values are not available.
•P'.•''.1 '17. 77,.`',,•94 ,,,4 I._ •-7 L'• 6 ,••••',."r...-' 7 57 -' 'K. •••- ••.- •I...••. -7•4 •r7.•'1;`.•..• 1 ,'•_.....•.••• 17' • •.•_-_Y. ••.•I.'1 •. •I
61.4tX)141M7A;-SITAIVI4.7.•T .'"*\ • ‘•'•''''"r .•• ''N.1.4...0 77.(.•••..."•• `
:1,..1t,Almaritirmiev,finta ",•;•.,`(7)''..k,,) •
.,Lk..?..
--.
•..
.4...7..4.'1? -1:.).^ 41,It • ••• _
Elf:r,01.4ff'WERIVIM #7._- -C.-1:.:.1"'t iLl4 i-,WRC:41:13 "''''s c I °'-k,•••N : • ./•t
L.:irk .14.,2,"3'1,1,.1 7-r T.9 '•,",!7 1.-k!"1' 7 .7 '4\./-,••-,•.,, „i -;_, ,n , _.. „,,,, .,-,,- .. ••-,....,..„1 it „,.,.,.q..,47,,,,,,.,,..74.-1/1,7,'.•4.1 1 1...7,'' 1'II • c• ••i ^ 71 'L 'f 1 •/-\"I • '\V,r.y.if.\1 -‘3,(Z-t;,,,I, --'::'r i!"-•••,r,r .r ----•_.&"N''-‘4"r7 ...4111.-littcp' 7 ,4 It': tc•.',!,;.,:c4_.„,•1•q••••",7,7',-2..-Mtfrd-,-,-•,,.--.--4.;a1:.2... r-!,,,,,a•j!f•-•{,s,..,Af',1,1t7Z f. 'L',L,1'. c'';.'.7 ... 4 7.' -"1.4 .4 ...'•/"':,:..,-,". ')/'.1„" J., '‘... -..., pd ek e • , • ...., ,)-• ••7 ''.1 ..- 1 )7 .1....1.‘..:.',.. -- .• \ ,.-
j •-•"'" ' ''^--".... "' ''''-''''" '''. i ? `‘:'''l J.,-.'"j-sk'iial)' , . -)/''''' V t.-,7/ L • 1' . - :('.0...k,,,,e ,,fs......-01-- • .•,• „.,• , ,,• • 1 „ .,,.,s3,4, .,.Ix..1 , /.0,./.4f,..-.__..
.74...)'‘‘.--141(41 7 14 ....yo,,,16,'',..L-,("'..7.-It77.1.•ii,f;-).Y.P .., •'.1!',.:L•-,-.7:1:-.•". •-•,f.,,..`7'7,1%1"."'ily.:7-'.,..lri ,1 ,i ..,•1 4:7-,• ,..‹..• • • ,-.•. ,,,j;.)„...• ,.0.: 1,7.01..r.,, ,.. , „ , •,- ,. ,,,,,„.„.‘ • .r .._w .,v.i t ,,.4.44/1,k_..„2.,,t...eiv d,, .,..., ......,,,..,..)„.,_;,..4.,..4 ,.....,,,, -,;,...........,-.,.3.774, ..,;,,--,,,iiiI,..‘,,I,.,,,,-,,,,,,,..:;,,i,;,,,,..ti..4',,:,;(...,...,..L.,..,,,...„,,,,:',I i ,,,..t,,,,T.-;-:-.....-41,.':, 1,.;:'.. '.'. "tc....V.,..•, ;.'...,;.,,, ,. ' a, '-'..,., i.:-...t..71..."., ...:-."... ' ....I --, ,''...4 .1 -`. '.—.....'•••W.••' •' ..-f t 1"•• •,• .".•.:• 7 •r- •,•t `7.74,"•i "--' `"'t•,'-•
'1:::1-7?::••`• -';'1.-1,' • :...4...1%.1-i ''• ''' .,>.-'':;-..-.' '7.‘Wt! "-':•..4„.,.',, ,".',.-,MARICOPA GO I";•!'-,--,..7..--=•• •%•-1.• .1.-...•' '"'NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY • -''`'•"i
-:'''......6 •16.^.^.44'41:71"--4-H • ' 'k • •'.- - - - ....i,L.:.•••14)4,t41•• Ay • -•—_-,.....—..---.---'i •‘-...-pi..--;.---.:-L
riAi,:tr-.'-!'4'.; ' -:----=7-',.czil 1..,:)s.4,Jf:.....kii.,..,'!:,c;._.,..-.::-.1:.?.:,6_,;.• -7-e ':•:,--AN.e -,1 ‘•PINAL CO.:".--,.___/..,,.,;-`1•.:111; '!'; •.., ,' --:,,0,!--•,,,% 1,“-ri--.•-.: • '-• • ../-••••,;,.!..:."'";...'" l'_1 '•
yz,,e ..`.,'•••: (.. •::- -, i ,--f.,.;-.k7;';',,•;.::..1 •.l.,,-,-.i ... '....',,.:L..•,7':'.' •,:......,...., ......, ,.,...n,..- , , • ..-,‘,.."1i'V ‘.".--'1„1„\ );-...11): .1'\\;-• "_.:•••• --k,',:01:,..,:,....; ..:-._..*--,„-_
^•'o ,•••7 7 .1•.1 '..1•J..• '. J .,;•• ,f ...1111 ,,•-Nr•-•c••-••• •-••••n.,•
..,117 •1i-4.* --1-14V -t.e;1•7 • .X v •.1 ••• •.'_ . _,_•'j .-0 -,•-;„I ••• ••....")•"TO•KI :I
E ...•...;' !"••
.••L.."5 6 --,"
re.`r
'53•••'••r"
K.,
Ik''\
•'Nel0,1 "
•„,
'1 .•••••
•:1-1111,...;,. ••. •
I
'•
ILIL,P2,/,fr,./
Liy•-•131'
•t I .
r.r •.•.10 ------......_.-'._.t.
••'":5.747•;•.•
•-•..r).1
,
I s•-•-••
•ipk,' •,""•• ^4,2 '
•"-7'1:1! 'r -v -r
••••,.,••:
\1.
•'VW .
.7„•_
•kJ J 1 . 1 -..--1,1 CI 1.
-• .•...........•• -,.
•••-•-...........-'.•...------ -•E.•:. • •----•—••••••
• -- 7 --'
-1 -
ei? 4V4,:0141.1ENT.
'•
Tut
------•:'•
IN
I /
••• •-•'•7""'`•"1.51 \•• f:r ;
".•014'0 •"-r -.5 .••I ••I
_.• _f ......'""•'•
• 4IB..•_
(
.-1
-- - '
"• •••"-7
f
•
.1
?i •I
,/'
N,2? •
4 "/ ,)i;
i
Z3 \ s';1*co ••.
IX 1 \
1 0
•
k 7 -7i .......
.4 .
'•--
411
!• •
)12•"_'' ,--;.4!-<"4,•
11141
1,
1,1
1
I L
\ 7
-
'IS •
`-‘
( •
C.;I 11/21.4I ••
I 0 •„
7 7_s
-1 ,11, ,
C2 ..1
••I 1‘.#:'PROPOSED t.
cc
1 .,
• :
' —--
2 13%„ i
gsv.sr.•.seete •".::•..,
•
;
„
.4:5 •--`•
-, •
1 1 ,7/.1
...• •.
• --- —,....,-.1-'_,---—.1_-.---:--1-.0:i —.-
..-""”..1., i ', .-1.' .67',. li:4,4;:,1(.7••• .I.• I i ,1 ''‘.:;
1
I .
-"AA-'•v :60-; • •'.I :••T n I•""I .,11..•• •I •,, .•,•. - •••-•••• ••• ,A "•
SUPERSTITION ,FREEWAY •••••••••
•:'.....
• ,.•;...
II., • 2
'I
--7 -c_.1,/),-; • .`,4 7 if .•,.1\''11 11 -7 1/11 I
h -A..VeioWi
.••;1:
(‘'T h S,i
7 I.
'4_,••;. •r yv._''"1.1141 .
'7 "...A.P \i„c II •Of -.....
.
I 1.—r '11 rr? NT I r,• _r •!--•J t 1-461!•V„404 f•-I .....`.3 ..-•_
4 1 4
•ILJ/I •.1,t
-.1 I e I
I ('I r>•
( I
,
;
S I
• •
- • '• •;•". • '
•• •j p •
4 iI '
e--)
18 1„11
............
n'.`"fid•vtiII-7,....
•--.J1:
..••,.,•---••• V1-1 s'
I •
-r.` • "7--•-f
\
I.
- 1
)?
...I
rLIf
II I
,'I 2
•11
7
.11
,;••••1,4./1,-2 •
.7
qt..
•..
-I
'So
. 4 CS'
•••••••••••••111110
LEGEND
TOTAL SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
- - AREA WITHIN CITY LIMITS
•WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
4•11•111111M
al 0 14 3/4
SCALE IN MILES
,SEWAGE 15-1P0tAL ALTERNATIVE.§-
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION. ARIZONA
EXISTING WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES
PRC TOUPS 1 FIGURE
4131 N 24 ST.PHX,AZ.NO.3-6
P&P Development,Inc.,i s the developer o f the Sierra Entrada Subdi-
vision,located as shown i n Figure 3-6.Included i n the service area
are a number o f single-family residences,a small car washing facility,
and the Superstition Plaza,which i s a multi -service commercial shopping
area.All establishments i n the subdivision are served by a gravity
sewer system,with pipes either 6 -inches o r 8 -inches i n diameter.Two
o f the major 8 -inch lines convey raw wastewater t o a 60,000.gpd acti-
vated sludge treatment facility i n the southwest corner o f the property.
Treatment units consist o f one bar screen and one aerated grit chamber,
(for removal o f large,coarse solids),six aeration basins i n series,
two final settling tanks,one sludge holding tank,and a disinfection
facility.Treated effluent flows t o either o f two storage lakes i n the
subdivision,while the sludge i s periodically pumped from the holding
tank and hauled away for disposal.The two lakes are designed t o
hold all o f the treated effluent without discharging;however,i f a
plant emergency does occur,treated effluent can also flow t o a 50 -foot
deep disposal pit adjacent t o the treatment plant.Twenty homes out o f
a projected total o f 136 homes are presently connected t o the sewer
system.The wastewater treatment plant has space available to expand t o
a capacity o f 100,000 gpd once the remaining homes are connected.
The Rock Shadows Travel Trailer Park has a 40,000 gpd activated sludge
facility located i n the southwest corner o f the property.Treatment
Units .consists o f one grit chamber,eight aeration basins i n series,one
final settling tank,and one sludge holding tank.Treated effluent
flows alternately to two drain fields,while sludge is pumped periodi-
cally and hauled away.The WWTP has been i n service since 1972.Com-
plete cleaning and maintenance i s performed once a year,usually early
In the fall.
CHAPTER 4
FUTURE CONDITIONS
POPULATION.
According t o the previously mentioned report,"Population Analysis for
the City o f Apache Junction,Arizona",the population o f the service
area i s expected t o grow a t a rate o f 5 percent per year for the next
ten years,4 percent per year for the years 1991-1995,and 3 percent per
year for the years 1996-2000.Table 4-1 shows the projected populations
for the City itself,the outlying service area,and the total service
area through the year 2000.As shown,there i s projected t o be 60,161
residents and 8,268 residents i n the City and the outlying service area,
respectively,for a total year 2000 population o f 68,429.The report
took a somewhat conservative look a t the potential for population growth
i n the service area.Major factors which could increase the rate o f
growth include completion o f the Superstition Freeway,development o f a
municipal airport,opening of a community college,and the further
development o f industrial parks and shopping centers.
As important for this study as the total population i s the population
density i n the two major areas.The upper half o f Table 4-2 shows the
population densities through year 2000 based on land area within the
city limits o f 13.03 square miles and a land area o f 35 square miles i n
the outlying service area.The land area i n the total service area i s
cpproximately 48.03 square miles.An important distinction between the
1:ity and the outlying service area i s apparent from Table 4-2,which
cthows that the population density i n the outlying service area i s only
icout 5 percent of that in the City.By year 2000,population density
'n the City will have reached 4,617 persons per square mile,while the
qoulation density i n the outlying service area will only be 236 persons
square mile.
lower half o f Table 4-2 presents a further comparison.Within the
-7 limits,there are two square miles which are under public owner-
-?.I t therefore seems reasonable t o use an eleven square mile figure
4-1
TABLE 4-1
APACHE JUNCTION POPULATION PROJECTIONS THROUGH YEAR 2000
CITY OUTLYING SERVICE AREA
TOTAL
SERVICE AREA
PERMANENT SEASONAL TOTAL PERMANENT
YEAR POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION
16,197 26,697 2,200
20,669 33,431 2,806
1980 10,500
1985 12,762
1990 16,288
1995 19,816
2000 22,972
26,375 42,663 3,579
32,085 51,901
37,189
4,2914
60,161 4,938
SEASONAL TOTAL TOTAL
POPULATION POPULATION POPULATION
1,451
1,851
2,362
3,651 30,348
4,657
5,941
38,088
48,604
2,873 7,167 59,068
3,330 8,268 68,429
YEAR
iikuLa 4-2
4:4PACHE JUNCTION POPULATION DENSITIES THROUGH
YEAR 2000
(1)GROSS POPULATION DENSITIES
CITY OUTLYING SERVICE AREA TOTAL SERVICE AREA
TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL POPULATION
POPULATION DENSITY POPULATION DENSITY POPULATION DENSITY
(PERSONS (PERSONS (PERSONS
PER SQ.MI.)PER SQ.MI.)PER SQ.MI.)
13.03 SQ.MI.35 SQ.MI.48.03 SQ.MI.
1980 26,697 2,049
1985 33,431 2,565
1990 42,663 3,274
1995 51,901 3,983
2000 60,161 4,617
CITY
3,651 104 30,348
4,657 133 38,088
5,941 170 48,604
7,167 205 59,068
8,268 236 68,429
(2)NET POPULATION DENSITIES
632
793
1,012
1,230
1,425
OUTLYING SERVICE AREA TOTAL SERVICE AREA
10FAL POPULATION TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL POPULATION
POPULATION DENSITY POPULATION DENSITY POPULATION DENSITY
(PERSONS (PERSONS (PERSONS
PER SQ.MI.)PER SQ.MI.)PER SQ.MI.)
YEAR 11 SQ.MI.13 SQ.MI.24 SQ.MI.
1980 26,697 2,427 3,651 281 30,348 1,265
1985 33,431 3,039 4,657 358 38,088 1,587
1990 42,663 3,878 5,941 457 48,604 2,025
1995 51,901 4,718 7,167 551 59,068 2,461
2000 60,161 5,469 8,268 636 68,429 2,851
t o represent the area within the city limits which i s actually deve-
lopable.Likewise,i n the outlying service area,22 o f the 35 square
miles are either lands i n trust t o the Arizona State Land Department or
are lands controlled by the United States Bureau o f Land Management.
Once again,i t seems reasonable t o use a thirteen square mile figure t o
represent the area within the outlying service area which i s actually
developable.Certainly,the state lands will be proposed for deve-
lopment i n the future;however,for base statistical purposes and for
the fact that the users today are unknown,i t i s felt that the statis-
tics should be presented i n terms o f both the gross and net areas.The
lower half o f Table 4-2 shows that,by year 2000,population density in
the city will have reached 5,469 persons per square mile,while the
population density i n the outlying service area will only be 636 persons
per square mile,or about 12 percent o f the city figure.
The density figures within the city limits become even more significant
when the existing pattern of development i s considered.Conservatively
speaking,only about 6.5 square miles within the city limits i s actually
developed a t present.Over this developed area,the population density
is estimated t o be 1,615 persons per square mile during the summer and
4,107 persons per square mile during the peak o f the winter season.When
comparing these population densities,i t i s important t o keep i n mind
that they are gross averages based on the conservative projections
contained i n the 1980 population report.Individual sections o f the
outlying service area,for example,may develop rather quickly,while
other sections may not develop at all.The major factors identified in
The above paragraphs could have a significant effect on how the pop-
lation actually distributes i n the future.
r)"comparison,population density figures for the major valley cities
c Glendale,Mesa,Phoenix,Scottsdale,and Tempe are presented i n Table
J.With the exception o f Scottsdale,which had a large quantity o f
I ntlY annexed and generally undeveloped or sparsely developed land
.1.-3 included i n its total,the average population density i s about
14-14
:t;
0
TABLE 4-3
POPULATION DENSITY COMPARISON
AVERAGE
POPULATION
POPULATION AVERAGE MAXIMUM DENSITY IN
FROM POPULATION POPULATION DEVELOPED
PRELIMINARY LAND AREA DENSITY DENSITY AREA
COMMUNITY 1980 CENSUS (SQ.MI.)(PERSONS/SQ.MI.)(PERSONS/SQ.MI.)(PERSONS/SQ.MI.)
Glendale 92,809 '40 2,320 ----
Mesa 149,662 66 2,270 9,340 3,120
Phoenix 779,592 325 2,400 --__
Scottsdale 87,700 89 990 ----
Tempe 106,306 38 2,800 7,300 3,980
Apache Junction
(1980)-Gross 26,697 13.03 2,049
Apache Junction 955 (summer)1,615 (summer).
(1980)-Net 26,697 11 2,427 (winter)4,107 (winter)
Apache Junction
(2000)-Gross 60,161 13.03 4,617
Apache Junction 2,088 (summer)3,534 (summer)
(2000)-Net 60,161 11 5,469 (winter)9,256 (winter)
2,400 persons per square mile.Additional data received from the east
valley cities o f Mesa end Tempe shows maximum population densities o f
9,340 and 7,300,respectively.The average population densities i n the
developed residential areas are about 3,120 and 3,980 persons per square
mile for Mesa and Tempe,respectively.As can be seen from Tables 4-2
and 4-3,population density i n the 1990's within the city limits o f
Apache Junction will become comparable t o these other larger valley
cities,where complete municipal services have been provided for many
years.
WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS.
Wastewater flow and strength parameters are defined as part o f the
previously mentioned CAAG 208 Project,"Areawide Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan".Table 4-4,which presents wastewater flow,biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD),and suspended solids (SS)loadings for Apache
Junction,i s based on the following values from Chapter V o f the 208
Report:
Average flow =90 gallons per capita per day
BOD concentration =0.20 pounds per capita per day
=266 milligrams per liter (mg/1)
SS concentration =0.25 pounds per capita per day
=333 mg/1
Due to the fact that the vast majority of the population is expected to
reside within the city limits,the average wastewater flows and loadings
'from the city are significantly greater than from the outlying service
l ea.
TIRESHOLD CAPACITY.
''fZ1ERAL.As described i n Chapter 3,the majority o f the population i n
'.7vche Junction i s serviced for wastewater management by onsite septic
1)s,with leach fields o r disposal pits.The septic system had done an
4-6
CITY
•-•: !
KPACHE.JUNCTION WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
OUTLYING SERVICE AREA TOTAL SERVICE AREA
AVERAGE BOD SS AVERAGE BOD SS AVERAGE BOD SS •
FLOW LOAD LOAD FLOW LOAD LOAD FLOW LOAD LOAD
YFAR (MGD)(lb/day)(lb/day)(MGD)(lb/day)(lb/day)(MGD)(lb/day)(lb/day)
1980 2.4o 5,34o 6,680 0.33 730 910 2.73 6,070 7,590
1985 3.01 6,690 8,360 0.42 930 1,160 3.43 7,620 9,520
1990 3.84 8,530 10,670 0.53 1,190 1,480 4.37 9,720 12,150
1995 4.67 10,380 12,980 0.65 1,430 1,790 5.32 11,810 14,770
2000 5.42 12,030 15,0140 0.74 1,650 2,070 6.16 13,680 17,110
adequate job o f wastewater management t o date,mainly due t o the rela-
tively sparse population o f year-round residents i n the service area.
However,as the number o f year-round and seasonal residents i n Apache
Junction continues t o grow a t a rapid pace,a logical question i s how
much longer the community can rely on the onsite methods t o handle
wastewater.Indeed,one o f the major thrusts o f this report i s t o
determine what this "threshold capacity"for septic system utilization
i s and approximately when,i f ever,i t will be reached i n the Apache
Junction service area.As used i n this report,"threshold capacity"
will indicate the level a t which wastewater treatment using septic
systems can be permitted without creating a hazard t o the public safety,
health and general welfare.
SEPTIC SYSTEM FEASIBILITY.The design and installation o f a septic
system i s generally not considered t o be an exact science.Rather,the
accepted techniques are based on empirical data which has been gathered
over a number o f years.The main items which have been found t o in-
fluence septic system feasibility include:
1)The percolation rate,or how fast treated wastewater i s ab-
sorbed into the soil,which i s directly related t o the type o f
soil i n a given area.
2)The size o f the dwelling t o be served,which i s usually expres-
sed as the number o f contributing bedrooms.
3)Empirical engineering data showing the absorption area per
bedroom required for a given percolation rate.
4)Standby or replacement capacity required (if any).
5)The amount and type of maintenance given to the system.
,G.tar design and installation i n a good soil with adequate routine
ntenance should insure proper performance o f a septic system for a t
'3 twenty years.Septic systems which fail early are due more t o
liSS installation with no thought given t o maintenance than t o any
tondition.
