DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AND STATEMENT
TREATED WASTEWATER DISPOSAL PROGRAM
O
SUMMARY
Scptcnjhcr 1978
U.S. Ei?viroi>n>ei;tal Protection A£ei>cy
South Hay Dischargers Authority
-------
ew
C\oC\-
s-
¦tt -
00 [
zW 9o?s>7f00\
C22205
US EPA
Headquarters and Chemical Libraries
£PA West Bldg Room 3340
Mailcode 3404T
1301 Constitution Ave NW
Washington DC 20004
202-566-0556
EPA-9-CA-South Bay Dischargers Authority - 78
SUMMARY - DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOUTH BAY DISCHARGERS AUTHORITY
TREATED WASTEWATER DISPOSAL PROGRAM
November, 1978
Environmenta!
Protection A—
Region
MAR 30 i
LIBRARY
o
o
Oo
Prepared by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, California 94105
With technical assistance from:
Bechtel Inc.
50 Beale Street
San Francisco, California 94119
Grant No. CA-06-1135
and
South Bay Dischargers Authority
801 North First Street
San Jose, California 95110
In association with:
E. H. Smith and Associates
Archaeological Consulting and Research Services, Inc.
Mr. Michael Melanson
R. C. Harlan and Associates
Pacific Environmental Laboratory
Hydroscience, Inc.
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS:
m.
Paul De Falco, Jr.
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
US EPA |
->rs and Chemical Libraries
?est Bldg Room 3340
viailcode 3404T
> ristitution Ave NW
ungtori DC 20004
202-566-0555
Branklin D. Knof ler / fj
Acting Chief Executive Officer
Sopth Bay Dischargers Authority
Material
lent Collection
-------
To All Interested Agencies, Public Groups, and Concerned
Individuals:
The Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the South Bay
Dischargers Authority Treated Wastewater Disposal Pro-
gram is complete and is being distributed at this time
for your review and comment, fThis program would provide
a wastewater disposal system for the San Jose/Santa
Clara, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto wastewater treatment
plants, located in the Santa Clara County Baylands along
the southeastern edge of San Francisco BayTI The Draft
EIR/EIS has been prepared to conform with tne require-
ments of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,
as amended.
The project alternative has not been selected. However,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the South
Bay Dischargers Authority (SBDA), at this time, recom-
mend a "no project alternative" for the following
reasons:
1. The degree to which increased dilution result-
ing from a discharge north of the Dumbarton
Bridge will mitigate the adverse impacts of
toxicants on the biota of the South Bay cannot
be predicted.
2. Modeling studies have not shown that a substan-
tial improvement in dissolved oxygen concen-
trations would result if the discharges were
moved north of the Dumbarton Bridge.
3. The viability of future full reclamation is
being investigated in the Regional Wastewater
Reclamation Study. Should such an alternative
prove to be feasible, it would meet the plan-
ning requirements of the San Francisco Bay
Basin Plan.
The EPA and the SBDA recognize that comprehensive
receiving water monitoring will be needed to document
the impacts of wastewater discharges in the South Bay
after treatment facilities, now under construction,
are placed in full operation. In addition, each dis-
charging agency is committed to local and regional
wastewater reclamation investigations.
This decision is being recommmended by EPA and SBDA,
based upon present knowledge. However, if the final
selection is a "no project alternative," we will con-
tinue to evaluate results of the monitoring program
and will reconsider our selection, if appropriate.
The Final EIR/EIS will identify the project alternative
selected after consideration of the public comments.
In the process of summarizing the Draft, much of the
detail necessary to explain and support the summary's
statements and conclusions was of necessity not pre-
sented. While the summary is as clear and accurate as
possible within this limitation, those persons desiring
a complete presentation of the analysis and conclusions
are encouraged to review the complete Draft at the loca-
tion cited below.
Comments on the Draft EIR/EIS should be sent to this
office within 45 days of the date of this letter. All
comments received will be considered in preparation of
the Final EIR/EIS for this section. If you fail to
comment within the specified time, it shall be assumed,
absent a request for a specific extension of time, that
you have no comments to make.
In order to receive testimony from the public, EPA
will hold a public hearing on the Draft. It is pres-
ently anticipated that the hearing will be held in
January or early February 1979. Public notice will be;
given in the local newspapers at least thirty days in
advance of the public hearing.
The hearing may be continued from time to time, or to a
different place, after its commencement, to accommodate
the need of witnesses or the EPA.
All interested parties are invited to express their
views at this hearing. Persons wishing to make comments
-------
may submit them in writing and/or appear at the hearing.
Written comments should be submitted in tripicate to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
Attn: Hearing Office (HE—141)
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Oral statements will be received and considered, but for
accuracy of the record, all important testimony should
be submitted in writing. Oral statements should summar~
ize extensive written materials so that there will be
time for all interested persons to be heard. Enough
copies of the written materials, should be produced so
that other interested persons may receive a copy and
there will be no necessity for written materials to be
read at length.