L+-8
CONDITIONS IN APACHE JUNCTION.The characteristics o f the major types
of soils present i n the Apache Junction service area have been sum-
marized previously i n Chapter 3.The conclusions drawn i n Chapter 3
were that the soil i n the southwest portion i s basically a sandy loam
with moderate permeability,while the soil i n the northern and eastern
portions i s a loam containing a relatively high percentage o f gravel,
cobbles and clay with a lower permeability.Drilling records from
companies operating i n Apache Junction bear out thc conclusion that the
southwest portion o f the service area i s better suited for septic tank/
disposal systems than the northeast part.As a result,septic tanks
with the deep -pit method o f disposal can be readily utilized i n the
southwest part o f the area;however,the shallower and more land -inten-
sive leach field method o f disposal must be used with septic tanks i n
the northeast part o f the area.
Once the soil type and permeability characteristics are known,the
Arizona Department o f Health Services Engineering Bulletin No.12,
Guidelines for Installation of Septic Tank Systems,can be utilized i n
the design and layout o f a septic tank and disposal system for a given
size residence.Figure 4-1 shows how a conventional septic tank and
leach field could be designed for a typical single-family residence i n
the poorer soil area.As mentioned above,the leach field method o f
disposal i s quite land -intensive and,as a result,Figure 4-1 indicates
that a lot size o f one acre would probably be needed for a single-family
septic system in the poorer soil area.When subtractions for street
rights -of -way and other open spaces are considered,(which account for
4proximately 25 percent o f the gross land area),a total o f 480 one-
re units can be constructed per square mile o f gross land area.Using
the 2.33 persons per unit from the existing population analysis (Chapter
3)yields an overall population density figure o f 1,120 persons per
,,..nare mile as the threshold level in the poorer soil area.
M termination o f a threshold level for development i n the better soil
i s somewhat more complex,due to the fact that (a)the better soil
most o f the Apache Junction city limit and (b)approximately 90
4-9
290'
iso'.__r 7
1iRESIDENCE 1
_--1Septictank
SEPTIC I SYSTEM
I
-----
—.__..I I
Active system
Future replacement
system
Lot size = 43,500 sq.ft.:1=1 acre
Disposal system consists of 6 trenches, each 100 ft.long x I ft. wide x 2 ft. deep.
..10070 replacement trench capacity required o 10 25 50 100
SCALE IN FEET
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION ARIZONA
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
POORER SOIL AREA
PRC TOUPS
4131 N 24 ST.PHX.. AZ
FIGURE A
NO.-1"
percent of the mobile home and travel trailer parks (high -density deve-
lopment)are located within the city limits.Figures 4-2 through 4-4
show how a conventional septic tank and disposal pit could be designed
for a single-family residence,mobile home unit and travel trailer unit
in the better soil area,respectively.These figures indicate that a
desirable lot size in the better soil area is on the order of 14,000
square feet for a single-family residence,6,000 square feet per unit in
a mobile home park,and 3,000 square feet per unit in a travel trailer
park.I t must be kept in mind that these are very conservative figures
and attempt to account for the varieties in sizes of dwellings for a
given category.For example,a single-family residence on the smaller
end of the scale would most likely require something less than the
14,000 square foot lot identified above.Along the same lines,in the
larger travel trailer parks,three or four units are often connected to
the same system,rather than each unit having its own individual system.
Presently in Apache Junction,there are three major types of residential
land uses:single family homes;mobile home and travel trailer parks;
and a
lers.
areas
mixed use of single family homes,mobile homes,and travel trai-
Currently,mobile homes and travel trailers in parks or mixed use
account for in excess of 70 percent of the total number of resi-
dences in the city.The true residential -type subdivisions in the city
number only five:Apache Villa,Palm Springs,Sierra Entrada,Super-
stition Estates,and Superstition Villa.There are some older subdi-
visions,such as San Marcos,which began as the true residential -type,
but over time they have evolved into the mixed use type described above.
. The city planning staff perceives that long-range development will occur
as a more even distribution o f
This will be a t least somewhat
metropolitan area continues to
types o f residences than exists a t present.
o f a natural occurrence as the Phoenix
grow eastward,thereby attracting more
.rear -round.residents to Apache Junction.For purposes of this report,
It will be assumed that over the long term,development will evolve into
ratio of 60 percent single-family,20 percent mobile home,and 20 per-
travel trailer.Utilizing the individual lot sizes for septic
7,vstems identified above,the average lot size i n the better soil area
acomes 10,200 square feet,as follows:
4-11
14d
100'
r .- 1
RESIDENCE
,
E 7
Se•tic tankI.
SEPTIC SYSTEM
I
Future replacement
Active system 1 system
111 L__()
_ _ _ J
lot site 14;000 sq.ft.=I/3 acre
-now system consists of I pit:
diameter x 50 ft. deep.
replacement pit capacity required
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION,_ARIZONA
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
BETTER SOIL AREA
PRO TOUP.S._IF 4-24-2
4131 N 24 ST.M., AL.
C )1 51 1102030
SCALE IN FEET
85'
1
1
RESIDENCE
I. ,SEPTIC SYSTEM ,..1
Septic I
at nk 1
Active Future1-0--replacement
system systemI
,
L__.()
.__.J
1
tot size = 5950 sq.ft.
sal system consists
diameter x 50 ft.% replacement pit
of I pit,
deep.
capacity required.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA
MOBILE HOME RESIDENCE
BETTER SOIL AREA
0 5 10 2 0 3 0
SCALE IN FEET
PRC TOUPS
4131 N 24 ST.PHX, AZ.
FIGURE 4 _3
NO.
67'
45'
RESIDENCE
[SEPTIC -SYSTEM]
Septic
tank
Active system
L_
L.Future replacementFirstem
1
Lot size =3,015 sq. ft.
Disposal system =I pit,2 ft.diameter x 75 ft. deep.
100%replacement pit capacity required.
'SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION. ARIZONA
TRAVEL TRAILER RESIDENCE
BETTER SOIL AREA05102030
k!!S I PRC TOUPS
SCALE IN FEET 1 4131 N 24 ST.,PHX.,AZ.
FIGURE A 4
NO.-w
0.6 x 14,000 =8,400
0.2 x 6,000 =1,200
0.2 x 3,000 =600
AVERAGE =10,200 square feet
When subtractions for street rights -of -way and other open spaces are
included,(which account for approximately 35 percent of the gross land
area),a total of 1,760 lots of 10,200 square feet can be constructed
per square mile of gross land area.Using the 2.33 persons per unit
figure from the existing population analysis in Chapter 3 yields an
overall population density of 4,100 persons per square mile as the
threshold level in the better soil area.
IMPACT OF "NO ACTION".
A "no action"plan is normally developed to establish a suitable "con-
trol"against which other alternatives may be compared and evaluated.I t
is felt that pursuit of a "no action"philosophy by the City of Apache
Junction would result in a number of highly undesirable impacts,the
most significant of which would be:1)allowing population growth to
continue at a more or less uncontrolled rate;2)opening the door for a
haphazard mixture of mobile homes,travel trailers,and single-family
residences in the developing areas;3)leaving provision for wastewater
management up to the whim of the individual builder or developer;and 4)
allocating review of wastewater management plans to an already over-
burdened Pinal County Health Department staff.The end result would
undoubtedly be the continued proliferation of individual onsite septic
Systems,with little or no thought given to alternative methods of
wastewater collection and treatment for the more densely populated
areas.
The preceeding section of this chapter identified threshold levels of
development using the septic system method for wastewater management to
be 1,120 persons per square mile in the poorer soil area and 4,100
!Tersons per square mile in the better soil area.For comparison,
6airlier in the chapter,Table 4-2 showed the population density in the
service area rising from a level of 104 persons per square mile
4-15
in 1980 to 236 persons per square mile in year 2000.Over the same
period of time,the population density within the Apache Junction city
limits i s expected to rise from 2,049 to 4,617 persons per square mile.
I t becomes apparent that the population density i n the outlying service
area remains low enough through year 2000 to continue to successfully
utilize onsite methods for wastewater management.Within the city
limits,on the other hand,unless major areas are annexed,the pop-
ulation density will surpass even the threshold limit in the better soil
area i n about the year 1996.
Thus,i t appears that individual septic systems cannot be utilized
indefinitely in the Apache Junction service area and that consideration
should be given to having available an alternative wastewater collection
and treatment system in the middle 1990's.In addition,existing high-
density areas which may already be exceeding the above limits need to be
restricted to avoid developing into localized trouble spots.The
remaining chapters of this report will develop and evaluate different
plans for effectively meeting Apache Junction's wastewater needs through
the year 2000 and will culminate in a recommendation of the best alter-
native plan.
4-16
CHAPTER 5
DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION.
Based on the analysis o f "threshold capacity"completed i n Chapter 4,
three major alternatives will be developed i n this chapter for manage-
ment o f Apache Junction's wastewater through the year 2000.These
alternatives are:
1)Continued use o f individual on -site systems for treatment and
disposal o f the majority o f the wastewater i n the total ser-
vice area.
2)Continued use o f individual on -site systems i n the low -density
outlying service area;provision for gravity sewer collection
o f wastewater from within the high -density city limits,with
treatment a t a facility i n the Apache Junction service area.
3)Continued use o f individual on -site systems i n the low -density
outlying service area;provision for gravity sewer collection
o f wastewater from within the high -density city limits,with
treatment a t a facility i n eastern Mesa.
Before these three alternatives can be developed i n detail,a discussion
of the applicable regulations and design criteria with respect t o waste-
water management i s necessary.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND DESIGN CRITERIA.
The bulk of wastewater management regulations is promulgated a t three
levels o f government:federal,state and county.Wastewater management
alternatives specific t o Apache Junction come under the jurisdiction o f
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),the State o f
Arizona Department o f Health Services (ADHS),and the Pinal County
4'1ealth Department.In recent years,both the EPA and the county health
"epartment have turned much o f their regulatory function over t o the
state,such that two state engineering bulletins can now be utilized i n
the planning and design o f wastewater management systems:Engineering
Bulletin No.11,Minimum Requirements for Design, Submission of Plans
and Specifications of Sewage Works;and,Engineering Bulletin No.12,
Guidelines for Installation of Septic Tank Systems.Using these two
bulletins as a guide,basic design criteria were developed specific t o
this project for septic systems,interceptor sewers,wastewater treat-
ment plants,and wastewater reuse systems,and are presented i n Table
5-1.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE 1.
GENERAL.The first alternative involves continued use o f individual on-
site systems for treatment and disposal of the majority o f the waste-
water i n the total service area.Although the most widely used method
of individual treatment i s the septic tank with an absorption bed,other
options are available,including mound systems,aerobic treatment,and
evapotranspiration systems.Simplified diagrams for these processes are
presented i n Figures 5-1 through 5-4.These options have seen limited
use i n Arizona t o date;however,the technology level has now increased
to the point where their use will undoubtedly become more widespread.A
brief description o f these available individual systems i s presented
henceforth.
SEPTIC TANK WITH ABSORPTION BED.
Description.A septic tank connected t o a soil absorption bed (seepage
pit or leach field)i s the traditional on -site system for the treatment
and disposal of domestic wastewater from individual households or esta-
blishments.The system consists of a buried tank where wastewater is
collected and scum,grease,and settleable solids are removed by gravity
separation,and a sub -surface drainage system where clarified effluent
percolates into the soil.Precast concrete tanks with a capacity o f
1,000 gallons are commonly used for household systems.Solids are
collected and stored i n the tank,forming sludge and scum layers.
Anaerobic digestion occurs i n these layers,reducing the overall volume.
EYfluent i s discharged from the tank t o one o f two basic types o f sub-
aarface systems:absorption trenches (leach field)o r seepage pits.
Sizes are usually determined by percolation rates,soil characteristics,
and site size and location.
TABLE 5-1
WASTEWATER SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA
ITEM
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Septic Tank Capacity,gal.
DESIGN VALUE
1-3 bedrooms 960
4 bedrooms 1,200
5 bedrooms 1,500
6 bedrooms 1,800
Setback Requirements,ft.
Buildings
Property Lines
Water lines
INTERCEPTOR SEWERS
10
5
10
Peak flow determination,Qmax,
i n terms o f average flow,Qmax 5
Qave,and population i n thousands,P gave -—OTTO
Acceptable slope for gravity flow,
ft./100 ft.(minimum 2.0 fps velocity)
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
Preliminary Treatment
Screenings from Bar Rack and Grinder,
cu.ft./mgd
0.56
2
Grit from Grit Chamber,cu.ft./mgd 4
Primary Sedimentation
Overflow rate,gpd/sq.ft.
Surface area,sq.ft./mgd
800
1,250
Activated Sludge
Organic load,lb.BOD/1,000 cu.ft./day 40
Detention time,hours 6
Volume,cu.ft./mgd 33,400
.Extended Aeration (Oxidation Ditch)
Organic load,lb.BOD/1,000 cu.ft./day
Detention time,hours
Volume,cu.ft./mgd
25
24
133,400
TABLE 5-1 (cont'd)
WASTEWATER SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA
ITEM
Secondary Sedimentation
Overflow rate,gpd/sq.ft.
Surface area,sq.ft/mgd
Filtration
Flow rate,gpm/sq.ft.
Surface area,sq.ft./mgd
Disinfection
Chlorine dose,mg/1
Chlorine load,lb./mgd
Detention time,minutes
Volume,cu.ft./mgd
Anaerobic Digestion
Solids load,lb.VS/cu.ft./day
Detention time,days
Volume,cu.ft./mgd
DESIGN VALUE
600
1,670
4
175
10
83
30
2,800
0.08
30
12,200
Heat Treatment
Heat reactor detention time,minutes 30
Heat reactor volume,cu.ft./mgd 10
Dewatering
Operating time,hours/day
Solids load,lb./sq.ft./mgd
Surface area,sq.ft./mgd
Aerobic Digestion
Solids load,lb.VS/cu.ft./day
Detention time,days
Volume,cu.ft./mgd
Solar Dryiing
Solids load,lb./sq.ft./year
Surface area,sq.ft./mgd
WASTEWATER REUSE SYSTEMS
Storage Ponds
Winter storage duration,months
Pond depth,feet
Surface area,acres/mgd
12
10
12
0.05
18
20,000
10
1,670
2
10
19
TABLE 5-1 (cont'd)
WASTEWATER SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA
ITEM DESIGN VALUE
Slow Rate (Crop Irrigation)System
Application rate,ft./year 6
Surface area,acres/mgd 190
High Rate (Rapid Infiltration)System
Application rate,ft./year 60
Surface area,acres/mgd 19
421
Z ( )
0
-0C
Tc
-n
aco c
rn
W >
3:0 rnw 0 P1
W —1 rn
—xi
C 0
aU Z
0 Z 0
Z
m
1:0 *XI
fill N Z
0 1 )4.
INLET
31111111-4 1M -UNA
rgET------MGE 1
SEPTIC TANK
(PROFILE)
SEEPAGE PITS
(PLAN)
-OR-
TILE DRAINAGE LINES
ABSORPTION TRENCHES
ABSORPTION FIELD
(PLAN)
SIMPLIFIED DIAGRAM
FROM
HOUSE
\>f,
/A /1
/147-7
WAS
LEVEL
/AW
SEPTIC TANK
GRAVEL FILLED TRENCHES
SAND FILL
2777\Y/X\Y/A\Y/ASY/h•. •••."".".\v / x \y / x y i •xx y /A .\\A o
\7\...re-i*v---Y7/—\•z5/;/As.\/"Asc),Y'
STONE FILL
HIGH WATER
ALARM SWITCH
PUMP WITH CONTROLS
PUMPING CHAMBER
(PROFILE)
SIMPLIFIED DIAGRAM
MOUND
TOPSOIL
.••4• ••s •
PLOWED SURFACE
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION ,ARIZONA
SEPTIC TANK
MOUND SYSTEM
PRC TOUPS
4131 N 24 ST.PHX AZ.
FIGURE 2
NO.I'
41 0
Sti
Z
riO
TC
265
P ?,
(71
mx0
CT,0-0
m
7:•-6 -1zrnw zrna
WATER
13
0
X
fT1
C-C
0
5
7>
0
ru
GIrn
cn
0
'1>o f—a)
S3
A
I
I
V
N
H
3
1
1
V
MOTOR
OUTLET
EXTENDED AERATION UNIT
(PROFILE)
SIMPLIFIED DIAGRAM
SEEPAGE PITS
(PLAN)
-OR-
-1 \ r t o Atm A f±C I ATCCSDRAINAGELATERAL
),ABSORPTION TRENCH
ABSORPTION FIELD
(PLAN)
0
141'al l
C Osi
C
3c w; co
zo c
al
rn
-a
z
rn cn
0
-a
rn
rx,
Co
IC-MF
Vn
1-4 r
z r-
>-4
12)2:1
N z
z
1
7 74
4.1:71,1111,1-7//
'
7 A14 TOI
3 FEET 7-7.
N 1- 0
7/(
V 'N7
P;orsocrpl:Teo
a'iCt";;reig6ROVC5g60CSY
Iii
WASHED ROCK
COVER
.q."-W/Z:41.2
IMPERMEABLE
PLASTIC LINER
(OPTIONAL)
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION BED
(PROFILE)
SIMPLIFIED DIAGRAM
giatisit
i N 7Tfil
iii *N.'s ///
f
iis/AN
17
Technology Status.Septic tank -soil absorption systems are the most
widely used method of on -site domestic waste disposal.Almost one-third
of the United States population depends on such systems.
Limitations.Septic systems are dependent on soil and site conditions,
the ability of the soil to absorb liquid,depth to groundwater,nature
of and depth to bedrock,seasonal flooding,and distance to well or
surface water.A percolation rate of one inch per hour i s often used as
the lower limit or minimum of permeability.The limiting value for
seasonal high groundwater should be two feet below the bottom o f the
drainfield.When a soil system loses its capacity t o absorb septic tank
effluent,(from overloading or poor maintenance),there i s a potential
for effluent surfacing,which often results i n odors and,possibly,
health hazards.
Residuals Generated.The sludge and scum layers accumulated i n a septic
tank must be removed every three to five years.
Process Reliability.Properly designed,constructed,and operated
septic tank systems have demonstrated an efficient and economical alter-
native to public sewer systems,particularly in rural and sparsely
developed areas.System life for properly sited,designed,installed and
maintained systems may equal or exceed twenty years.
Environmental Impact.Leachate can contaminate groundwaters when pol-
lutants are not effectively removed by the soil system.In many well
aerated soils,significant densities of homes with septic tank -soil ab-
sorption systems have resulted in increasing nitrate content of the
groundwater.Soil clogging may result i n surface ponding with potential
aesthetic and public health problems.
SEPTIC TANK MOUND SYSTEMS.
Description.A septic tank and mound system is a method of on -site
treatment and disposal of domestic wastewater that can be used as an
alternative to the conventional septic tank -soil absorption system.In
areas where problem soil conditions preclude the use of subsurface
trenches or seepage beds,mounds can be installed to raise the absorp-
tion field above ground,provide treatment and distribute the wastewater
to the underlying soil over a wide area in a uniform manner.
The three main elements of the system are the sepLic tank,dosing cham-
ber,and the mound.The relative dimensions and location of the septic
tank,the type of control structures,the size and loading of inspection
ports,and the materials of construction are dictated by state and local
codes.A pressure distribution network should be used for uniform appli-
cation of clarified tank effluent to the mound.A subsurface chamber
can be installed with a pump and high water alarm to dose the mound
through a series of perforated pipes.Where sufficient pressure i s
available,a dosing siphon may be used.
The design of a mound is based on the expected daily wastewater volume
i t will receive and the natural soil characteristics.As with the
conventional subsurface disposal system,pollutants are removed by
natural absorption and biological processes in the soil zone adjacent to
the seepage bed.The mound must provide an adequate amount of unsatur-
ated soil and spread septic tank effluent over a wide enough area so
that distribution and purification can be effected before the water
table i s reached.
'technology Status.Septic tank mound systems have proven to be suc-
cessful alternatives for difficult soil conditions.They have been i n
use for more than twenty years i n various forms and for nearly ten years
Ath the design described herein.
iit!JELisal ,A mound system requires more space and periodic main-
tenance than a conventional subsurface disposal system,along with higher
5-11
construction costs.The system cannot be installed on steep slopes,nor
over highly (1/2 inch per hour)
groundwater must be
edge of the mound.
effluent throughout
requirements.
impermeable subsurface.Seasonal high
deeper than two feet t o prevent surfacing a t the
Pumping i s usually required t o distribute tank
the mound,necessitating operation and maintenance
Residuals Generated.A septage volume equal t o the septic tank capacity
i s generated every three t o five years,requiring treatment and dis-
posal.
Process Reliability.Septic tank -mound systems that are properly des-
igned and constructed are viable alternatives t o centralized treatment
facilities.Dosing equipment should be routinely maintained,and septic
tanks must be periodically pumped out for systems t o operate effec-
tively.
ject ions
designed
Long term service life data i s
suggest mound life t o be about
soil absorption system.
not available as yet,but pro-
the same as that o f a properly
Environmental Impact.Visual impact can raise major aesthetic issues,
particularly i n suburban areas,due t o the shape,size and proximity o f
mound systems.Drainage patterns and land use flexibility may also be
affected.
AEROBIC TREATMENT WITH ABSORPTION BED.
Description.An aerobic treatment unit followed by a soil absorption
bed is an on -site system for the treatment and disposal of domestic
wastewater.Various aerobic suspended and fixed growth processes are
available alternatives t o the conventional septic tank.The activated
Sludge process employs high concentrations o f microorganisms under
aerobic conditions i n a batch o r flow -through,extended aeration oper-
ation.Forced air diffusion o r mechanical aeration i s followed by clari-
Tication,whereby the biomass i s separated from the treated wastewater.
Portion o f the separated biomass i recycled back t o the aeration
;'4amber i n the flow -through mode.Fixcd film treatment processes employ
large surface area upon which microorganisms grow and over which
stewater i s distributed so that the biomass may contact and metabolize
5-12
pollutants within the waste stream.Aeration may be provided by natural
convection,mechanical aeration,o r forced air ventilation.A solid
liquid separation step normally follows,along with recycling o f treated
wastewater back t o the fixed media.Examples o f fixed film systems
include the packed tower,rotating contactor,and submerged media sys-
tem.Treated effluent can then be discharged t o a soil absorption field
for disposal.
Technology Status.Aerobic units are used extensively i n package plants
for institutional and commercial on -site treatment,but their share o f
the individual home treatment market i s quite small.
Limitations.On -site aerobic processes potentially produce a higher
degree o f treatment than septic tanks,but periodic carryover o f solids
due t o sludge bulking,toxic chemical addition,o r excessive sludge
buildup can result i n substantial variability i n effluent quality.
Regular,semi -skilled operation and maintenance i s required t o ensure
proper functioning o f moderately complex equipment,and inspections
every two months are recommended.Power i s required t o operate aeration
equipment and pumps.Absorption beds are dependent upon site and soil
conditions,and are generally limited t o sites with percolation rates
greater than one inch per hour,depth t o water table o r bedrock o f a t
least two t o four feet,and level o r slightly sloping topography.
Residuals Generated.Excess sludge containing organics,grease,hair,
grit,and pathogens must be removed from aerobic units and disposed of
every eight to twelve months.
Process Reliability.Aerobic processes are sensitive t o microbial
Upsets and effluent quality i s dependent upon supervised operation.
Proper design and maintenance o f mechanical equipment i s necessary for
effective treatment.
5-13
Environmental Impact.Sludge i s generated,requiring approved treatment
and disposal.Effluent can contaminate groundwaters when pollutants are
not effectively removed by the aerobic unit o r the soil system.Aeration
equipment can be noisy.Poorly maintained units may produce odors.
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION SYSTEMS.
Description.Evapotranspiration (ET)i s a means o f on -site wastewater
disposal that may be utilized i n some localities --icre site conditions
preclude soil absorption.Evaporation o f moisture from the soil surface
and/or transpiration by plants i s the mechanism o f ultimate disposal.
Thus,i n areas where the annual evaporation rate equals o r exceeds the
rate o f annual added moisture from rainfall and wastewater applications,
ET systems can provide a means o f liquid disposal without danger o f
surface o r groundwater contamination.
I f evaporation i s t o be continuous,three conditions must be met.
First,there must be a continuous supply o f heat t o meet the latent heat
requirement (approximately 590 calories per gram o f water evaporated a t
15 °C).Second,a vapor pressure gradient must exist between the evapora-
tive surface and the atmosphere t o remove vapor by diffusion,convec-
tion,o r both.Meteorological factors,such as air temperature,humi-
dity,wind velocity and radiation influence both energy supply and vapor
removal.Third,there must be a continuous supply o f water t o the eva-
porative surface.The soil material must be fine textured enough t o draw
up the water from the saturated zone t o the surface by capillary action
but not so fine as to restrict the rate of flow to the surface.Eva-
potranspiration is also influenced by vegetation on the disposal field
and can theoretically remove significant volumes o f effluent i n late
Spring,summer and early fall,particularly i f large silhouette,good
transpiring bushes and trees are present.
A typical ET bed system consists o f a one and one-half t o three foot
depth o f selected sand over an impermeable plastic liner.A perforated
'Plastic piping system with rock cover i s often used t o distribute pretreated
C-111
effluent i n the bed.The bed may be square shaped on relatively flat
land,o r a series o f trenches on slopes.The surface area o f the bed
must be large enough for sufficient ET to occur t o prevent the water
level i n the bed from rising t o the surface.
Beds are preceded by septic tanks o r aerobic units to provide the neces-
sary pretreatment.
Technology Status.There are estimated t o be 4,000 t o 5,000 year-round
evapotranspiration beds i n operation i n the United States,particularly
i n the semi -arid regions o f the Southwest.
Limitations.The use o f an evapotranspiration system i s limited by
climate and its effect on the local ET rate.In practice,lined ET bed
systems are generally limited t o areas o f the country where pan evap-
oration exceeds annual rainfall by a t least 24 inches.The decrease o f
ET i n winter a t middle and high latitudes greatly limits its use.Snow
cover reflects solar radiation,which reduces ET.In addition,when
temperatures are below freezing more heat i s required t o change frozen
water t o vapor.When vegetation i s dormant,both transpiration and
evaporation are reduced.An ET system requires a large amount o f land i n
most areas.Salt accumulation may eventually eliminate vegetation and
thus,transpiration.Bed liner (where needed)must be kept water -tight
to prevent the possibility of groundwater contamination.Therefore,
proper construction methods should be employed to keep the liner from
being punctured during installation.
Residuals Generated.The sludge and scum layers accumulated i n the
septic tank must be removed every three t o five years.
Process Reliability.An ET system that has been properly designed and
constructed is an efficient method for the disposal of pretreated waste-
water and requires a minimum o f maintenance.
iernp a c t . E nv i r o nn Healthy vegetative covers are aesthetically
Pl easing.Large land requirement conserves open space,but limits use of
SUMMARY.Implementation o f Alternative 1 i s basically the provision for
the "no action"plan mentioned a t the end o f Chapter 4.Individual
homes and businesses i n the entire Apache Junction service area would
continue t o utilize onsite techniques as the primary method o f waste-
water treatment.In good soil areas,septic tank effluent would flow t o
seepage pits for ultimate disposal.In poorer soil areas,leach fields
o r mound systems could be utilized.Evapotranspiration systems fol-
lowing septic tanks might find use on unusually .,rge lots i n the better
soil areas.Institutional and commercial establishments could inves-
tigate use o f aerobic treatment with an absorption bed,as i s currently
i n use a t the Superstition Inn (Chapter 3).
An evaluation o f cost-effectiveness and other important factors for this
alternative as compared with Alternatives 2 and 3 will be carried out i n
the following chapter.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE 2.
GENERAL.The population data presented i n Chapter 4 showed a distinct
difference i n population density between that area within the city
limits and the outlying service area.By the year 2000,population
density i n the city will have reached 4,617 persons per square mile,a
figure comparable t o that i n other larger Phoenix area cities.At the
same time,the population density i n the outlying service area will be
only 236 persons per square mile.Alternative 2 recognizes this dis-
tinction and allows for continued use o f individual on -site systems i n
the low -density outlying service area,but provides for gravity sewer
collection of wastewater from within the high -density city limits,with
treatment a t a facility i n the Apache Junction service area.
Individual treatment/disposal methods which could be utilized under this
alternative i n the outlying service area include septic tank with ab-
sorption bed,septic tank mound system,aerobic treatment with absorp-
tion bed,and evapotranspiration system.Since these methods were
zresented previously for Alternative 1,the discussion will not be
'cheated here.
5-16
A discussion o f the gravity sewer system and the type o f wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP)which could be utilized by that area within the
city limits i s presented i n the following paragraphs.
GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM.The year 2000 population density within the
Apache Junction city limits i s great enough t o permit utilization o f a
conventional gravity -flow sanitary sewer system*.In such a system,use
i s made o f the natural slope o f the land t o provi r,-:for transport o f
wastewater from individual homes and businesses t o a central treatment
facility.The several types o f sewers commonly used i n a gravity system
are defined as follows:
o Building Sewer -The extension from the building drain t o the
lateral sewer i n the street o r alley;usually
limited t o the property owner's lot line.
o Lateral Sewer -A sewer that discharges into a submain sewer
and has no other common sewer tributary t o
it.
Submain Sewer -A sewer into which the wastewater from two
o r more lateral sewers i s discharged and
which subsequently discharges into a main,a
trunk,or other collector.
°Main Sewer -In larger systems,the principal sewer to
which submains are tributary;also called
trunk sewer.
Interceptor Sewer -A large sewer that receives dry weather
flow from a number o f transverse sewers or
outlets and conducts such waters to a
point for treatment o r disposal.
more innovative types o f sewer systems,such as pressure sewers and
'Cum sewers,will not be addressed here as they are normally appli-
ble i n only low population density areas which are attempting t o
'-21/lect into an existing treatment system.
1 7
According t o ADHS standards,sewers should be sized on the basis o f a
peak flow contribution determined by the formula:
Qmax _5
Qave —5777P
where Q represents flow and P represents population i n thousands.
Although there are a number o f different method ,,.ailable for computing
peak sewage flow,this method has received widespread use for a number
of years.Use o f this formula results -in a smaller peaking factor as
the contributing population increases.For example,a community with a
population o f only 2,000 would have a peaking factor o f about 4.5,
whereas a city o f 50,000 people would have a 2.6 factor.A peaking
factor o f 2.0,which indicates a doubling o f the average flow,would not
occur until the city's population had grown t o about 240,000 persons.
Except for the foothills o f the Goldfield and Superstition Mountains,
the land i n the Apache Junction area slopes generally a t about 30 feet
per mile downward t o the southwest.Gravity sewers can,therefore,be
laid a t a slope o f approximately 0.56 foot per 100 feet o f pipe.This
slope i s adequate t o insure a velocity o f a t least two feet per second
in pipe eight inches i n diameter and larger when flowing a t least half
full,as shown i n the following table.
PIPE DIAMETER MINIMUM SLOPE PIPE DIAMETER MINIMUM SLOPE
(inches)(ft./100 ft.)(inches)(ft./100 ft.)
8
12
15
.4 18 .12
.22 24 .09
.15 27 &larger .08
7I9ure 5 -5. shows how a gravity sewer system could be laid out t o serve
Vle area within the Apache Junction city limits and convey the waste-
ter to a WWTP situated at the lower end (the southwest corner)of
System,near the intersection o f Elliot and Meridian Roads.I t i s
-)ssumed that the lateral sewers would be a minimum o f 8 inches i n dia-
--2ter.The submain sewers would progress i n size from 12 inches t o 18
5-18
I'
• r ra
Se;,1 )('
_
•
"-
c c
4?
YE,
2,•;)
-•••,-
.-us13
,7-s-geo );:t
••••:•_.I L'i
▪I
...:`,••:•<
-L74,
I ,/...A ;35
;
,a41
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION ARIZONA
SAMPLE GRAVITY SEWER/
WWTP SYSTEM
PRC_ TOUpS._IFI RE5_5
4131 N 2 4 FM., AL.
0 2
SCALE IN MILES
inches i n diameter while the main sewer would gradually expand from 18
inches t o 27 inches i n diameter.The pipe sizing i s based on conveying
sanitary sewage only;collection and conveyance o f stormwater i s not
considered i n the analysis.Also,the sizing i s a direct function o f
the population density within the city limits.For the sewer system t o
operate properly,the city must decide on a maximum allowable population
density.I f this density i s exceeded,either larger or parallel pipes
would be required.
I t should be emphasized that other layouts for the sewer system and
treatment plant are possible;the layout shown i s simply one method o f
effectively conveying the wastewater while attempting t o utilize a
minimum amount o f pipe.The WWTP was shown near the intersection o f
Elliot and Meridian Roads simply t o keep i t within the total service
area for purposes o f this analysis.Another option which should be
pursued i n more detail a t the EPA 201 Facility Plan level would be t o
locate the WWTP much further t o the south,perhaps as much as ten miles.
At this location,the plant would be able t o serve a much larger area on
a gravity -flow basis,including not only the present Apache Junction
service area,but also existing portions o f eastern Maricopa County plus
new development which might take place south o f the present service
area.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.Table 4-4 showed that year 2000 wastewater
parameters from within the city limits will be a flow of 5.42 mgd,a BOD
load of 12,030 lb/day (266 mg/1),and an SS load of 15,040 lb/day (333
mg/1).Discussions with the Arizona Department of Health Services have
led t o the conclusion that,on a preliminary basis,a WWTP i n Apache
Junction should be designed t o provide a minimum o f secondary treatment
plus disinfection.The ADHS i s currently reviewing its regulations
regarding levels o f treatment required for wastewater reuse;however,
until these reviiions have been promulgated in final form,the depart-
-lent advised that a secondary plus disinfection level o f treatment would
Put the WWTP on the "safe"side for either wastewater reuse o r dis-
harge.I n numerical terms,this means that both BOD and SS loads would
'`.ave t o be reduced t o 1,360 lb/day (30 mg/I,or about 90 percent re-
van,plus the disinfected effluent could contain no more than 200
'I nI/100 ml o f fecal coliform bacteria.
With this i n mind,the following processes were investigated as possible
treatment options for the Apache Junction WWTP:
o Stabilization Ponds
o Aerated Lagoons
o Conventional Activated Sludge
o Oxidation Ditch
Stabilization ponds and aerated lagoons were eliminated early i n the
analysis due t o a)the large land area required to treat 5.4 mgd o f
average daily flow;b)the inability t o consistently meet the effluent
standards associated with secondary treatment;and c)the generally
negative aesthetics associated with these types o f treatment processes.
On the other hand,either conventional activated sludge o r the oxidation
ditch would be capable o f providing the necessary level o f treatment
without using an excessive quantity o f land.For the purpose o f this
report,the oxidation ditch process was selected for further analysis
because its costs are often slightly less than conventional activated
sludge,i t i s generally more reliable than conventional activated
sludge,and i t provides for a relatively simple system which i s easily
operated and maintained.
Processes which would be needed i n a complete oxidation ditch WWTP
include preliminary treatment,oxidation ditch,secondary sedimentation,
disinfection,aerobic digestion,and solar drying.Of these processes,
the first four are associated with treatment o f the liquid stream,while
the last two are associated with treatment of the solids stream.Figure
5-6 shows a simplified flow diagram for the plant.One possible con-
figuration for the treatment units is presented in Figure 5-7,which
Shows that the 5.4 mgd WWTP can f it easily on a 20 -acre site.Addi-
tional area would be required around the perimeter o f the actual plant
to provide for a buffer zone.ADHS usually requires that the treatment
units be set back 1,000 feet from the nearest property line.
5-21
42- &Tz.•
€414 ,et- cz-q
z 0
T.i
110
> 0
D X
>
>
ITI
Z C-1
0 —"I
- -I
0
Z
*rc?,cn-0cn
(1)
rrl
>
rn
0 GI
o
c_cn
C
Z
0 11 W—40 3>-6 xt r
z 3>
•r—
>7,1
Zoz
0
0 0
0
Olsompwors•nr•Pr,1
2
' )kA.0
(Z' kCP / :
V'00 Cu 4i2.ko ..o okf ki &0-0) co o
LIQUID STREAM
SOLIDS STREAM
4)lQ6.94`?4'47.5-••••7 &IQ
SIMPLIFIED FLOW DIAGRAM
0 C PT
SB SB SB SB
AD
f l CC
PS
1111.
•••11
SB
LEGEND
AD Aerobic Digesters
CC Chlorine Contact
IX Operations Center
OD- Oxidation Ditch
PS-Pump Station (Sludge)
PT-Preliminary Treatment
88 -Sludge Drying Beds
$t -Secondary Clarifiers
0 50 100 200 400
SCALE IN FEET
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION.ARIZONA
OXIDATION DITCH WWTP
PLANT LAYOUT
PRC TOUPS
4131 N 24 ST.PHX A2.I
FIGURE 5 -7NO.
The treatment process assumes that dried sludge would be disposed of in
an acceptable landfill,presumably located within the Apache Junction
service area.The liquid stream effluent could either be discharged or
reused i n a slow rate (crop irrigation)or a high rate (rapid infil-
tration)process.For WWTP effluent to be discharged,an NPDES Permit
would have to be obtained from the state ADHS.Reuse of the wastewater
would not require a discharge permit;however,additional quantities of
land might have to be acquired for winter storage of the effluent and
for implementation of the reuse process itself.Tables 5-2 and 5-3
compare a number of the design features and site characteristics for the
slow rate and high rate wastewater reuse processes.
For the purpose of this report,i t will be assumed that Apache Junction
would be able to obtain an NPDES Permit for discharging into Siphon
Draw,a wash running along the southern edge of the service area boun-
dary (as shown in Figure 5-5).However,since the plant effluent has
potential reuse value for agricultural and greenbelt irrigation or as a
trade item for surface and groundwater,a more detailed comparison
between discharge and reuse options should be carried out as part of the
EPA 201 Facility Plan process,should Apache Junction elect to pursue
its own gravity sewer/WWTP system.
SUMMARY.Implementation of Alternative 2 allows homes in the low-
density outlying service area to utilize any of the acceptable indivi-
dual treatment/disposal methods,including septic tank with absorption
•bed,septic tank mound system,aerobic treatment with absorption bed,
and evapotranspiration system.Homes and businesses within the higher-
density city limits would be served by a gravity sewer system which
would convey raw wastewater to a 5.4 mgd WWTP located roughly a t the
southeast corner of Elliot and Meridian Roads.The plant would be
capable of providing secondary treatment plus disinfection,with the
effluent discharged to Siphon Draw.Dried sludge would be hauled away
Qnd disposed of in an acceptable landfill.
40 evaluation of cost-effectiveness and other important factors for this
al ternative as compared with Alternatives 1 and 3 will be carried out in
the following chapter.
TABLE 5-2
COMPARISON OF DESIGN FEATURES FOR
WASTEWATER REUSE PROCESSES
FEATURE
Application techniques
Annual application rate,
ft.
Field area required,
acres/mgd
Typical weekly application
rate,inches
Disposition of applied
wastewater
SLOW RATE PROCESS HIGH RATE PROCESS
Surface or sprinkler Usually surface
2 to 20 20 to 560
56 to 560 2 to 56
0.5 to 4 4 to 120
Evapotranspiration and Mainly
percolation percolation
Need for vegetation Required Optional
5-25
FEATURE
TABLE 5-3
COMPARISON OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS FOR
WASTEWATER REUSE PROCESSES
SLOW RATE PROCESS HIGH RATE PROCESS
Slope o f Land Less than 2%on cul-
tivated land;less than
4%on noncultivated
land
Soil Permeability
Depth t o Groundwater
-Climatic Restrictions
Not critical;how-
ever,excessive slopes
require much earthwork
Moderately slow t o Rapid (sands,loamy
moderately rapid sands)
2 t o 3 feet 10 feet (lesser
(minimum)depths are acceptable
where underdrainage i s
provided)
Storage often needed
for cold weather and
precipitation
None (possibly
modify operation
i n cold weather)
5-26
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE 3.
GENERAL.The major thrust o f Alternative 3 i s similar t o that o f Alter-
native 2 ,i n that both alternatives recognize the distinction i n pop-
ulation density between the city limits and the outlying service area
and,thus,provide for continued use o f individual onsite systems i n the
low -density area,but provide for gravity sewer collection o f wastewater
from within the higher -density area.The difference i s that Alternative
2 has wastewater flowing t o a treatment facility i n the Apache Junction
service area,while Alternative 3 has the wastewater conveyed t o a WWTP
located i n eastern Mesa,under an agreement between the two cities.
The individual treatment/disposal methods and the gravity sewer system
which could be utilized for this alternative are the same as those for
Alternatives 1 and 2 and,therefore,the discussion will not be repeated
here.The remainder o f this section i s concerned with the likelihood o f
entering into an arrangement with the City o f Mesa for treatment o f
Apache Junction's wastewater,the size o f the treatment facility req-
uired,and the method by which the wastewater would be transported to
the WWTP.
HISTORY OF THE EAST MESA WWTP CONCEPT.Projected future wastewater
flows indicate that the City o f Mesa will need additional sewage col-
lection and treatment capacity beyond that which i s currently planned i n
about ten years.By year 2000 wastewater flows i n Mesa will have
reached 26.3 mgd,and by year 2020 they will be 36.7 mgd.By 1983,Mesa
Will have purchased 19.2 mgd worth o f capacity i n the Multi -Cities 91st
Avenue WWTP i n Phoenix.Thus,i n looking forty years t o the future,Mesa
Will need to have about 17.5 mgd of additional sewage treatment capa-
city.Additional interceptor capacity will also be required t o trans-
port the sewage.
In a December,1980 report entitled "Wastewater Management Plan,City o f
the joint venture o f Logan,Fulton &Associates/John Carollo
Engineers identified five alternative ways t o meet Mesa's future waste-
5 -27
water collection and treatment needs.Of the five,the following two
alternatives were considered by Mesa staff t o be the most feasible:
1)Construction i n stages o f a new 17.5 mgd wastewater treatment
plant i n eastern Mesa and maintenance o f the 19.2 mgd capacity
i n the 91st Avenue WWTP.
2)Purchase i n stages o f an additional 17.5 mgd capacity i n
an enlarged 91st Avenue WWTP o r the 23rd Avenue WWTP,for a
total o f 36.7 mgd capacity i n the City o Phoenix and Multi-
Cities systems.
The 91st Avenue WWTP expansion i s viewed as desirable because i t removes
the responsibility o f sewage treatment from Mesa.However,an important
consideration i n the construction o f an eastern Mesa facility i s the
opportunity for reuse o f the effluent.An analysis o f reuse oppor-
tunities i n the east Mesa area revealed that irrigation on land owned by
the Roosevelt Water Conservation District (RWCD)may be a viable and
profitable option.Effluent may either be sold t o the District,traded
for groundwater,o r traded for Salt River Project surface water.
The report indicated that before any final decision i s made regarding
which alternative t o pursue,more research i s needed t o determine whe-
ther the East Mesa WWTP i s viable legally,politically,and economi-
cally.However,i t i s the opinion o f all concerned that the Mesa staff
must make a decision by the latter part o f 1981.In essence,then,the
feasibility of combining wastewater flows from eastern Mesa and Apache
Junction depends entirely upon the selection by the City of Mesa of the
first of the two above alternatives.Mesa officials have informally
Indicated that,should the first alternative i n fact be chosen,they
would be interested i n investigating the desirability o f accepting flow
from Apache Junction.
IREATMENT FACILITIES REQUIRED.The estimated flows to the East Mesa
WWTP from the City o f Mesa i n the years 2000 and 2020 are 10.7 mgd and
5-28
17.5 mgd,respectively.In the above -mentioned report,i t was decided
that i t would be more beneficial t o stage the construction for the year
2000 flow than t o size and cost a facility required through the year
2020.Therefore,the first stage o f the plant t o handle Mesa's flow
would consist o f two 6.0 modules t o give 12.0 mgd.Addition o f the year
2000 Apache Junction flow o f 5.4 mgd raises the size o f the total WWTP
required t o 17.4 mgd.
In the Mesa report,i t was assumed that the East Mesa WWTP would utilize
an oxidation ditch type o f secondary treatment process,for reasons
similar t o those given earlier i n this report for the Apache Junction
WWTP.The oxidation ditch would be followed by an effluent filtration
process t o polish the effluent prior to discharging t o the RWCD canal
during times o f low canal flow or poor treatment.Effluent would be
transported t o the canal via a pump station and force main originating
on the WWTP site.The report also assumes that the dried sludge would be
disposed o f i n an acceptable landfill,presumably located within the
City o f Mesa.A simplified flow diagram for the plant i s presented i n
Figure 5-8.
INTERCEPTOR SEWER REQUIREMENTS.The site proposed for the East Mesa
WWTP i s located between Higley and Recker Roads just north o f Baseline
Road,as shown i n Figure 5-9.This plant site has the advantage o f
being i n close proximity t o the RWCD canal where the treated effluent
ultimately would be discharged.In addition,this site location would
allow necessary interceptor sewers to be constructed such that a large
Portion of the wastewater flow could be conveyed t o the WWTP by gravity,
thus reducing the number o f pump stations required.
Also shown i n Figure 5-9 are the locations for the interceptor sewers
proposed t o serve the eastern Mesa service area.The terrain o f the
service area slopes t o the southwest such that the majority o f the flow
tan be collected by two major peripheral interceptors aligned on the
Youth and west along Baseline Road and Val Vista/Lindsay Roads,respec-
1 1—velY.The upper set o f numbers along the Baseline Road interceptor
Q-
CI,
..••••
n --mg.IN,
f 0 •
xx lp
zo c•73
tit
a)
7 '
AZ`
3 1
Q-AP
3 3a.447
.c31
P".
I
LIQUID STREAM
SOLIDS STREAM
Ct-
oNft .a`
glom ammepse
SIMPLIFIED FLOW DIAGRAM
0
-J
Ui
5 \
LIJ
\Zi;
0"
\VI
11
2"si Ix off*l a 6 ffor
BAsEuNi\
)-
Ui
McDOWELL
EASTERN MESA
SERVICE AREA
MCKEL LIPS
BROWN
UNIVERSITY
)-
cn
0
S01_211.34E N
HWY 6 0 -7 0 -8 0 -8 9-r-
BROADWAY
. 2 cn
Ui
cf036"in 33"33"EL
L
S
W
O
R
T
H
27"
z
c.)
24"
CD
-1
c
36'33"27
GUADALUPE
.4
tiI
LEGEND
ELLIOT
EASTERN MESA WASTEWATER
PLANNING BOUNDARY
SEWAGE PUMP STATION
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION
WASTEWATER TREATMENT
PLANT SITE
INTERCEPTOR SEWER
FORCE MAIN
9 k/2 2 3 4
SCALE IN MILES
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
APACHE JUNCTION FLOW
TO EAST MESA WWTP
11111111111.1 FIGURE
NO.5-9PRCTOUPS
4131 N 24 ST.NIX.. AZ.
shows the size o f pipe required t o transport flows from eastern Mesa's
service area only.The lower set o f numbers shows the corresponding
size o f pipe required t o transport flows from both eastern Mesa's ser-
vice area and Apache Junction.As can be seen,the pipe diameter would
increase by 9 inches during the early stages and by 6 inches during the
latter stages o f transfer t o the WWTP.I n addition,Apache Junction
would be required t o furnish approximately one 71.:,..o f 27 -inch diameter
pipe from the end o f its gravity sewer system t o Signal Butte Road i n
eastern Mesa.
SUMMARY.Implementation o f Alternative 3 allows homes i n the low-
density outlying service area t o utilize any o f the acceptable indi-
vidual treatment/disposal methods,including septic tank with absorption
bed,septic tank mound system,aerobic treatment with absorption bed,
and evapotranspiration system.Homes and businesses within the higher-
density city limits would be served by a gravity sewer system.Waste-
water would be conveyed out o f the Apache Junction service area by a 27-
inch diameter interceptor sewer,which would eventually combine with an
interceptor sewer i n eastern Mesa and proceed t o a 17.4 mgd WWTP located
between Higley and Recker Roads just north o f Baseline Road.The plant
would be capable o f providing secondary treatment plus effluent filtra-
tion and disinfection,with the effluent pumped t o a Roosevelt Water
Conservation District canal for reuse.Dried sludge would be hauled
away and disposed o f i n an acceptable landfill.
An evaluation of cost-effectiveness and other important factors for this
alternative as compared with Alternatives 1 and 2 will be carried out i n
the following chapter.
5-32
CHAPTER 6
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION.
In this chapter,the wastewater management alternatives which were
developed i n Chapter 5 will be compared and evaluated using the follow-
ing parameters:
°Capital Costs Comprises the construction costs
for all wastewater transport and
treatment facilities,plus an
allowance for contingency,engine-
ering,legal and administrative
costs.
°Operation and Maintenance
(O&M)Costs
o Annual Costs
Comprises the costs for energy,
chemicals,salaries and wages,and
replacement materials,supplies and
parts for all wastewater transport
and treatment facilities.
Comprises the amortized capital
costs plus the operation and main-
tenance costs.
o Ability to Implement Considers the number and size of
wastewater facilities required,
time duration anticipated for
construction, necessity for city
financing,and public and agency
acceptability.
6-1
°Flexibility and
Reliability
*System Experience
Considers the percent loss i n
capacity with a major treatment
unit out o f service,the ability t o
accomodate modifications for future
conditions,and the ability t o
consistently provide treatment
conforming t o the requirements.
Considers the term and level o f
development o f treatment technology
involved and the operational com-
plexity o f the total treatment
system.
°Land Requirement Considers the relative quantity o f
;4
land necessary for implementation.
°Environmental Assessment Considers the relative adverse
impact on each o f a series o f sig-
nificant environmental parameters.
The results o f this evaluation will be presented i n a "Technical and
Environmental Evaluation Matrix"a t the end o f this chapter.This
matrix will be used i n Chapter 7 t o identify the apparent best alter-
native and t o formulate the recommended plan o f action.
COST ANALYSIS
GENERAL.Costs were developed for the various alternatives based on
four cost estimating manuals available through EPA:
1.Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual
-2.Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Conveyance Systems:
1973-1977
3.Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants:
1973-1978
4.Analysis o f Operation and Maintenance Costs for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Systems
Because all costs undergo significant changes i n accordance with up-
swings o r downturns i n the national economy,a cost index i s normally
utilized t o reflect the conditions under which c.estimates are pre-
sented.The most widely used index i n the United State i s the Construc-
tion Cost Index published by Engineering News Record magazine (ENRCCI),
which i s computed from prices o f construction materials and labor and
based on a value o f 100 i n year 1913.All costs i n this report are
adjusted t o reflect the January 1,1981 ENRCCI o f 3,370 for the Phoenix
area.The total capital cost i s amortized by applying a capital recovery
factor o f 0.10185 for 8 percent interest over a 20 -year repayment per-
iod.Although an 8 percent interest figure i s a t present somewhat below
the prime lending rate,i t i s recommended by EPA for use i n large public
works projects with long-term financing.For purposes o f this report,
all costs are projected i n terms o f 1981 dollars.
•DETERMINATION OF ASSESSMENT POPULATION.To provide a meaningful com-
parison o f costs between alternatives,all costs will be presented in
terms o f dollars per person per year.However,i n order that this might
be done for the community -wide alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3),it
became necessary to determine what portion of the population in Apache
Junction should be assessed for improvements.Past statistical data has
shown that 90 percent of the seasonal residents spend at least three
months i n the area,but that only about 20 percent spend as much as six
months i n the area.Figure 6-1 shows this data plotted on a "log-
probability"graph,i n which the y-axis shows the duration o f residency
in months and the x-axis shows the percent of seasonal population re-
siding in the area for the specified duration.The median length of
stay for 50 percent of the seasonal population i s four and one-half
-onths,o r 37.5 percent o f the total twelve months o f the year.Table
-uses this 37.5 percent factor t o determine what will be referred to
.as the "asesssment population",o r that number o f people which will be
6-3
-
PERCENT RESIDING
i i
I SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTIONARIZONA •
SEASONAL POPULATION
RESIDENCY DISTRIBUTION
Eh 1111Pe I nailer
411411 P ;‘4 D41°raTv4P Ay 6-1
TABLE 6-1
ASSESSMENT POPULATION DETERMINATION
(A)(B)SEASONAL (C)
PERMANENT SEASONAL POPULATION ASSESSMENT
POPULATION POPULATION IN CITY POPULATION
YEAR IN CITY IN CITY X 37.5%IN CITY
1980 10 , 5 00 16,197 6,074 16,574
1985 12,7 6 2 20,669 7,751 20,513
N 1990 16,288 26,375 9,891 26,1791n
1995 19,816 32,085 12,032 31,848
2000 22,972 37,189 13,946 36,918
NOTE:Assessment population (C)=Permanent population (A)+Seasonal population (B)x 37.5%.
used t o provide a basis o f comparison between the community -wide alter-
natives (Alternatives 2 and 3)and the individual alternative (Alter-
native I).I n any given year,the assessment population i s approxi-
mately 61 percent o f the total (permanent plus seasonal)population.
ALTERNATIVE 1.Tables 6-2 through 6-5 present the cost estimates for
the four individual treatment/disposal systems developed i n Chapter 5.
As shown,the total annual costs are $212 per pei i for septic tank
with absorption bed,$295 per person for septic tank mound system,$502
per person for aerobic treatment with absorption bed,and $355 per
person for an evaportranspiration system.Since the conventional septic
tank system i s presently the most popular individual treatment/disposal
method i n Apache Junction and since the above annual costs are the
lowest for this method,septic tank with absorption bed will be used as
the standard o f comparison with Alternatives 2 and 3.
ALTERNATIVE 2.As shown i n Table 6-6,the capital cost for the gravity
sewer system within the city limits o f Apache Junction i s estimated to
be $37,296,000.The O&M cost i s estimated a t $194,000 per year,making
for an annual cost for the gravity sewer system o f $3,993,000.The
Apache Junction WWTP i s estimated t o cost $12,599,000 initially,with a
yearly O&M cost o f $364,000.The annual cost for the WWTP i s estimated
to be $1,647,000.The total annual cost for the complete gravity sewer/
WWTP system i s estimated a t $5,640,000.
In Table 6-7,the total annual cost is apportioned among the assessment
Population (from Table 6-1)for the years 1980-2000.As shown,the
annual cost per person declines from $340 i n 1980 t o $153 i n 2000.
ALTERNATIVE 3.The costs for Alternative 3 are made up o f three main
elements as shown i n Table 6-8.The capital,O&M and annual costs for
the gravity sewer system within the city limits of Apache Junction are
the same as for Alternative 2,with the annual cost again being $3,993,000.
Ile capital cost for Apache Junction's share o f the Baseline Road inter-
e1:+tor t o the East Mesa WWTP i s estimated a t $4,562,000.Apache Junc-
tion's share o f the O&M cost i s estimated t o be $8,000 per year,making
6-6
TABLE 6-2
ALTERNATIVE 1 COST ESTIMATE
SEPTIC TANK WITH ABSORPTION BED
Capital Cost $4,600
Amortized Capital (Fixed)Cost (20 -year period)470
O&M Cost 24
Annual Cost 494
ANNUAL COST @ 2.33 PERSONS PER UNIT =$212 per person
Capital Cost
TABLE 6-3
ALTERNATIVE 1 COST ESTIMATE
SEPTIC TANK MOUND SYSTEM
$6,200
Amortized Capital (Fixed)Cost (20 -year period)
O&M Cost
Annual Cost
ANNUAL COST @ 2.33 PERSONS PER UNIT =$295 per person
627
60
6 87
6-8
tY1
1.1 i e
•
..
;g •
Capital Cost
TABLE 6-4
ALTERNATIVE 1 COST ESTIMATE
AEROBIC TREATMENT WITH ABSORPTION BED
$8,800
Amortized Capital (Fixed)Cost (20 -year period)900
O&M Cost 270
Annual Cost 1,170
ANNUAL COST @ 2.33 PERSONS PER UNIT =$502 per person
6-9
TABLE 6-5
ALTERNATIVE I COST ESTIMATE
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION SYSTEM
Capital Cost $7,900
Amortized Capital (Fixed)Cost (20 -year period)804
OEM Cost 24
Annual Cost 828
ANNUAL COST @ 2.33 PERSONS PER UNIT =$355 per person
TABLE 6-6
ALTERNATIVE 2 COST ESTIMATE
APACHE JUNCTION GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM
Capital Cost $37,296,000
Amortized Capital (Fixed)Cost (20 -year period)3,799,000
O&M Cost 194,000
Annual Cost 3,993,000
APACHE JUNCTION WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Capital Cost $12,599,000
Amortized Capital (Fixed)Cost (20 -year period)1,283,000
O&M Cost 364,000
Annual Cost 1,647,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $5,640,000
TABLE 6-7
ALTERNATIVE 2 COST ESTIMATE PER PERSON
TOTAL ANNUAL COST =$5,640,000
YEAR
ASSESSMENT
POPULATION
ANNUAL COST
PER PERSON
1980 16,574 $340
1985 20,513 275
1990 26,179 215
1995 31,848 177
2000 36,918 153
6-12
TABLE 6-8
ALTERNATIVE 3 COST ESTIMATE
APACHE JUNCTION GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM
Capital Cost $37,296,000
Amortized Capital (Fixed)Cost (20 -year period)
O&M Cost
Annual Cost
'APACHE JUNCTION'S SHARE OF
INTERCEPTOR TO EAST MESA WWTP
Capital Cost $4,562,000
Amortized Capital (Fixed)Cost (20 -year period)
O&M Cost
..!:_Annual Cost
APACHE JUNCTION'S SHARE OF
''',1tAST MESA WWTP
..Capital Cost $9,655,000
1 blOrti7Pd ranital (Fixpri)CrIct (9n-vpAr nprind)
.04M Cost
7innua1 Cost
ANNUAL COST
3,799,000
194,000
3,993,000
465,000
8,000
473,000
983,000
340,000
1,323,000
$5,789,000
6-13
for an annual cost for the interceptor of $473,000.Finally,Apache
Junction's share o f the East Mesa WWTP is estimated t o cost $9,665,000
initially,with a yearly O&M cost o f $340,000.Apache Junction's share
o f the annual cost for the East Mesa WWTP i s estimated t o be $1,323,000.
The total annual cost for the complete gravity sewer/interceptor/WWTP
system i s estimated a t $5,789,000.
I n Table 6-9,the total annual cost i s apportioned among the assessment
population (from Table 6-1)for the years 1980-2000.As shown,the
annual cost per person declines from $349 i n 1980 t o $157 i n 2000.
GRAPHICAL COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES.The total annual cost data dis-
cussed above i s presented graphically i n Figure 6-2.As shown,the
annual cost for Alternative 1 remains constant over the 20 -year study
period.This i s because the cost o f a septic system i s an individual
cost t o each homeowner and i s independent o f the total number o f people
residing i n the community.On the olher hand,the annual costs for
Alternatives 2 and 3 decline dramatically as the service population
increases.Initially,these alternatives are about 63 percent more
costly than Alternative 1;however,by the year 2000,they are about 27
percent less costly than Alterrative 1.The graph shows that the break
even point occurs i n about 1591.At that time,the cost t o an indivi-
dual homeowner for a new septic tank/disposal system would be about the
same as that for a complete gravity sewer/WWTP system.At any time
after that,the latter system becomes more econom;cal.I t i s important
to note,however,that a conflict will exist for those homeowners who
have already paid for a septic system at the time a sewer system is
being considered.
ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT
The easiest of the three alternatives to implement would probably be
Alternative 1.Since the majority of the population in the Apache
Junction service area has relied on individual septic systems for a
!lumber of years,implementation of Alternative I would require little,
if any,change i n attitude on the part o f the residents.Design and
construction o f septic systems could continue i n the same manner as i n
the past,with review and approval o f the systems continuing t o be a
f unction of the Pinal County Health Department.
TABLE 6-9
ALTERNATIVE 3 COST ESTIMATE PER PERSON
TOTAL ANNUAL COST =$5,789,000
ASSESSMENT ANNUAL COST
POPULATION PER PERSON
16,574 $349
20,513 282
26,179 221
31,848 182
36,918 157
6-15
2_421
0
0
C
l<co
o c•13rn
C/)rn
0 14;200>-n z m
0 r n C:7
c_
r c ,13z
m 0 94 "c3 (72xi0 a r
>z p
"Tr>—P1rn—<r4 zcn o >O z
cn
0 0cn
CD
a)
—
M W
(D
Z3 0
rv0 ,0
ANNUAL COSTS (#/PERSON)
0
0 0
//
a
-P.
co
CM
C31
0
Both Alternatives 2 and 3 would be somewhat more difficult t o implement.
Initially,they would require the majority o f the population t o accept a
different type o f sewage collection and treatment philosophy than has
been prevalent i n the past.The economics o f either alternative would
probably come under fire,particularly from seasonal residents who would
not be able t o realize the benefits o f the system year-round.On a
different level,implementation could be hindered by involvements with
other governmental agencies.Pursuit o f an individual WWTP under Alter-
native 2 may involve the City o f Apache Junction i n the lengthy EPA
process for -planning,design and construction o f wastewater facilities.
While direct involvement with EPA could be avoided with Alternative 3,
i t would st ill be necessary for Apache Junction to work closely with the
City o f Mesa on the details o f the combined WWTP/interceptor system.
The limited bonding capacity o f the city could also provide a hindrance
to implementation o f either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3.The present
bonding capacity o f Apache Junction i s four percent c f the net assessed
valuation,or approximately $620,000.Since this fi9ure i s so much less
than the multi -million dollar committment needed for sewage collection
and treatment facilities,a special bond issu,:.desighed specifically for
construction o f sewage related facilities would probably be required.
FLEXIBILITY AND RELIABILITY.
Alternative 2 i s believed t o be the option best suited for flexibility
and reliability.Under this alternative,where two smaller WWTP's would
be provided (one each for Apache Junction and eastern Mesa),each plant
can be tailored to the individual needs of its community and units out
of service a t one plant have no effect on the other plant.With one
large regional WWTP (Alternative 3),however,the whole area can be
affected when treatment units are out o f service or when an interceptor
is undergoing emergency repairs.Also,smaller local plants can gen-
erally be expanded more readily than a larger regional plant and,as
/110 ,are better able t o accomodate future population changes.This
distinction aside,i t is felt that either WWTP would be able to con-
sistently provide treatment conforming t o the requirements.
6-17
Alternative 1,on the other hand,has limited flexibility and reli-
ability.I t has already been shown i n this report that its ability t o
accomodate modifications for future conditions i s severely restricted by
the available land area.I n addition,continual failing o f septic
systems often leads t o the provision for a completely different type o f
wastewater management scheme,such as a gravity sewer/WWTP system.
Conversely,i n a treatment plant,an additional process can usually be
added t o increase the degree o f treatment o r improve the reliability.
SYSTEM EXPERIENCE.
The treatment schemes for all three alternatives were developed with
system experience i n mind.All treatment processes have a t least an
adequate level o f development and successful operating history.On a
site -specific level,however,i t i s felt that Alternative 1 has a slight
advantage.The septic tank/disposal system i s the most familiar method
of wastewater management i n Apache Junction and involves a very low
degree o f operational complexity and sophistication.
LAND REQUIREMENT.
•Alternative 1 possesses a basic difference i n land -use philosophy from
either Alternative 2 o r Alternative 3.The on -site methods called for
in Alternative 1 rely on having relacivelv large quantities o f land
available for treatment and disposal o f the wi,stewater.Alternatives 2
and 3,however,are designed t o remove the wastewater from the heavily
developed areas and transport it to a site whE.Te treatment units can be
concentrated on a relatively small land area.As shown earlier in this
report,the land required for implementation o f Alternative I would
eventually limit the level of development within the city limits of
Apache Junction.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.
lb assist in the environmental assessment,an Environmental Indicator
Outline was developed as a means of simply and understandably comparing
each wastewater management alternative i n terms o f potential adverse
environmental impacts.An environmental assessment using the Indicator
Outline format i s presented for Alternatives 1 through 3 i n Figures 6-3,
6-4,and 6-5,respectively.As shown,each alternative was evaluated
for obvious,adverse environmental impacts associated with the type o f
process and location being considered.
Four basic categories are included i n the outline:physical,biolo-
gical,socio-economic,and cultural,each expanded into sub -categories
and then further refined.Within each indicator sub -category,an
assesment was made using three broad classifications for degree o f
adversity:
o Major Impact
o Minor Impact
o Insignificant Impact
Based upon the degree o f cumulative comparative impact within the var-
ious sub -categories,an "Environmental Assessment In.!ex"letter was
assigned for each o f the alternatives.The index letters are relative
indicators that compare the cumulative impacts o f eauh alternative
process.For example,a wastewater management scheme may have a number
of minor 7dverse impacts,but its overall evaluation (Environmental
Assessment Index)may not necessarily he adverse.Also included i n each
outline i s the column "Assessmen,Summary",which highlights the spe-
Ofic environmental impacts for each alternative.
In general,Apache Junction is expected to benefit most from an environ-
mental standpoint from those alternatives (2 and 3)which remove the
wastewater from the developed areas and transport i t t o a Centralized
Plant for treatment and disposal.On the Indicator Outlines,these two
alternatives are shown as having a few minor adverse impacts,but no
frejor adverse impacts,and so are given an overall assessment index o f
or neutral.Apache Junction i s expected t o benefit least environ-
172fltany from continued reliance on individual on -site wastewater manage-
6 -1c1
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR OUTLINE
ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT SUMMARYC r i r
il:
2
INDICATORS 0 0 0
2,
M
z
m
7,
z
r SURFACE WATER
GROUNDWATER Possible impacts from falling septic systems.
-I
g SOIL CHARACTERISTICS 0 Impacted dunng construction and 4'effluent discorge.
cn
GEOLOGY 0a.
AIR QUALITY
CLIMATE
J TERRESTRIAL 0 May be impacted during construction.
0
53 AQUATIC
LAND USE AND ZONING Q Zoning dictated by land required for treatment.
c.)
PUBLIC HEALTH 0 Potentio/ impacts from failing septic systems.
0
oz
t)
TRANSPORTATION 0
guV POPULATION 0 Density limited by large lot sizes.
(..)
0co ENERGY AND UTILITIES
ECONOMICS
ARCHAEOLOGICAL Q May be impacted during construction.
HISTORICAL
AESTHETICS
ACCEPTABILITY
A HIGHLY BENIFICIAL
ASSESSMENT INDEX D
___B —SOMEWHAT BENIFICIAL
C NEUTRAL
D SOMEWHAT ADVERSE
E -HIGHLY ADVERSE
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
ALTERNATIVE I
PRC TOUPS I FIGURE ..
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR OUTLINE
ADVERSE
ENV IMPACTIRONMENTAL
ir cr LL:2 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
INDICATORS 0-0 0.12 z —cnz
"-SURFACE WATER 0 WWTP may discharge into a surface watercourse.
GROUNDWATER 0—1.10 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS 0cn)-i GEOLOGY 0a.
AIR QUALITY 0
CLIMATE 0
J0
TERRESTRIAL 0
2-15 AQUATIC 0 WWTP may discharge into a surface watercourse.
LAND USE AND ZONING 0 May be impacted in immediate vicinity of WWTP
c.)
i -PUBLIC HEALTH 00
oz TRANSPORTATION 0 Temporary dislocations during construction.
1 (.)u1
1 0 POPULATION 0(.)0co ENERGY AND UTILITIES 0 Power and city water demands.
ECONOMICS 0 Temporary business impacts during construction.
F ARCHAEOLOGICAL
,
0.4
HISTORICAL
,1 ,
0
1 AESTHETICS 0 Negative social stigma associated with WWTP.
s _
—
ACCEPTABILITY 0 WWTP -located in Apache Junction service area.
_
A -HIGHLY BENIFICIAL
B -SOMEWHAT BENIFICIAL
ASSESSMENT INDEX CC- NEUTRAL
D-SOMEWHAT ADVERSE ,
E-HIGHLY ADVERSE
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION 3ARIZONA
r ALTERNATIVE 2 '
PRC TOUPS I F121A1RE a..A..
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATOR OUTLINE
ADVERSE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY-Lc
INDICATORS 0 Cs 0
m z
SURFACE WATER 0
GROUNDWATER 1 0_J
.ct
(..)SOIL CHARACTERISTICS 0 Soil erosion likely during storage pond construction.
U3
}-x GEOLOGY 0
AIR QUALITY 0..
CLIMATE 0
j TERRESTRIAL 0 May ii,7?pacted by storage pond and interceptorconstbe
ion
0
65
-
AQUATIC 0
LAND USE AND ZONING
"
0 May be impacted in immediate vicinity of WWTP.
(...)
i PUBLIC HEALTH 00
§TRANSPORTATION 0 Temporary dislocations during construction.
,
0 POPULATION 0
1.1
ENERGY AND UTILITIES 0 Power and city water demands.
ECONOMICS 0 Temporary business impacts during construction.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL 0 ,
,HISTORICAL 0
t;AESTHETICS 0
—
Negative social stigma associated with WW7P.
0ACCEPTABILITY _
A -HIGHLY BENIFICIAL
B —SOMEWHAT BENIFICIAL
C-NEUTRAL ASSESSMENT INDEX C
D SOMEWHAT ADVERSE
E HIGHLY ADVERSE.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
_APACHE - JUNCTION, ARIZONA,4,
ALTERNATIVE 3
PRC TOUPS IFIvRE .
11111111=1
ment techniques.In addition to several minor adverse impacts on the
Indicator Outline,Alternative 1 i s shown as having two major adverse
impacts,and thus this alternative i s indexed as "D",o r somewhat
adverse.
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION.
The ranking o f the three alternatives i n the areas just discussed i s
summarized i n terms o f a "Technical and Environmental Evaluation Matrix",
presented i n Table 6-10.The values for the letters A through E are
defined below the matrix.
This matrix will be used i n the following c)apter t o identify and select
a recommended plan of action for future wastewater management i n the
Apache Junction service area.
TABLE 6-10
TECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION MATRIX
'
5 : 1
-
- ,.ALTERNAT I VE
I n
2
<J
<
> -> -I—
C )I—/--La..1 2 2 I—
I—I—--(-)1.1.1 L i 2
2 J —.1 2 X X LLI
> -L i --L i W 2 X
—I I—M CO CO X .—CC 0 V )
<c n —Lo —<L.L.1 c c —c c v )
=I—-.1 J T (—I—LLJ 0 =—W
Z V )—0_L.LI J V )a_2 C Y >V )
1.1.1 > -><<La.J =cr)
LJ_LIJ .-J L i <
ALTERNAT I VE 1
ALTERNATIVE 2
•
•
ALTERNATIVE 3
;
A =Very Good
B =Good
C =Average
D =Below Average
E =Poor
6-24
CHAPTER 7
SELECTION OF THE BEST ALTERNATIVE PLAN
MATRIX EVALUATION.
Table 7-1 i s an enhanced version o f the "Technical and Environmental
Evaluation Matrix"appearing a t the end o f Chapter 6.Table 7-1 takes
the letter values assigned previously for comparison purposes and as-
signs a number t o each letter based on the following point system:
A =5
6 =1+
C =3
D =2
E =1
The numbers are then added and the totals show the final relative stand-
ing o f the three alternatives.The point totals are 15 for Alternative
I (third),20 for Alternative 2 (first),and 19 for Alternative 3
(second).
•The major conclusion which can be drawn from tha alternatives evaluation
:is that,over the long term,pursuit o f either Alternative 2 o r Alter-
native 3 i s a wiser choice than continued reliance on Alternative 1.
,Beside having the lowest point total i n Table 7-1,i t was shown i n
Chapter 4 that Alternative I would exceed the threshold level o f deve-
lopment within the Apache Junction city limits i n the middle 1990's.
Furthermore,Alternative 1 loses its economic advantage to the indivi-
dual homeowner over the other alternatives in about 1991,as shown
.Previously i n Figure 6-2.
1,t should be emphasized here that elimination o f Alternative 1 does not
mean that on -site methods for wastewater management within the city
limits must be abandoned overnight.On the contrary,with proper super-
on -site methods should continue t o adequately serve the Apache
Juni-tion area for another ten years.The point t o be made i s that a t
the end o f that period,Apache Junction should a t least be i n the posi-
7-1
•
r n 1,1
tsJ
rfl- '•7a.•
711
rn
(1-1
I ANNUAL r n
Q.)r)
-Ls 0 3 4".CO NJ C3
2 2ozLUSFS
(-)z
!ABILITY TO >c-)
_gml"LEMENT
--rn-1—z
<m -I FLEX IBIL I TY AND xi -1
o >
VJ .L"-CO NJ 0
RELIABILITY
CO.1,X •-•z rn
z
L j —
SYSTEMC)
L.-co r-
EXPER I ENCE -
v Fri
<
r—r•c
m I LAND rn
RE QU I REMENT
- -
Lk)rrlENV I RONMENTAL
V)77
r)
._ASSESSMENT
NJ
POINT TOTAL
RELAT I VE
STANDING
m
tion where i t could pursue construction o f an alternative wastewater
management system.The remainder o f this chapter i s concerned with how
Apache Junction might handle the arrangements for such an alternative
system.
ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
Implementation o f Alternative 2 would involve the City o f Apache Junc-
tion i n the construction o f a gravity sewer and wastewater treatment
plant system t o serve the area within the city limits.Since passage o f
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments o f 1972 (PL 92-500),
the most popular way for a community t o plan,design and construct
wastewater facilities has been to participate i n the EPA Construction
Grants Program.This program generally provides for 75 percent federal
funding a t all three levels (planning,design and construction)of
wastewater collection and treatment facilities,provided that EPA ap-
proval i s granted on each o f the three outputs.The million -dollar
magnitude o f the projects involved usually requires significant lead
time between initial planning and an on -line collection o r treatment
facility,with 5 years being a common figure (shown i n Figure 7-1):
Planning 1 year
Design 2 years
Construction 2 years
TOTAL 5 years
If Alternative 2 is eventually pursued,it is recommended that Apache
Junction initiate the EPA procedure no later than the middle 1980's.In
fact,the CAAG 208 Plan suggests investigating the "Step 1 Facility
Plan"process for the most heavily developed areas as early as 1982.
In any case,i t i s important for the city t o remember that its plan must
be in compliance with the 208 Plan t o be approved by the federal govern
me
.71111der Alternative 3.Apache Junction could st ill utilize federal funds
or a gravity sewer system;however,i t would not be involved directly
In the EPA procedure for a WWTP.I n its place,the City o f Mesa would
r
STAGE OF PROJECT YEAR I YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5
PLANNING mom=
PLAN REVIEW =KJ
DESIGN INNIMISAMISMIIIMME111
DESIGN REVIEW smini
CONSTRUCTION
._
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION, ARIZONA
IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE
PRC TOUPS FIGURF
be operating with a time -frame similar to the above and possibly longer
because of the larger nature of the treatment facilities involved.I t
is expected that Mesa will make a decision on the East Mesa WWTP during
the latter part of 1981.I f the decision is in the affirmative,Apache
Junction would need to determine immediately what the actual agreement
would be for buy -in of interceptor and WWTP capacity and exactly when
that capacity would be available.Then once that information was in
hand,Apache Junction would be able to make a true comparison and decide
whether i t would be in its best interests to go in with the City of Mesa
or remain on its own for wastewater management.
i _r
APPENDIX A
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ac -ft acre feet _
ADHS Arizona Department o f Health SerVic 's '
AWT advanced waste treatment
BOO biochemical oxygen demand
°C degrees Celsius
cfs cubic feet per second
DO dissolved oxygen
ENR Engineering News Record
EPA U.S.Environmental Protection Agency -°F degress Fahrenheit -
FCRC Four Corners Regional Commission
fps feet per second
gpad gallons per acre per day
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpd gallons per day
gPm gallons per minute
hp norsepowe;
kw kilowatt
mgd million gallons per day
ml milliliter
mg/1 milligrams per liter
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O&M operation and maintenance
PE population equivalent
PL 92-500 Public Law 92-500,Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments o f 1972
PL 95-217 Public Law 95-217,Clean Water Act o f 1977
PWT primary waste treatment
SS suspended solids
SWT secondary waste treatment
TDS total dissolved solids
USGS United States Geological Survey
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
ACRE-FOOT -The quantity o f water required t o cover one acre o f land t o
a depth o f one foot.Equivalent t o 43,560 cubic feet o r 326,000 gallons.
ACTIVATED SLUDGE -Process that removes organic matter from sewage by
saturating i t with air and adding biologically active sludge.
ADSORPTION -An advanced way of treating wastes i n which carbon removes
organic matter from wastewater.
ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT (AWT)-Additional sewage treatment steps
beyond primary and secondary treatment t o remove organic or inorganic
compounds.Usually,additional biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)and sus-
pended solids (SS)are removed ano nutrients (such as phosphorus,
nitrogen and potassium)are taken out.AWT i s also known as tertiary
treatment.
AERATION TANK -A chamber for injecting air into wastewater.The
addition o f oxygen breaks down organic wastes by bacterial action.
AEROBIC -Living or active i n the presence o f free ocygen.
AESTHETICS -Of o r pertaining to the beautiful;pleasing t o the senses.
In this report,aesthetic consideration include elements o f sight and
smell.
ALLUVIUM -Material deposited by running water;alluvial deposits
usually result from the action of rivers,including ephemeral streams.
ANAEROBIC -Living or active i n the absence o f free oxygen.
AQUATIC -Consisting of or pertaining t o water.
AQUIFER -A water -bearing rock or rock formation.
BACTERIA -Small,living organisms.In wastewater treatment,bacteria
consume organic (both liquid and olid)constituents in sewage.
BENTHIC ORGANISMS -Organisms that live on the bottoms o f water bodies.
BIOTIC COMMUNITY -An assemblage o f populations (plant and animal)
occupying a particular area of physical habitat.
BOD -Biochemical oxygen demand.The amount o f idssolved oxygen required
for the decomposition o f organic matter i n water.BOD i s used as a
measure t o determine the efficiency o f a sewage treatment plant o r t o
determine the potential o f an effluent t o degrade a stream.The lower
the BOD measurement,the cleaner the effluent.
BUFFER ZONE -An area used t o separate components o f a sewage treatment
sYstem from the public,e.g.,a land strip around a treatment plant.
CFS -Cubic feet per second.A unit o f measure used t o describe volume
o f streamflow,equal t o 1 cubic foot i n 1 second (also called "second-
foot").
CLARIFIER -A component o f a treatment plant,consisting o f one or more
tanks that contain partially treated wastewater,i n which sewage i s
allowed t o settle out.
CO -Carbon monoxide.A very toxic,colorless,and odorless gas;one
product o f combustion o f gasoline i n automobile engines.
CONFLUENCE -The point a t which a tributary converges into o r joins
the main stream,o r where two tributaries come together.
DEMOGRAPHY -Study o f population and population changes.
DENSITY -Demographic term referring t o the number o f people i n a
specified area.
DEPENDABLE SUPPLY -The estimated amount of water that can be depleted
annually w1thout lowering storage levels in either surface o r ground-
water reservoirs over a long period o f time.
DEPLETION -The measure o f the amount o f water removed from the water
supply system for a use;synonymous with "consumptive use".
DISCHARGE -A term for flow rate as a ratio o f volume over a given time
period,usually measured i n cubic feet per second (cfs).
ECOLOGY -The totality or pattern o f relations between organisms and
their environment.
ECOSYSTEM -A system formed by the interaction o f a community o f organisms
with their environment.
EFFLUENT -The liquid that comes out of a wastewater treatment plant
after completion of the treatment process.
ENVIRONMENT -This all-embracino term oenerally include;naturAl
(physical and biological)elements and human (socio-economic and cultural)
Jements.
NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT -A study t o determine harmful o r beneficial
hanges to the human and natural environmental system resulting directly_._r indirectly from changes imposed on that system.
VIRONMENTAL IMPACT -Effect upon the physical,biological,socio-
nomic and cultural characteristics of an area produced by an action.
EMERAL STREAM -A stream that flows only during and following a
nod o f rainfall.
EROSION -The detachment o f soil and rock particles by water,wind,ice
o r gravity.
EVAPORATION -The process o f converting a liquid t o a vapor.
FAUNA -Animals o r animal life o f a region.
FLOOD -An overflow from the designated channel o f a river or other body
o f water.
FLOODPLAIN -The land area adjoining a river,stream o r watercourse
that has been o r may be covered by floodwaters.
FLOODWAY -The channel o f a river or other watercourse and the adjacent
land areas required t o carry and discharge a flood o f a given magnitude.
FLOODWAY FRINGE -The portion o f a floodplain between the floodway and
the normal outline o f a flood o f a certain magnitude.
FLORA -Plants o f a given region.
GROUNDWATER -The body of water beneath the surface o f the ground,
found i n aquifers.I t i s made up primarily o f water that has seeped
down from the surface.
HABITAT -The environment i n which the life needs o f a plant o r animal
are supplied.
IMPOUNDMENT -A basin o r other area surrounded by physical structure(s)
i n which water i s contained.
INFLUENT -Sewage flowing into a treatment plant.
INTERMITTENT STREAM -A stream that flows only during part o f the year,
i n contrast with perennial streams,which flow all year,and ephermal
streams,which carry only stormflows.
INVERSION -An increase in air temperature with a,increase in altitude.
An event associated with air pollution.
LEACH -An action which separates soluble components such as salts,
out o f a medium,such as soil,by the action o f percolating water.
LEACHATE -The liquid,including chemical components,which i s a
Product o f the leaching process.
MATRIX -A figure consisting of rows and columns,which portrays information
Where items in rows and items in columns interact.
hiTIGATE -T o Alleviate o r modify adverse or negative impacts resulting
,f rol'n a specific action.
MITIGATIVE MEASURE -A step taken t o moderate the severity o f the effects
o f a proposed action.
NON -CONSUMPTIVE USE -Water use that does not reduce the water supply
available for other purposes.Examples o f non -consumptive water use
are:generation o f hydroelectric power,fishing,boating and swimming.
NON -POINT SOURCE -Generalized discharge o f waste into a water system
which cannot be located as t o a specific source.Examples are street
runoff,agricultural irrigation return flow,etc.
NPDES -National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.An environ-
mental program,administered by EPA,i n accordance with the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500),as amended,t o control discharge
o f wastes into waters o f the United States.
OVERDRAFT -Term used to identify groundwater supplied when more ground-
water i s being pumped and used from an area that i s returned t o re-
plenish the groundwater i n the area.The difference between consumptive
use and dependable supply.
OXIDATION -Addition o f oxygen which breaks down organic wastes or
chemicals i n sewage by bacterial and chemical means.
PACKAGE TREATMENT PLANT -A small wastewater treatment plant partially
or completely preassembled by a manufacturer and shipped to the desig-
nated location.Most.package plants provide secondary treatment.
PARTIAL BODY CONTACT -A level o f water quality where the human body
may come i n direct contact with the water,but normally not t o the
point o f complete submergence.Sensory organs will not be exposed
to water o f this quality.
PARTICULATE -Of o r pertaining t o particles o r occurring as minute
particles.
PERCOLATION -Movement of water thrcugh subsurface soil layers,usually
tontinuing downward to the groundwater table.
OINT SOURCE -A stationary,re dily identifiable source o f pollution.
OTABLE WATER -Drinkable water.
OCESS TRAIN -The order i n which sewage i s treated as i t flows through
treatment plant.
ECNARGE -Process by which water is absorbed and added to the ground-
ter aquifer,either directly into a particular water -bearing formation,
indirectly by way o f another formation.
PARIAN -Pertaining t o the banks o f a body o f water.
VERINE -Living o r situated on the banks of a river.
RUNOFF -That portion o f precipitation not initially captured by soil o r
vegetation t o cause flow across a land surface.
SCOUR -The powerful and concentrated clearing and digging action o f
flowing water,especially the downward erosion by stream water i n sweeping
away sediments during time o f flood.
SEDIMENT -Fragmented material that originates from weathering o f
rocks and i s transported by,suspended in,or deposited by water and
air o r i s accumulated i n beds by other natural agencies.
SEPTAGE -The residual wastes resulting from the operation o f onsite
wastewater treatment systems.
SEPTIC TANK -A method o f treating sewage,characterized by an under-
ground tank,usually concrete,t o which sewage i s discharged and digested.
Septic tanks are normally used i n lower -density areas t o treat sewage
from a small group o f people,for example,a family.
SEWAGE -Wastewater that flows i n sewers from residential,commercial,
and industrial establishments to wastewater treatment plants.
SEWER -Pipe,conduit or other physical facility used t o carry wastewater.
SEWERAGE -System o f sewers;physical facilities employed t o transport,
treat and discharge sewage.
SITE -SPECIFIC -Pertaining only t o individual areas.
SLUDGE -Solid matter i n sewage that settles t o the bottom,floats,
or becomes suspended i n sedimentation tanks during wastewater treatment.
STREAM BED -Channel that contains the stream's waters;all the space
ordinarily covered by water and lying between the lands on each side
of the stream.
SUBSIDENCE -Settling o f the surface o f the ground to a new level.
TERRESTRIAL -Consisting of or perta!ning to the land.
201 PLAN -A plan developed under Section 201 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amehdments of 1972 (PL 92-500)for constructing
and operating wastewater treatment facilities.
208 PLAN -An areawide waste treatment management plan developed under
Section 208 o f the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments o f
1972 (PL 92-500).
VELOCITY -The speed of movement given as a ratio of length over time,
usually measured in feet per second (fps).
ASTEWATER -Any water derived from one o r more previous uses.
k ASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP)-A facility consisting o f a series
°f tanks,screens,filters and other components that process waste-
so that pollutants are removed.
vliglii
_
—-
WATER SUPPLY -A volume o f water that i s ready for use,either i n its
natural state or through treatment.
WATER TABLE -The upper limit o f that portion o f the ground wholly
saturated with water.
WITHDRAWAL -The process o f capturing o r acquiring water either by
diversion from a surface water source o r by pumping from the ground-
water basin.
APPENDIX C
REFERENCES
1.Arizona Department o f Health Services,Engineering Bulletin No.11:
Minimum Requirements for Design,Submission o f Plans and Specifications
o f Sewage Works,Phoenix,Arizona,July,1978.
2.Arizona Department o f Health Services,Engineering Bulletin No.12:
Guidelines for Installation o f Septic Tank Systems,Phoenix,Arizona,
May,1976.
3.Basic,John,Basic Drilling Company,Personal Communication Regarding
Percolation Rates,Apache Junction,Arizona,December 11,1980.
4.Central Arizona Association o f Governments (CAAG),208 Project:
Areawide Water Quality Management Plan,Florence,Arizona,October,
1978.
5.Central Arizona Association o f Governments (CAAG),Areawide Water
Quality Management Plan Interim Report,Florence,Arizona,October,
1979.
6.Central Arizona Association o f Governments (CAAG),Areawide Water
Quality Management Plan "Draft"Interim Report,Florence,Arizona,
October,1980.
7.Dames &Moore,Analysis o f Operation and Maintenance Costs for
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems,EPA 430/9 -77/015,Washington,
D.C.,February,1976.
8.Dames &Moore,Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Conveyance
Systems:1973-1977,EPA 430/9 -77/015,Washington,D.C.,May,1978.
9.Fair,Geyer &Okun,Elements of Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal,
Second Edition,John Wiley &Sons,Inc.,New York,New York,1971.
10.Francis,Dave,Dave's Septic and Sewer Service,Personal Communication
Regarding Superstition Inn,Apache Junction,Arizona,January 19,1981.
U .Fugate,Vint,Mining Camp Restaurant,Personal Communication Regarding
Mining Camp Restaurant,Apache Junction,Arizona,January 23,1981.
12.Gavin,mark,Cella Barr Associates,Personal Communication Regarding
Flood Hazard Boundary Map for Apache Junction,Phoenix,Arizona,
March 6,1981.
._Geiger,Oscar,Rock Shadows Resort,Personal Communication Regarding
Rock Shadows Travel Trailer Park,Apache Junction,Arizona,Feb-
ruary 17,1981.
14.Logan,Fulton &Associates/John Carollo Engineers,Wastewater Manage-
ment Plan,City o f Mesa,Phoenix,Arizona,December,1980.
15.McWilliams,Dorothy,Pinal County Health Department,Personal
Communication Regarding Septic Systems i n Apache Junction,Apache
Junction,Arizona,January 9 ,1981.
16.Metcalf &Eddy,Inc.,Wastewater Engineering:Treatment,Disposal L
Reuse,Second Edition,McGraw-Hill,Inc.,New York,New York,1979.
17.Palsma,Wayne,Arizona Department o f Health Services,Personal
Communication Regarding Levels o f Wastewater Treatment,Phoenix,
Arizona,January 19,1981.
18.Phelps,Brent,P&P Development,Inc.,Personal Communication
Regarding Sierra Entrada Subdivision,Mesa,Arizona,January 29,1981.
19.PRC Toups,Population Analysis for the City o f Apache Junction,
Arizona,Phoenix,Arizona,December,1980.
20.Sage Murphy &Associates,Inc.,Construction Costs for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants:1973-1978,EPA 430/9-80/003,Wash-
ington,D.C.,April,1980.
21.Sexton,Chris,Pinal County Health Department,Personal Communica-
tion Regarding Septic Systems i n Apache Junction,Florence,Arizona,
November 26,1980.
22.Sloen,Dean,Director o f Public Works,Pers -nal Communication
Regarding East Mesa WWTP,Mesa,Arizona,January 26,1981.
23.Tempe Planning Division,Tempe 1980 Statist!cal Report,Tempe,
Arizona,July,1980.
24.U.S.Army Corps o f Engineers and U.S.Department o f Agriculture,
Process Dcsign Manual for Land Treatment o f Municipal Wastewater,
EPA 625/1-77/008,Washington,D.C.,October,1977.
25.U.S.Department of Agriculture,General Soil Map for Pinal County,
Arizona,Florence,Arizona,March,1971.
26.U.S.Department of Commerce,1980 Census of Population and Housing,
PHC80-P-4,Arizona,Washington,D.C.,January,1981.
27.U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,Innovative and Alternative
Technology Assessment Manual,EPA 430/9-78/009,Washington,D.C.,
February,1980.
C-2
APPENDIX D
ADHS ENGINEERING BULLETIN NO.12
D-1
Engineering Bulletin No. 12
GUIDELINES FOR INSTALLATION
OF SEPTIC -TANK SYSTEMS
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES
Division of Environmental Health Services
Bureau of Water Quality Control
MAY 1976
FOREWORD
The following guidelines are intended as an aid for installation of septic -tank
systems pursuant to Rules and Regulations for Sewerage Systems and
Treatment Works (Chapter 8, Article 3). Recommendations found in this bulletin
are to assist in compliance with Regulation Chapter 8,Article 3.These
guidelines do not supplant or supersede any of the rules and regulations of the
Arizona Department of Health Services. Copies of this bulletin and Arizona
Department of Health Services regulations may be obtained from the county
health department or the Arizona Department of Health Services.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I - GENERAL
A.Purpose of Guidelines .....................................1
B.Approvals Required .......................................1
C.Prohibitions ..............................................1
D.Definitions ...............................................1
PART!! - BASIC OPERATION ....................................3
PART - SITE SUITABILITY
A.General .................................................4
B.Subsurface orrnations ....................................4
C.Percolation Tests .........................................4
D.Effective Absorption Area Requirements ....................5
PART IV - SEPTIC TANK
A.Design ..................................................6
B.Construction .............................................6
C.Locali,:in 6
PART V -DISPOSAL TRENCHES
A.Absorption Area ..........................................7
B.Construction .............................................7
C.LocE..tion 7
PART VI - DISPOSAL PITS
A.Absorption Area ..........................................8
B.Construction .............................................8
C.Location .................................................8
PART VII -REPAIR OF A FAILING SYSTEM .......................9
PARTVIII -RECORDS ............................................1 0
APPENDIX -
A.Table I - Effective Absorption Area Requirements and Allowable
Rate of Application of Subsurface Disposal Systems Based on
Percolation Tests .........................................11
B. Table II - Minimum Septic Tank Ca;.acities for Single
FamilyDwellings .........................................11
C.Table Ill - Minimum Setback Requirements for Septic
Tank Systems ............................................12
D.Table IV - Effective Absorption Areas of Round Seepage Pits ...12
E.Table V - Minimum Setback Requirements for Canals .........13
F.Plate I Septic Tank Details .................................14
G.Plate II - Trench Details ....................................15
PART I - GENERAL
A.PURPOSE OF GUIDELINES
1.The information contained in this bulletin is intended as guidelines for the construction of individual
resident septic -tank systems. Design information for systems to serve multiple units can be obtained
from the Arizona Department of Health Services and county health departments.
2.Recommendations are found in this Engineering Bulletin to assist in compliance with Arizona
Department et Health Services rules and regulations, specifically Chapter 8, Article 3, adopted
December 11, 1973.
3.To improve understanding and operation of septic tank systems.
B.APPROVALS REQUIRED
1.Application to construct a septic -tank disposal system to serve a private residence, a hotel, motel,
restaurant, trailer park, service station, picnic ground. recreational area, camp or other similar place
shall be submitted to the local (county) health department for approval prior to construction. (R9-8-
314,4)
2.Approval to zonstruct a system using an alternate method of sewage disposal must be obtained from
both the local county health department and the Arizona Department of Health Services.
C.PROHIBITIONS
1.The use of cesspools for waste disposal is prohibited. (R9 -8-313B)
2.Indiv idua disposal systems (septic-ranks.yE.terns) are prohibited under the following conditions (R9-
8 -313C)
a_Where connection to a public sewe.-system is determined by the Department to be practical.
b.Where soil con 'itions or topograp y are such -.hat individual disposal systems (septic -tank
systems) cannot be expected to function satisfactorily, or where groundwater conditions are such
that individual d'sposal systems (se:Aic-tank systcms) may cause pollution of the groundwater
supply.
c.Where such installations may create an unsanitary condition or public health nuisance.
3.No privy contents, drainage from a building or the effluent from any waste treatment device shall be
discharged into any crevice,sink -hole or ,...ther opening, either natural or artificial, or in a rock
formation which vill or may permit the pollution or contamination of ground water. (R9-8-332)
D.DEFINITIONS
1.Effective abcorption area -the sidewall area ')elow the top of the distribution pipe of a disposal trench
or pit acceptable for effluent disposal Areas of rock or poor permeability are not included. For
calculation of, see Part In, D., 2.
2.Distribution pipe - the network of pipe used for distributing septic tank effluent to the subsurface
disposal system.
3.Disposal pit - a subsurface pit used for disposal of septic tank effluent, commonlycalled seepage pits
or dry wells.
4.Disposal trench - a subsurface trench used for disposal of septic tank effluent. The area containing
the disposal trench is commonly called a leach field.
5.Standard percolation test - the test used to determine the rate water is absorbed by the soil. From this
data the design size for a subsurface disposal system is determined. Procedures are given in Part III,
C.
6.Septic tank - a water-tioht container which receives the raw sewage and discharges a settled,
slightly treated effluent. Detention time is usually 24 hours.
7.Septic -tank system - a method used for treatment and disposal of sewage. It usually consists of a
septic tank and subsurface disposal trench or pit.
8.Subsurface disposal system - a rock or gravel -filled underground pit or trench into which septic tank
effluent is discharged for final treatment and disposal. Liquid seeps through the sidewalls of the
trench or pit to the surrounding soil.
9.Impervious strata - a soil zone with a percolation rate greater than 60 minutes per inch.
PART II - BASIC OPERATION
A.A septic -tank system uses the principle of subsurface disposal of wastewater. A properly installed and
maintained septic -tank will accomplish; (1) solids removal, (2) biological treatment, and (3) sludge and
scum storage. The septic tank effluent passes into the subsurface disposal system for final treatment
and disposal.
B.Septic -tank systems generally fail because of improper construction,inadequate subsurface
disposal area or subsurface disposal system plugging. Pumping of the septic tank and strict adherence
to proper construction of the subsurface disposal system should prolong the life of the system.
PART III - SITE SUITABILITY
A.GENERAL
Before designing any septic -tank system it must first be determined that soil conditions are suitable
for absorption of the septic tank effluent. The soil shall have an acceptable percolation rate without
interference from groundwater or impervious strata below the level of the absorption system.
B.SUBSURFACE FORMATIONS
1 Rock formations or other impervious strata and the maximum elevation of the groundwater table
shall be at a depth greater than four feet below the bottom of each disposal trench or disposal pit.
2.Borings - To determine subsurface formations in a given area it may be necessary that subsurface
explorations be made. A backhoe hole is adequate for determining subsurface formations for
disposal trenches. Augers should be used for determining subsurface formations for disposal
pits.Useful information can sometimes be obtained from road cuts,stream beds and building
excavations.Depth to which borings shall be taken is dependent upon the type of subsurface
disposal system proposed. Borings shall be made to a depth of four feet below the bottom of the
proposed disposal system. Since subsoil strata may vary widely within short distances, additional
borings at the site of the oroposed subsurface disposal system may be necessary at the discretion
of the local health department.
it PERCOLATION TESTS
1.. Requirements
The percolation tests should be performed as given in Part III,C., 2. Contact your county health
department to find the number of percolation tests required.
Where soils are shallow, place percolation test holes at the depth of the proposed disposal trenches.
In deeper soils, where deeper disposal trenches and disposal pits will be used, place percolation test
holes at more than one level. Where very deep disposal pits are contemplated, place test holes in
each stratum considered to be useful. Where economy and safety permit, a backhoe can dig holes to
expose soils in profile and suitable substrata can be chosen. Then, dig other backhoe holes to the
upper portions of suitable substrata. These holes lessen the work needed to dig percolation test
holes which must be duc: with hand tools.
2. Standard Percolation Test
A percolation test is used to identify a suitable soil stratum for a subsurface disposal system and to
estimate tie size a system should be to have a long life -span.
a.Disposal trenches
1) Digging the hole
With hand tools dig a 12" square or 15" round hole. If water is in short supply,or if soils tend to
collapse, place a perforated pipe vertically in the hole and carefully pack gravel or some other
supporting material between the pipe and the hole wall. Perform the test within the vertical
pipe and adjust calculations to account for the displacement of water by the gravel used to
support the sides of the hole.
2) Preparing the hole
Remove any smeared soil surfaces from the sides of the hole to provide as natural a soil
interface as practical,to infiltrating waters. Remove loose material from the bottom of the
hole. To protect the bottom from scouring, add an inch or two of coarse sand or fine gravel.
3) Presoaking the hole
Presoak the hole by filling it deeper than eight inches with clean water. Add the water gently
so the bottom and sides of the hole are not damaged.
If it is known that the soil has low shrink -swell potential and low clay contents, 15% or less,
proceed with the test. If not, let the hole rest overnight.
4)Percolation Rate
Fill the hole with clean water to exactly six inches above the soil bottom of the hole (do not
consider the layer of protective gravel as the bottom of the hole). With a tape measure
(1/32 -inch calibration) or float gauge, and a timepiece, determine the time for the water to
recede exactly one inch.Refill immediately and repeat the process until successive time
intervals needed for a one -inch drop indicate that an approximately stabilized rate has been
obtained.
Report the stabilized percolation rate in minutes per inch.
b.Disposal pits
1)Method
Various methods of performing percolation tests for disposal pits are under consideration.
The method detailed below is preferred. If another method is used contact the local county
health department for approval.
2)Digging the Hole
With an auger drill a hole 18 inches in diameter, or larger, to the depth of the contemplated
disposal pits. The minimum acceptable depth is 30 feet. Add an inch or two of coarse sand or
fine gravel to protect tne bottom from scouring.
If several soil strata will be utilized fc7 the absorption area a percolation test shall be
required in each strata.
3)Presoaking the Hole
Presoak the hole by filling it deeper than 12 inches with clean water, but not above the soil
strata being tested. Add the water gently so the bottom and sides of the hole are not damaged.
4)Percolation Rate
Fill the hole with clean water to approximately 12 inches above the soil bottom of the hole
(do not consider the layer of pcotective gravel as the bottom of the hole). With a tape measure,
or other measuring device determine the time foi the ..vater to recede exactly one inch. Refill
immediately and repeat the process until successive time intervals needed for one -inch drop
indicate that an approximateiy stabilizeC rate has been obtained.
Report the stabilized percolation rate in minutes per inch.
D.EFFECTIVE ABSORPTION AREA REQUIREMENTS
1.Effective -bsorption area requirements and allowable rat,. of application based on percolation
tests are give7 -, in Table I.
2.The sidewall areas below the to of the gravel backfill in disposal trenches and pits are the
effective absorption surfJces. OnI consider sidewall areas in permeable substrata.All bottom
bottom surfaces z..re ignored to- trenches 7nd pits.
3. Sufficient area shall be provided for at least two bedrooms. Design is based on the total number of
bedrooms. Dens, garages, family rooms and similar areas that can be converted to bedrooms may be
included at the discretion of the local county health department.
PART IV - SEPTIC TANK
A.DESIGN
1.Septic tank design should conform to that shown in Plate I. Minor variations in design may be
permitted. See Table II for minimum design capacity.
2.The minimum liquid capacity of the septic tank shall be 960 gallons or 1.6 times the daily design
flow, whichever is greater.
B.CONSTRUCTION
1.Septic tanks shall be of approved shape (Plate IL structurally sound, watertight and constructed of
materials resistant to corrosion or decay, such as concrete, vitrified clay block, fiberglass, heavy-
weight concrete block or burned hard brick.
2.The walls and base of all tanks shall be securely bonded together or shall be of monolithic or keyed
construction. Walls and base of poured -in -place tanks shall have a minimum thickness of four
inches throughout A minimum thickness of three inches will be allowed in precast tanks which
have been properly reinforced.
3.A septic tank instalIed under a driveway or parking area shall have adequate reinforcement to
support any anticipated load, and access plugs brought up to grade.
4.Rectangular, elliptical and semi -elliptical septic tanks shall have a length of at least twice but not
more than three times the width. The liquid depth of such tanks generally shall not be less than
four feet nor more than sA feet. Tanks of other shapes and dimensions will be considered for
approve when accompanied by data subslantiating their effectiveness.
5.Inlet and outlet connections of each compartment of a septic tank shall be so designed and installed
as to retain sewage solids, scum and sludge effectively.
6.At least a 12 -inch freeboard or void is req
the tank cover.
uired between the sewage level and the underside of
7.The invert, or flow line, of the outlet pipe shall be seta minimum of 12 inches below the bottom of the
tank cover and the inlet pipe twc inches higher.
8.Outlet control devices are required for each compartment and for the tank itself. These shall consist
of baffles made of durable material extending from side wall to side wall, or of pipe tees not less than
four inches in diameter The bottom of the baffle or tee shall extend at least 12 inches below the
surface of the liquid and the top shall be at least four inches above the invert of the outlet and not
less than two inches below the bottom of the cover.
9. Approved methods shall be used to spread the influent as evenly as possible across the septic tank.
(see Plate I)
10. Tank Cover - Septic tank covers shall be sufficiently strong to support whatever load may reasonably
be expected to be imposed upon it and tight enough to prevent the entrance of dirt or other foreign
matter and the escape of the odorous gases of digestion.
11.Each tank shall be provided with two or more access openings at least 20 inches in diameter or
square (Plate I). The access openings shall be located over each inlet and outlet.
C. LOCATION
1. The septic tank shall be located in compliance with Tables III and V. Distances from trees, swimming
pools, sidewalks, driveways, etc., shall be such to prevent cave-in during construction.
2. The septic tank shall be installed at such depth that the top, or an approved access manhole to the
tank, will be not more than six inches below the ground surface. The tank cover shall be adequately
reinforced to support the load imposed. If the pitch of the house sewer from the structure stubout
to the tank is more than 1/4 inch per foot, a method acceptable to the county health department must
be employed to assure a moderate entrance velocity of the raw sewage into the tank.
PART V - DISPOSAL TRENCHES
A.ABSORPTION AREA - see Part Ill, D.
B.CONSTRUCTION
1.A disposal trench replacement area equivalent to 100% of the initial area shall be available for
replacement disposal trenches. This space shall not be used for permanent structures.
2.The disposal trenches shall be constructed in two systems preceded by a diversion valve or
equivalent device of approved design to allow for alternate use of each half of the disposal system.
Each system of trenches shall contain one-half (1/2) the required absorption area and be serially
loaded (See Plate II). The diversion valve shall be installed near the septic tank and the housing of the
valve shall be easily accessible at the ground surface for periodic use.
3.Both distribution pipe and trench bottom shall be approximately level.
4.Disposal trenches shall be a minimum of 12 inches wide.
5.Bottom of the trench shall be a minimum of four feet above static groundwater level.
6.Rock or gravel fill shall extend from the bottom of the trench to four inches above the distribution
pipe.Rock or gravel fill she!be clean and of uniform size, preferably 3A inch to two inches in
diameter. Volcanic cinders may be substituted for rock or gravel. Rock or gravel shall offer 30%
or more void space.
7.Backfill shall be at least 12 inches of native soil over a protective layer of untreated building paper or
other previous biodegradable material.Soil placed over trenches shall be compacted so that
depressions will not occur.
8.Each trench shall be not more Than 100 feet in length. Leave undisturbed material between trenches.
9.Each trench shall parallel contour lines. Minimum spacing between trenches on the same contour
shall be two times the total trench depth. Trenches not on the same contour shall be spaced
as fo:lovvs:
SLOPE OF G710UND
BETWEEN TRENCHES
0% to 5%
5% to 10%
10% to 20%
Over 20%
MINIMUM SPACING
BETWEEN TRENCHES
2.0 times the total trench depth
2.5 times the total trench depth
3.0 times the total trench depth
4.0 times the total trench depth
10.A watertight line shall conner-t the septic tank, diversion valve and disposal trenches.
11. The outlet of the septic tank shall be a minimum of four inches above the bottom of the
distribution pipe.
12.Disposal trenches shall be constructed in a manner which will prevent or correct any smearing of
the sidewall surface areas, (This is a very important construction procedure.)
13.Breathers moy be placed at all ends of absorption trenches. (Plate II) The breather shall consist of
perforated pipe at least four inches diameter, placed vertically within backfill of the trench.
14.Distribution pipe shall run the length of each trench and connect each trench in series. Minimum
diameter of the distribution pipe shall be two inches.Distribution pipe shall be a minimum of
four inches from any soil surface (sidewall or soil cover).
15.Use of dynamite or jack -hammer is prohibited in construction of disposal trenches.
16.Use of V-shaped trenches is prohibited,except where soil conditions make construction of
vertical walls impossible.
C.LOCATION
1.Setback requirements for disposal trenches are given in Tables Ill and V.
2.Construction should not be permitted over the disposal trenches.
3.Vehicular traffic should not be permitted in the disposal trench area at anytime after its construction.
PART V/ - DISPOSAL PITS
A.ABSORPTION AF1EA - See Part III, D., and Table IV.
B.CONSTRUCTION
1.A disposal pit replacement area equivalent to 100% of the initial area shall be available for a
replacement disposal pit. This space shall not be used for permanent structures.
2.The disposal p;ts shall be constructed in two systems preceded by a diversion valve or equivalent
device of approved design to allow for alternate use of each half of the disposal system. Each system
of pits shall contain one-half (1/2) the required effective absorption area and be serially loaded.
(See Plate II) ThL. diversion valve shall be installed near the septic tank and the housing of the valve
shall be easily accessible at the ground surface for periodic use.
3.Disposal pits shall terminate at least four feet above static groundwater level.
4.The disposal pit shall be backfilled with durable material such as rock or gravel. Rock or gravel fill
shall be clean and of uniform size, preferably .3/.3 inch to two inches in diameter. Volcanic cinders
may be substituted for rock or grav,;Materials used to -backfill shall offer 30% or more void space.
5.Hollow disposal pits are prohibited.
6.Backfill shall be at least 12 inch'-'s of native soil over a protective layer of untreated building
paper, or other pervious biodegradable material. Soil placed over trenches shall be compacted so
that depressions will not occur.
7. A tight line she!! connect the septic tank, diversion valve and disposal pits
8.The outlet of the septic t -nk shall be a minimum of four inches abc‘.,e the bottom of the
distribution pipe.
9.Open joint or perforated distribution pipe shall run across each pit, and then extend as a tight line
pipe connecting pits in series.Minimum di'-meter of the distribution pipe shall be two inches.
A vertical perforated pipe at least four inches-in diameter shall be placed within the backfill of the
pit. The pipe sh-II extend from the distri'mution pipe to -he bottom of the pit.
10.Disposal pit shall be constructed in a manner which v..minimize, prevent or correct any smearing
of the sidewali surface areas.
11,Breathers or inspection pipes may be placed in all eisposal.pits. The breather shall consist of
perforated pipe at least four inches diamete -, placed vertically within backfill of the pit. The pipe
shall extend from the bottom of the pit to several inches above ground level.
12.Minimum spacing between pits on the same contour shall be three times the pit diameter (12 foot
minimum spacin").Pits not on the same contour shall be spaced as follcws (12 foot minimum
spacing):
SLOPE OF GROUND MIN'MUM SPACING
BETWEEN PITS BETWEEN PITS
0% to 5%
5% to 10%
10% to 20%
Over 20%
3 times the pit diameter
4 times the pit diameter
5 times the pit diameter
6 times the pit diameter
13.Use of dynamite and jack -hammer is prohibited in construction of disposal pits.
C.LOCATION
Setback requirements are given in Tables Ill and V.
PART VII - REPAIR OF A FAILING SYSTEM
When a new subsurface disposal system is installed adjacent to an original subsurface disposal system
that has failed, a diversion valve, or equivalent device should be installed between the new system and the
old system to allow for alternate use of the new subsurface disposal system and the old system. (Note: The
old system should recover some of its usefulness after several months of drying out.) Construction of the
new subsurface disposal system should conform to criteria set forth in this bulletin.
PART VIII - RECORDS
A chart showing the location of the septic tank and the leach field or seepage pit shall be placed at a suitable
location in dwellings and/or other buildings served by such a system. Whether furnished by the builder,
contractor, septic tank installer, or owner, the chart should contain brief instructions as to the inspections
and maintenance required, thus forestalling failures and assuring satisfactory operation. A copy of the
chart should be filed with the county health department.
TABLE
EFFECTIVE ABSORPTION AREA REQUIREMENTS AND
ALLOWABLE RATE OF APPLICATION FOR SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL
SYSTEMS BASED ON PERCOLATION TESTS
PERCOLATION RATE
(Time in minutes required
for water to fall 1 inch)
REQUIRED EFFECTIVE
ABSORPTION AREA IN
SQ. FT. PER BEDROOM
(See 1.2. & 3 below)
MAXIMUM RATE OF
APPLICATION GALLONS
PER SQ. FT. PER DAY
(See 2 and 3 below)
1 or less
2
3
4
5
7
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60 (4 below)
100
145
185
200
225
270
320
400
455
500
560
610
645
690
715
745
800
2.00
1.40
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.75
0.63
0.50
0.44
0.40
0.36
0.33
0.31
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.25
1 - Sufficient area small beDrcvder. for at least 2 '.ecirooms
2 - Effective absorption surface are sideoalls of disposal trenches and Pits
3 - Sidewall areas in permeaole aut-strata only are considered. a;r bottom surfaces are ignored
4 • Over 60 minutes unsuitable for subsurface disposal systems
TABLE II
MINIMUM SEPTIC TANK CAPACITIES
FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
BEDROOMS SERVED'MINIMUM TANK
LIQUID CAPACITY (Gallons)
1-3 960
4 1,200
5 1,500
6 2 1,800
'Dens and garages that can be converted to bedrooms may be included
at the discretion ot the county health department
,For more than six bedrooms. use 1.6 x 200 x number of bedrooms for
minimum tank capacity in gallons
TABLE III
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
FOR SEPTIC -TANK SYSTEMS4
SEPTIC
TANK
DISPOSAL
TRENCH
DISPOSAL
PIT
_
Buildings 10 feet 10 feet 3
.
10 feet 3
Property lines'5 feet 5 feet 5 feet
Wells (Public Water Supplies)100 feet 100 feet 100 feet
Wells (Private)50 feet 50 feet 50 feet
Live streams 2 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet
Dry wash 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet
Water lines 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Cuts on sloping terrain -50 feet 50 feet
'Lots with individual wells require setbacks of 50 feet
2200 feet on water supply watersheds
20r minimum spacing between trenches (see Par: V, B . 9 1 or disposal pits (see Per: \ (, B 12i whichever is greater
°All dis:ences are from eage to edoe.
TABLE IV
EFFECTIVE ABSORPTION AREAS OF ROUND SEEPAGE PITS'
(In square feet)
DIAMETER OF j VERTICAL PERMEABLE STRATA (In feet)
LEACHING PIT I
(feet)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3 9.4 19 28 38 47 57 66 75 .85 94
4 12.6 25 38 50 63 75 88 101 113 126
5 15.7 31 47 63 79 94 110 126 141 157
6 18.8 38 57 75 94 113 132 151 170 188
7 22.0 44 66 88 110 132 154 176 198 220
8 25.1 I 50 75 101 126 151 176 201 226 251
9 28.3 57 85 113 141 170 198 226 254 283
10 31.4 63 94 126 157 188 220 251 283 314
11 34.6 69 104 138 173 207 242 I 276 311 346
12 377 .75 113 151 188 226 264 302 ;339 377
EXAMPLE: A pit of 5 foot diameter and 10 foot depth below the inlet with 4 feet of impermeable soil has an effective area of 94 square feet. A pit
of 5 foot diameter and 16 foot depth of permeable soil has an area of 94 4 157, or 251 square feet.
'Effective absorption area must be in permeable strata
TABLE V
MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
FOR SEPTIC -TANK SYSTEMS FROM CANALS
CANAL TYPE
1
SEPTIC
TANK
DISPOSAL
TRENCH'
,
DISPOSAL
PIT ,
Lined 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Unlined 100 feet 2 100 feet'100 feet 2
Elevated (at or above ground level)10 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Intermittent 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet I
Abandoned 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet I
The bottom of the disposal trench or pit must be at leas! 4 feet above the high ground water table
'200 feet on water supply watersheds
PLATE I - SEPTIC TANK DETAILS
;
1-I
1 J r -Baffle !optional).I .e
I .
I l
I
opt:crtarr
I
hr
I I
_ 1
PLAN (Cover Removed)
-opi n l:
10 -minimum
L . 4 6elowLiquid Sur face
e :
Flow Line
Scul.. taffie--
opt;onall
I
i I
I
/
I I
Sludge baffle —,1
12 minimum
12 minimum I.I
_an.F
Direction
ow
I t
SECTION A -A
D Liquid Depth,generally not less than 4 feet or greater than 6 feet.
L - Tank Length, at least 2 times but not more than 3 times the width.
P - Position of inspection holes, minimum of 2 inspection holes. 20 inches in diameter,
or square.
W - Tank width,at least I 3 but not more than 1/2 the length.
- Position of baffles,1-'3 of tank length (L).
SEPTIC
TANK
PLATE II - TRENCH DETAILS
Diversion Box (Alternate flow each year)
Or Valve .I _.L 3 V —Trench uisuwuiiori pipe
EXAMPLE OF SERIAL LOADING WITH A DUAL TRENCH SYSTEM
Pipe
J
4
f \:—mimmurn distance from sidewa II
.....—- - . —
v--Open joint tile Perforations
0 i 0 0 —€)
1
PLAN DETAIL OF SECTION B -B
Untreated Paper or PerviousBiodegradable Materi -1
12"minimum
1 - -LDistributionpipe Gravel— —11
Water tight line-\
(Lay approximately level)
Bottom approximately level
UNDISTURBED EARTH
SECTION B -B
0 0 0 0
D -Total Trench Depth.
E -Effective sidewall for absorption, Absorption area per trench = 2x E x L.
L -Trench Length,100 feet maximum.
S - Trench spacing,minimum 2 times total trench depth (2 x D),
W -Trench width,12 inch minimum.
0 1 0 0-1-0 0 0
APPENDIX E
PRELIMINARY 1980 CENSUS COUNT BY
ENUMERATION DISTRICT (ED)
E-1
Ci
t
y
of
Ap
a
c
h
e
Ju
n
c
t
i
o
n
=
0 .
C-.) •
rD
CL_
APPENDIX E
PRELIMINARY 1980 CENSUS COUNT
BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT (ED)
ED NUMBER POPULATION HOUSING
130 1201 691
131 T 512 426
131 U 1035 488
132 T 639 331
132 U 835 424
132 V 233 246
132 W 631 510
132 X 145 139
132 Y 145 318
133 T 765 640
133 u 570 499
133 v 677 664
133 w 1023 609
133 x 1524 852
TOTAL (City)9935 6837
ED NUMBER POPULATION HOUSING
15
16
119
134 (400 series)
135 (500 series)
TOTAL (County)
Maricopa County
Block III*
482
279
201
491
537
1990
182
No Data
*Includes persons living outside city o f Apache Junction city limits.
NOTES:
Annexation Into Maricopa County Annexation of Section 32
Effective Date:February 15,1980
Population (Est.):150
Housing (Est.):125
Effective Date:June 6,1980
Population:0
Housing:0
Preliminary Count Indicated Vacancy Rate About 38.5%
Total Housing -Vacant (38.5%)=Total Occupied
6837 2632 .4205
Total Population =9935 =2.36 person/household
Total Occupied Housing 4205
E-2
12
';•?,
ci
C.)
cz0zu
2
133 U
L 0 0
01
•
i t CC
gccU5Z
Z U .1 gi
.17
1-33TE133 Vz—I
o I
BL -133 Viv.III
CITY OF
APACHE
JUNCTION '
TIN I
133 X
zi
E L
iLJ
2
La la
co
CC CC
132 T
•••mll••••
0
'34
NATIONAL
gen7....dro
• 132 W
cc.> •0 ,‘• c
<
4=.•
z I _j
•LAJ
132 U •
1 2 ,1 V /I I
PHELPS
J L.•
DR.131 U
132 1
I It V
131 T
‘.-r
135 135
LEGEND
16
ID
A
H
O
RD
.
FOREST
130
MCDOWELL
MCK
BLVD.MARICOPA CO.
7 1LLIPSBLVD.
119
DUT HMAN
15
BLVD
SUPERSTIITION BLVD.
j I
BR ADWAY AVEI
I
SOUITHERN AVE.
k.16
ELINE AVE.
TO
M
A
H
A
W
K
GO
L
D
F
I
E
L
D
1-
0
2
TOTAL SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
CITY AREA
CITY BOUNDARY
ENUMERATION DISTRICT
DESIGNATION
ENUMERATION DISTRICT
BOUNDARIES
0
co
cr
LU
2
PINAL CO.
NATIONAL
FOREST
TIN
TIS
3
SCALE IN MILES
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION , ARIZONA
CENSUS ENUMERATION
DISTRICTS
PRC TOUPS I FIGURE
4131 N 9E11 AT PUY A l NO."
•
1
POPULATION ANALYSIS
FOR THE
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA
prepared by
PRC TOUPS
4131 North 24th Street
Phoenix,Arizona 85016
October 24,1980
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
CONTACTS AND RESPONSES 1 -3
AVAILABLE STATISTICAL DATA PAST &PRESENT 3 -9
PROJECTIONS 10 -13
ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS 14-15
SEASONAL OR WINTER RESIDENTS 16
CONCLUSION 17
APPENDIX 20
TABLES AND CHARTS
Projected Population Growth,1980-1980 4
Population Growth,U.S.,Arizona &Pinal County,
1850-1960 5
Comparative Population Changes &Growth Rates,
1950 -2000 6
Population Change i n Pinal County's Urban
Areas,1940-1965 7
Population,Apache Junction,1960 -1977 8
Population by Age Group,1976 8
Economic Indicators,1976 9
Population Projections for Apache Junction,
1960-2000 (ADES)11
Population Growth Rate Comparisons,1970-2000 13
Economic Indicators,1970-2000 15
Population Projections,1980-2000 19
POPULATION ANALYSIS
FOR THE
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
The following report i s a summary o f the various activities and findings
that we have carried out and conclusions that we have reached i n studying
population and forecasts for the Apache Junction area as part o f our
contracturel requirements i n the study o f future community facility and
space needs.
CONTACTS AND RESPONSES
We carried out the following contacts t o obtain population information
and received the following general information:
Pinal County Courthouse:868-5801
Contacted Charlie Quinn,Deputy County Manager and Terry Smith,Planning
Director was promised some information but received nothing.
Department o f Economic Security:
This department i s the official Government Office for determining
population projections for the State and its political jurisdictions.
Jack Kronenfield,255-5984 supplied considerable data and the DES
projections for the State,County and Apache Junction.Part o f the
data received i s contained herein.
Department o f Economic Planning and Development:
Eric Rassmussen,255-5725,indicated that data they had available
and data that they would use would be that provided by the Department
o f Economic Security.
Department o f Health Services:
Helen Davis,255-1068,submitted birth and death data for a 10 year
period for the Apache Junction Area by zip code area designation.
See copy i n appendix.
Department of Transportation:
Bob Mickelson,261-7433.Data similar to that produced by DES.
Maricopa Association of Governments:
Tom Ford,261-7867.Doesn't have anything on Apache Junction area or
Pinal County except that produced by DES.
Central Arizona Association of Governments:
John Glaze,868-5878,said he would send data but never received
anything.
Valley National Bank Research Center:261-2777
Stated that they had no statistical data available for an area as
small as Apache Junction outside of Maricopa County.
First National Bank of Arizona Research Center:271-1211
Similar comment as (VNB)above.
Arizona Public Service -Gas Service:
John McAtee,271-7830,Area Service Manager.Service Area east of
Meridian Road,for 6 miles east and 2 miles north and south of Apache
Trail total accounts 6,500+.
Number of accounts that request to be disconnected during summer
2,241 for 2 years ago;2,736,this past year or approximately 42%of
total accounts.Some residents leave but don't ask for disconnects
and pay the monthly minimum of $2.50,the manager has no idea how many
this would be.Arizona Public Service connects approximately 80 new
accounts annually in the Apache Junction Area.
The Area Office Manager indicated that they had some information on
computer tapes by zip code areas,but no seasonal cut off information.
Any information retreived on a small area basis would have a special
program run and a service charge would be necessary.
This source may be a useful one and one to work with as an input to
future population projections and particularly to seasonal trends.
Mountain Bell -Telephone Service:
Saundra Lawson,255-6411,Local Area Manager.Mountain Bell keeps
track o f telephone connections by prefixes.The area wide Superstition
prefixes are 982,984,986,981 and 985.Apache Junction prefix i s
982 and generally includes the area bounded by McDowell and Baseline,
Meridian t o Goldfield.Total number accounts 5,803,September 24,1980,
which 1,901 or (32.8%)o f the accounts were on vacation status.
Mountain Bell does not distinguish between residential o r commercial
connections o r accounts at this time.Current growth i n the Apache
Junction Area i s less than 100 connections per year.Big growth occured
i n 1978 and 1979.Current new growth i s between Meridian t o Sossaman
o f
*This source appears t o be a very useful one for input t o current growth,
projections and seasonsal trends.The city should contact Mountain Bell
representatives t o work out an acceptable program o f accounts information.
Salt River Project -Electrical Service:
Bing Brown,273-5724,Manager Information Division indicated that they
kept records by geographic billing areas which are established t o
assist meter readers,and are not usually of much value t o government
jurisdictional area.However,for a small charge Salt River Project can
provide computer printout data from a single or a combined billing area
for a limited amount o f information.
Apache Junction Post Office:982-2121
Apache Junction zip code number 85220.Zip code boundaries;West
Boundary:Crismon Road,South o f Apache Trail and 102nd Street between Apache
Trail and Brown Road and 108th Street (Signal Butte)north o f Brown Road.
North Boundary:Salt River.East Boundary:Includes Florence Junction,
Queen Valley,Kings Ranch.South Boundary:Not fully established.
Post mistress to supply new information directly to the City Planning
Department.
Postal receipts make a pretty good barometer of growth.An attempt
should be made t o establish a more logical zip code area which will match
the city's existing o r projected growth area.Other types and sources
o f information are maintained by zip code number.
City o f Apache Junction:982-7010
Joe Gero,Planning Director was very helpfull in providing data that the
City has collected since its incorporation.
AVAILABLE STATISTICAL DATA PAST AND PRESENT
The following charts have been extracted from other reports that have
included the Apache Junction Area.The chart below i s from a report
prepared i n 1963 and 1964.The population projections for Apache
Junction i s reasonably accurate.
Figure 21
PROJECTED POPULATION GROWTH,1970 &1980
Western Pinal County Communities
1970 1980
%Increase % Increase
Community 1963*Pop.over 1963 Pop.over 1963
Casa Grande 9,290 -17,100 84.0 37,400 302.6
Coolidge 5,310 9,250 74.1 18,100 240.9
Eloy 5,550 6,800 22.5 9,700 74.8
Florence 2,240 3,100 38.4 4,500 100.9
Apache Jct.3,600 5,600 55.6 10,000 177.8
Oracle 1,200 2,000 66.7 5,700 375.0
*Estimated from land use and other data.
SOURCE:
Van Cleve and Associates,1964.
POPULATION GROWTH IN THE UNITED STATES,
ARIZONA,THE 9 COUNTY SOUTHERN REGION,
AND PINAL COUNTY
1950-1960
1950 1960 1955-1960
UNITED STATES
Population 150,697,000 178,468,000
Growth Rate*1.7%
ARIZONA
Population 749,587 1,302,161
Growth Rate*5.7%
9 COUNTY SOUTHERN REGION
Population 635,000 1,151,000
Growth Rate*6.1%
PINAL COUNTY
Population 43,191 62,673
Growth Rate*3.8%
1 .8 %
5.3%
5.5%
3.0%
Pinal County as a percent of:
the 9 County Southern Region 6.8%5.4%
Arizona 5.8%4.8%
Sources:U.S. Bureau of the Census,U. S. Census of
Population:1960, Number of Inhabitants, Arizona,
Final Report PC (1)-4A;and Current Population
Reports, Series P-25, N. 240.
All growth rates computed on the basis of actual or imputed average
yearly rates of increase (compounded) during the previous 10 year
period (or other time span as indicated).
Standard Note:(---) indicates not appropriate.
SOURCE:
Pinal County 1985 Development
Ken R.White Company,1967.
Plan.
COMPARATIVE POPULATION CHANGE & GROWTH RATES 1950-2000
PI NAL COUNrirt SELECTErilIRBAN-PIXCES
Annual Change*
Population Change 10 Yr.15 Yr.5 Yr.Trends by Selected Extrapolations
Location 1950 1960 1965 1950-60 1950-65 1960-65 2.7 2.0 1.5 1.0
Pinal 43,191 62,673 64,000 3.8 2.7 0.4 162,611 127,993 107,769 90,662
County
Apache
Junction ---2,781 3,242 ------3.1 8,237 6,483 5,459 4,592
C090
Gronde 4,181 8,311 8,485 7.1 4.8 0.4 21,558 16,969 14,287 12,019
Coolidge 4,306 4,990 5,012 1.5 1.0 1.0 12,734 10,023 8,439 7,099
Eloy 3,580 4,899 5,373 3.2 2.8 1.9 13,651 10,745 9,047 7,611
Florence 1,776 2,143 2,141 1.9 1.3 -.1 5,439 4,281 3,605 3,032
Kearny 902 1,739 14.0 4,418 3,477 2,928 2,463
Mammoth ---1,913 1,612 -------3.4 4,095 3,223 2,714 2,283
Oracle ---1,056 1,445 ---6.4 3,671 2,889 2,433 2,046
Ray
San Manuel ---4,524 3,237 ---8,224 6,473 5,450 4,585
Sonora 1,821 1,244 ---------
Superior ---4,875 5,300 12,386 9,749 8,209 6,905
*Compounded Annual Average Increase
(Arizona Average Annual Increase
1950-60 5.7 Percent)
SOURCE:
Pinal County 1985 Development Plan.
Ken R.White Company,1967.
POPULATION CHANGE I N PINAL COUNTY'S URBAN AREAS
8,000
7,0001-
6,000L
5,000L
4,0001_
3,000L
2,0001_
1,000L
Cosa Grande
Coolidge
...-."'"'
Eloy
Apache Junction
Florence
1 "
1940 1950 19 1960 1965
Source:U.S.Census of Population : 1960, Final Report PC(1) —4A and Special
OPULATION Apache Junction has shown remarkable population growth since its quiet crossroads status
i n 1950.While lack of well-defined political boundaries has hindered the U.S.Census
and other organizations in their estimation efforts,the Arizona Department of Economic
Security has estimated Apache Junction's population at 8,500 at mid -year 1976.This
estimate,it should be noted,extends to the west beyond the Maricopa-Pinal county line
taking in built-up portions of Maricopa County and should reflect the best possible estimate
currently available. This estimate also reflects an average population, i.e. somewhat greater
than the actual permanent year-round figure although considerably below the temporary
. peak experienced in February and March with the influx of winter visitors.At the time
of writing,Apache Junction had 63 mobile home and R.V. parks which regularly achieve
full occupancy during the December -April season but often less than one-third occupancy
during the summer.According to figures generated for the Central Arizona Association
of Governments (CAAG), about 61 percent of the Apache Junction area population resided
there a minimum of 330 days pci year. CAAG found that about one -fifth of the population
resided i n the area less than hoif o f the year.
TABLE 6
POF-L AT C
sbAr,,,a :•-• :re3.,,
1960 1970 1977 14/0,"97 7_
/2‘oa..:e ,...-::•orl i N/A 2.390 9.500 +3E., 5.,
Ao..E,-.-e 1-..-.- :.r To,-sh b 2 N/A 4,400 12,000 * 2 4 .7
Ma ::.-a.7.:,,,,iv 663.513 971,225 1,757,500 +4 .7
ID,na Co,..• tv 62.673 68.600 89.700 .4_4
Ar,,D•16 1 .302,161 1.775.399 2.351,009 +4.6
d =o' --1 .3;:r.g U.S 60 Junc ,•o,
.n T.1N.•R.SE.
Sowc,s.Ari2oha
Suri?J'._of :he Cer ,.1,i,U S of Cor,mr,"...e
Jun,:e$1,r1a ,.2 by Ar.I7I1J Of ,PL,01 E:31,07-iic Pann,y ard
TABLE 7
POPULATION BY AGE GROUP
(Apache Jur:ction Ares)
Mal.Perna'.Total
6 &13.4 12.0
7-14 17.2 16.9
12.7::
17.1
15-19 9.5 9.2 9.4
20-24 5.4 6.7 6.1
25-34 10.7 10.6 10.7
35-44 10.7 11.2 10.9
45-54 10.5 10.9 10.7
55-64 10.9 10,5
65-74 8.8 8.2 8.5
75 & Over 3.6 3.2 3.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Med n Age N/A N/A N/A
Sourct,Ariz.nia Department of Econo,flic
Security
SOURCE:
Community Prospectus - - A
I •
ti•
4!
TABLE 5
APACHE JUNCTION ECON0fAIC INDICATOPS
(Apache J•indion Towrsti:p1
1970 1971 1972 1973 197 4 1975 1976 1977
Retail Sales (0000 1 2.381 2.959 3.861 5,096 6.6-16 7.730 14.810 26,100
Flesidentol B1c19.Perrnits 2 130 (35 130 116 96 9 5 in 177
Bank Deposits 1000si 3 10,337 12.405 15.708 20.047 22,757 27250 36.312 44.545
Postal Rei:eipts 4 112.341 133.495 167.350 194.515 213.292 252.735 296,054 340.000
School Enrolinie,z 5 801 1.015 1.149 1,351 1,425 1.508 1,642 1.762
Net A&.sessed Va'oatiun 1000:0 6 5,572 7.951 8.460 9.860 11.417 12.40)12.758 14.375
ThiS dd:p is gene ,5,•?d .),sin rnorith inte• .415 ard cut•ent infoirt on can b obt.•rnirn the Aoar.he _1,nd:on Charnher
of Contrnerce.
Sources lESIirnoteS by O P 3AD
2 Pinal Cour,-.•P!anr.'ng and •
t y
4 Apa.:!-1,.n P„:„:011:e.U.S.Se•ve_e
SOURCE:
Community Prospectus
Arizona Office of Economic Planning and Development
Community Affairs,1978.
NOTE:
School enrollment figure i s based upon average daily attendance,actual
enrollment i s approximately 10%higher.
SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS:
1977 -78
1782
1978-79
1914
1979-80
2072
SOURCE:
School District Superintendent
BANK DEPOSITS (000's)
1978 1979
41,871 54,038
SOURCE:Contact with
POSTAL RECEIPTS:
1977 1978
350,473 390,152
SOURCE:
U.S.Postal Service,Postmaster,L.Kraus
1980-81
2205
Apache Junction banks
1979
472,830
1980
518,187
Retail sales,bank deposits,postal receipts and school enrollments make
pretty good statistical information in carrying out population estimates,
trends and projects.I f a reasonable data base can be established,every
effort should be made by the City to maintain and enhance this data base
for future use.
1;
!:
.1'•
PROJECTIONS
The following chart indicates estimates and trends o f resident population
between 1970 and 1980,with projections t o the year 2000 for the State
o f Arizona,Maricopa County,Mesa,Tempe and Apache Junction.These
estimates and projections were prepared by the Arizona Department o f
Economic Security which i s the official demographic agency for the State
o f Arizona.This chart indicates the general growth trend lines for each
area.All areas,with the exception o f Tempe,showed substantial increases
i n growth between 1978 and 1980.The chart indicates a flattening i n the
projections after 1980,except for the State.We believe that the Maricopa
County and Apache Junction rate may be slightly steeper than what i s
indicated.I t i s this offices'feeling that the recent incorporation o f
the City will add amenities t o the Apache Junction area which will attract
a higher percent o f persons coming t o the State t o settle i n Apache Junction.
The extension o f the Superstition Freeway closer to Apache Junction will
also tend t o increase the desirability t o live i n Apache Junction.
Consequently,we feel that the actual growth trend line for Apache Junction
during the next decade should be increased t o approximately 16,300 persons
for the year 1990 with the trend line remaining approximately as indicated
for the second decade raising the estirated total for the year 2000 t o
approximately 21,600 persons.
1"
0
•1:)
I'l4
...'„'I
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION
(Source:Arizona Department o f Economic Security)
cp
(71
0 State o f Arizona (1,000,000s)
Maricopa County (1,000,000s)
o Pinal County (100,000s)
ma Apache Junction (10,000s)
U.cz,co coC-.O.
Percentage rates
15%=Apache Junction's %o f Pinal County Population
.74%=Apache Junction's Population Compared t o Maricopa County's Populatior
.42%=Apache Junction's %o f Arizona's Population
4i1
V :
K
irt
P
The following chart compares Apache Junction resident population growth
t o that o f the State,Pinal and Maricopa Counties.I t indicates a
growth rate line slightly lower than the State and Maricopa County but
considerably higher than Pinal County.The chart indicates that Apache
Junctions'share i n the State total would increase from 0.4%i n 1980
t o 0.47%for the year 2000.This appears t o be a reasonable growth
trend and on this basis,i n the year 2000 the State will have approximately
4,280,000 persons with Apache Junction having 20,111 as indicated i n the
previous chart.However,with the continuation of people migrating from
the snow and frost belts t o the sun belts due t o higher energy costs and
more favorable living conditions,also,the completion o f the Central
Arizona Project which will assure Eastern and Midwestern industrial and
financial establishments that the State has an assured water supply;then
the State's total growth rate may increase substantially over that
indicated.Also,with increased growth t o the East and Southern portions
o f the Phoenix Metro Area.Apache Junctions'growth may increase t o more
than 0.5%o f the State total thereby raising the towns'resident population
projection t o well over 30,000 by the year 2000.
4
IV •
•-•- • - • .• • --,- • • •4-,••••••,•, ,•-••••'
--
14.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
1 .0 NA'A
0
NA
-
NA
N A -
WA
1.46,
(Source.:Arizona Department of Economic Security)
WA
A --- -
12;324
04,648
0 N r Lr%N.OD 0 1 CD
N -N .CO
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 cr 01 01 a l CT (31
0 State (1,000,000s)
A Maricopa County (1,000,000s)
CO
—0—
A
-
- -14,732
•. /
0
11,506 _
2016,111
o 111cr,
a l 0
0 Mesa (100,000s)0 Apache Junction (10,000s)
*Tempe (100,000s)!,:s Not Available
i;
P
:14
APACHE JUNCTION ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND POPULATION PROJECTION
Certain economic indicators and statistical data can be a reliable source
i n determining population estimates.,trends and projections.Since Apache
Junction i s a new jurisdictional area,available economic data i s slight
and quationable due t o the statistical area being considered at the time
o f the data collection.The chart shows some economic indicators for
data available,but questionable.Retail sales,bank deposits,postal
receipts and school enrollments are good indicators for projecting future
growth.
Utility connections can also be used as a very good indicator for growth,
as well as provide resonably good,information on seasonal occupancy.
However,Apache Junction's utility companies service connection data
cover different service areas and at this time,they are not suitable
for reliable projections.Every effort should be made to have utility
service connections accounted i n a way which would be of value in making
the and supporting future population estimates and projections.A
review o f the following chart indicates that retail sales,bank deposits,
and postal receipts have been rapidly increasing since 1973/74,while
part o f this i s due t o inflation,this office believes that i t more
clearly reflects a truer and faster growth rate for the Apache Junction
area than has actually been considered.From 1980 on,i t i s anticipated
that City o f Apache Junction growth will continue a t a rapid rate but
will tend t o flatten out between 1985 and 1990.Growth i n total numbers
will be higher between 1990 and 2000,but the growth rate will be slightly
less due t o the larger numbers involved.
Superimposed over the economic indicator chart i s a population trend
line projection following a growth rate comparable with the other
economic growth indicators.This trend line starts with a 1980
population of 10,500 x 3 and increases t o a trend line population o f
64,800.When we divide the trend line projection by the base figure
o f 3 ,then we obtain a year 2,000 population of 21,600.This
projection is close t o the 20,111 projected by the Arizona Department
o f Economic Security.This projection i s only for resident population
as the economic indicators are annual figures.
Should there be new development and projects such as hospitals,shopping
centers (malls),industrial parks,airports,freeways,etc.,such projects
may accelerate these population projections.These unknown factors which
create worker demands will be somewhat proportional to the demands created
by the above projects.
9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
3.5
3.0
pitemtpric aunlu I 'UN tt;UPAIUMIL,INDICA IVIIS
V z
z
V
5.5
5.0 •7''•
4.5
4.0 /
/ '
3.5
117
2.5 or
,31,500
/.0/2.0 0"
a
-Qv./-er
'/ •-1.5 _la;
A-et-•
al Ae_.
ra_[3-
0 o ^r 1 c.1
N .N .Iss.
a l 0 1 0'1 C1 a%
-
10,500
LI \N .CO 0 1 0
N -h .N..•c o
C31 CfN 01 Cr%(TN Crl
ORetail Sales (1,000,000s)
ARes.Bldg.Permits (100s)
0 Bank Deposits (1,000,000s)
,—o
_RESIDENT POPULATION PROJECTION
16,350
13,350
CO
0 1
a-)a-N
* Postal Receipts (100,000s)
o School Enrollment (1,000s)
smeNet Assessed Valuation (1,000,000s)
19,000
LIF
64,800
Re
21,600
o
0
t N
4
4F;
14
'SEASONAL OR WINTER RESIDENTS
Seasonal residents,which have not been included i n the previous comments
and projections,account for a large number o f Apache Junction's total
poipulation.Whether these residents are classified as permanent residents
from a Federal Census definition i s indefinitive.For the most part,Apache
Junction's seasonal residents live i n mobile home or travel trailer parks.
They consider some other location,where they may own property,as being
their permanent place of residency.
A .survey that was carried out i n November o f 1980,indicates that there
were 80 separately -owned mobile home or travel trailer parks located
within the corporate limits of the City and seven more parks lying adjacent
t o or within the immediate service area of the City.The 80 parks contained
the mobile home and travel trailer spaces as indicated i n the table below.
Note that there are a number o f spaces i n which i t i s undetermined which
category they fit i n to.I t was indicated during the survey,that 905:o f
these spaces are filled during the peak winter season.
This projection i s based upon the assumption of 90%occupancy o f all mobile
home and travel trailer spaces and utilizing a 1.8 persons per residency
ratio.I t can also be assumed that over 2,200 of these people reside i n
the community for more than one-half of the year but claim other places as
their permanent place o f residency.
Nevertheless,the City of Apache Junction must consider seasonal residents
i n its future planning and growth process for providing municipal and public
services and functions.
Mobile Home Travel Trailer
Spaces Spaces Unknown Total
City 1,263 4,427 473 6,163
Pinal County 761 411 38 1,210
Total 2,024 4,838 511 7,373
lit
CONCLUSION
A preliminary report of the 1980 census indicated that the City o f Apache
Junction contained 8,374 housing units.The final count,but subject t o
change,indicated only 6,950 housing units for a net loss o f 1,424 or
17%.The final report also indicated that 2,677 were vacant leaving 4,273
occupied units containing 9,967 persons for an average o f 2.33 persons
per occupied unit.I f an average o f 2.0 were used for thee vacant units
which are obviously owned by seasonal residents then the population count
would be increased by 5,354.Some 1980 data available t o support a
population count increase between the preliminary housing unit count pro-
duced June 25,1980 of 8,374 and the final housing unit count produced
August 28,1980 o f 6,950 are as follows:
1)School district enrollment was up by 170 students.
2)310 building permits were issued between January 1,1980 and
September 10,1980.
3)Voter registration increased by 1961 for the 1980 election when
compared to voters registered for the city election i n 1978.
4)Reports prepared by government and private groups indicate
a growth i n excess o f 280 percent during the last decade.
The special census taken i n March o f 1980 following incorporation o f
the City i n November of 1978 resulted i n a population count o f 10,121
persons.Considerable controversy i s being carried out regarding the
population count by the 1980 Federal Census for the City o f Apache
Junction as well as many other cities o f the state and nation.In our
opinion,this controversy i s primarily caused by the following factors:
1)Mass movements o f persons primarily o f retirement age who travel
and reside i n multiple locations during the year.
2)
3)
Persons desiring to maintain a resident status in a particular
area for voting residency,property and income tax benefits
while living i n Apache Junction.
Many persons maintain a P.O.Box or General Delivery address
rather than t o establish a residency.
4)Lack o f adequate mapping and street signs during the time o f
the census t o properly identify the.location or address o f the
residences.
5)Refusal of some persons t o participate in the Federal Census
count as an anti -government expression.
Consequently,we feel i t i s important for the City o f Apache Junction t o
attempe t o count all of the residents of the community i n future census'
that reside inthe City for the most part o f the year as permanent residents
and t o establish data collection techniques which will support such adetermination.kq;
For the purposes of this study,which i s t o establish baseline projections
for future population growth t o determine future community facilities
and space needs.We believe that the projections indicated on the
following table should be considered.
These projections take into consideration permanent year round
residents as well as seasonal residents which should be considered
as permanent residents when determining future City needs,facilities
and services.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS 1980 to 2000
...CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION,ARIZONA
'
A B A + B C A + B + C
YEAR RtSIDENT POPULATION RESIDENT POPULATION TOTAL RESIDENT SEASONAL TOTAL
IN CITY (1)IN SERVICE AREA (1)POPULATION OF RESIDENTS POPULATION
STUDY AREA (2)
(a)(b)
1980 10,500 2,200 12,700 5,354 12,294 30,348
1985 12,762 2,806 15,568 6,833 15,687 38,088
1990 16,288 3,579 19,867 8,721 20,016 48,604
1995 19,816 4,294 24,110 10,610 24,348 59,068
2000 22,972 4,938 27,910 12,299 28,220 68,429
(1)Growth is based upon a 5% annual growth between 1980 and 1990 then decreased to 4% for
1990 to 1995 and 3% for 1995 t o the year 2000.
(2)Seasonal Population is based upon an occupancy of 90%.This assumes that approximately
90% of the seasonal residents spend 90 days or more in the City of Apache Junction at
one specific location,and that all 90%are in the City for one 30 -day period.Seasonal
residents are based upon a population per housing unit of 1.8.
(a)Represents seasonal resident population which reside on
individual lots,not within mobile home or travel trailer parks.
(b)Represents seasonal residents population which reside in mobile
home or travel trailer parks.
14:
v.t A P P E N D I X
Y"),
;Lt....L
`'.• • ••Mc DOWEL L BLVD
CI
0
0
ri - -}1 8 0
I 1 9
cc
McKELLIPS I BLVD
TO
M
A
H
A
W
K
LOST .I DUTCHMAN
0
1 7
!SUPERSTITION I=z=:=m4rzrf==az..
2 0
MP=
1 5
BLVD
TRAIL
BROADWAY 11_„7 44Z,,,AVE
..2'.f.:1%; • `,IRMIffelgtaited.,P-%7:
3 0 2 9
•--•.;••••••• ••
FREE WAY
2 8 2 7
11111 IR MI
I
t'
1
AVENUE _
BASELINE
Apache Junction Schools Service Area
•. 7 "-••••'4•- •--.•--•1 L i -4,
Z •
;NA.TIONACT F
• ".••'..•.•,,
,Arl4(t1t.it.,1 NU 4.3 -.
•: •S '
•1 1 •. •1 ,1.I I
t -
t'')
_
•
PT NAL COUNTY
Summar},Table
AREA 1978 1979 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Final .87502 9 1457
Apache Junction 9295 1 0 375
Arizona City 1.100 1 244
Casa Grande 16425 1 7 723
Coolidge i 7275 7668
Eloy .6945 7290
Florence 3175 3 320
Kearny .2665 2 702
Mammoth 2235 2 292
Oracle 2040 2142
San Manuel 4665 4762
Superior 5600 5 7 /13
Rural 26082 26196
92471 97698 106737 117544
10857 13444 167/14 20415
1323 1780 2406 31.70
17959 19184 21391 24009
7744 81:30 8813 9609
7355 7704 8239 8848
3373 3642 3989 6352
2683 2564 2671 2895
2296 2297 2396 2528
2188 2622 2782 3204
4763 4571 4723 4991
5739 5656 5890 6237
26211 26304 26693 27286
127729
24007
40?8
26757
10272
9350
4657
3152
2636
3635
5220
6525
27990
Source:Arizona Department of Economic Security
H
rJ
0
BIRTHS AND DEATHS
FOR THE
CITY OF APACHE JUNCTION
(by Zip Code Area 85220)
YEAR BIRTHS DEATHS
1970 65
1971 78 77
1972 68 91
1973 76 105
1974 83 107
1975 93 89
1976 85 102
1977 87 100
1978 98 125
1979 127 159
•SOURCE:Arizona State Department o f Health
Helen Davis
APPENDIX E
PRELIMINARY 1980 CENSUS COUNT BY
ENUMERATION DISTRICT (ED)
•
•e•
1.
t •
C
5 n
-7
I C)
:
'4-
>-
1-J
(-)
- 3
0
C
c :
ED NUMBER
130
131 T
131 U
132
132 U
132 V
132 w
132 X
132 Y
133 T
133 U
133 V
133 W
133 X
APPENDIX E
PRELIMINARY 1980 CENSUS COUNT
BY ENUMERATION DISTRICT (ED)
POPULATION HOUSING
1201
512
1035
639
835
233
631
145
145
765
570
677
1023
1524
TOTAL (City)9935
ED NUMBER POPULATION
15 482
16 279
119 201
134 (400 series)491
135 (900 series)537
TOTAL (County)1990
Maricopa County
Block 111*182
691
426
488
331
424
246
510
139
318
640
499
664
609
852
6837
HOUSING
No Data
*Includes persons living outside city of Apache Junction city limits.
NOTES:
Annexation Into Maricopa County Annexation of Section 32
Effective Date:February 15,1980
Population (Est.):150
Housing (Est.):125
Effective Date:June 6,1980
-Population:0
Housing:0
Preliminary Count Indicated Vacancy Rate About 38.5%
Total Housing -Vacant (38.5%)=Total Occupied
6837 2632 =4205
Total Population =9935 =2.36 person/household
Total Occupied Housing 4205
.cc
'Cr
o
- J
*:r
• 133 U \
I •
.g o o
•I 'c_crIIC S /-•I •I32 W
i•r •c c ;. ,- g 1n 1 - .8 ---„ ,0r.z ,...:0 .,..,Lai
.7••...•I -''' .i___I
NATIONAL FOREST
--
--
;
cr
.,135 135
\I
16
0
. X
•01
TOTAL
,LEGEND
CITY AREA
CITY BOUNDARY
-
15
SUPERSTITION BLVD
eln-arT-rs.
MCDOWELL BLVD-
I I I
MCKELLIPS BLVD --
1 -
I
KI i
VIL_17 DUTCHMAN BLVD
I I.
BROADWAY AVE!
OU1THERN
N I
SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
ENUMERATION DISTRICT
DESIGNATION
ENUMERATION DISTRICT
BOUNDARIES
I 6
AVE
MARICOPA CO.
PINAL CO.
NATIONAL
FOREST
TIN
BA1ELINE AVE.!-4
LAJ
CO
cc
LtJ
Cr)
cr
3
0 2
MILES
SCALE IN
-rIVES
SEWAGE DISPOSAL ALT —'
FOR
APACHE JUNCTION
CENSUS ENUMERA.,
DISTRICTS
IZONA
132 T
g P . ••