The following documents constitute the Draft EIR/EIS:
Summary
Main Text
Appendices (2 volumes)
The Draft may be reviewed at the following locations:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
Library
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Reference Unit (P.M. 213)
401 M Street, S.W., Room 2922
Washington, D.C. 20460
Documents Librarian
Santa Clara County Library
Research Center
10400 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
San Jose Public Library
180 W. San Carlos St.
San Jose, CA 95110
Palo Alto Public Library
1213 Newell Rd.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Santa Clara County Library
7 387 Rosanna Street
Gilroy, CA 95020
Santa Clara County Library
78 South Dempsey Rd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
Mountain View Public Library
585 Franklin Street
Mountain View, CA 94040
Library
Water Resources Center
University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Santa Clara Public Library
2635 Homestead Road
Santa Clara, CA 95051
Sunnyvale Public Library
Attn: Documents Librarian
665 W. Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
Santa Clara County Library
1095 North 7th Street
San Jose, CA 95112
NASA - Ames Research Center
Technical Library
Moffett Field
Sunnyvale, CA 94040
City of San Jose
Planning Department
801 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95110
-------
City of Santa Clara
Planning Department
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
City of Mountain View
Planning Department
540 Castro Street
Mountain View, CA 94040
City of Sunnyvale
Planning Department
P.O. Box 607
456 W. Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94088
City of Los Altos
Planning Department
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
City of Palo Alto
Planning Department
250 Hamilton Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Please bring this notice to the attention of all person:
who would be interested in this matter.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
by yfcv/Paul De Falco, Jr
[J Regional Administrator
City of Milpltas
Planning Department
455 E. Calaveras Blvd.
Milpitas, CA 95035
City of Cupertino
Planning Department
City Hall, 10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Town of Los Altos Hills
Planning Department
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
City of Los Gatos
Planning Department
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95030
City of Monte Sereno
Planning Department
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
South Bay Dischargers Authority
by 7 Franklin ~D. Rnofl^Tr
Acting Chief Executive Officer
-------
INTRODUCTION
This summary provides a brief description of the environmental
impacts associated with the alternatives for the disposal of South
Bay Dischargers Authority (SBDA) highly treated wastewater. More
detailed analyses of primary and secondary impacts, both beneficial
and adverse, are contained in the Draft Environmental Impact Report
and Statement (EIR/EIS) and Appendices to that EIR/EIS, which
are being released for public review concurrently with this document.
For those concerned individuals who will not find the opportunity
to review the complete EIR/EIS, it is hoped that this summary will
provide an overview of the problem of disposal and its anticipated
impacts.
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DISPOSAL PROBLEM
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The South Bay Dischargers Authority (SBDA) was formed on April
1, 1973, when the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and
Palo Alto entered into a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement. Figure
1 shows the service area of the SBDA.
Prior to the formation of the SBDA, an informational organization of
its member cities and the Union and Menlo Park Sanitary Districts
initiated a study to investigate alternative long-term solutions to
wastewater management programs in the portion of the San Francisco
Bay south of Dumbarton Bridge (South Bay). A recommended plan
was presented in the Consoer-Bechtel (1972) report entitled Water
Quality Management Plan for South San Francisco Bay. Because of
subsequent institutional changes, such as the withdrawal of the Union
and Menlo Park Sanitary Districts, a second study was commissioned.
Bechtel Incorporated completed the Overview Facilities Management
Plan in 1974, which recommended that three subregional plants pro-
vide advanced treatment for wastewaters generated within the SBDA
service area. The plants would be at the sites of the existing secondary
plants operated by San Jose/Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto.
It was further recommended that treated wastewaters from these
three plants be collected in a regional intercepter for discharge through
a common outfall into deep waters north of Dumbarton Bridge, in
order to meet interim water quality standards that prohibited discharge
south of Dumbarton Bridge or to the dead-end sloughs tributary to
the Bay.
The 1974 report found that even if a different method of effluent dis-
posal were chosen, the advanced level of treatment recommended
would still be required. On this basis, EPA in late 1974 issued Nega-
tive Declarations (findings that impactsfrom proposed projects will be
insignificant, eliminating the need for preparation of EIS's) on up-
grading of the three secondary plants to provide the advanced treat-
ment. This action allowed the design and construction of these
facilities to proceed at once.
On May 30, 1975, EPA issued a Notice of Intent to commence with
the preparation of an EIS on alternative effluent disposal systems.
SBDA, as a State-Chartered Agency, entered into an agreement with
EPA to prepare a joint EIR/EIS, responsive to both State of California
and United States requirements. The common outfall to the north of
Dumbarton Bridge, by that time incorporated in the San Francisco
Bay Water Quality Management Plan (or Basin Plan) by the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) in 1975, was to be considered as one of
these alternatives.
Since that time, the SBDA and its consultant, Bechtel Incorporated,
have been engaged in the background studies required to generate
sufficient data for the EIR/EIS. This report is a result of those studies.
WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS AND GOALS OF A DISPOSAL
PROJECT
Historically, wastewaters from SBDA member agencies have been
discharged into sloughs draining into the South Bay. This has caused
an increase in pollutants in South Bay waters — the degradation of
water quality in the South Bay has been severe. Depression of dis-
solved oxygen concentrations to tevels as low as 0.7 milligram per
1
-------
MILPITAS
. f mount Air
LOS ALTOS £ LOS ALTOS
HILLS
SANTA CLARA
SAN JOi
BURBANK
CAMP!
SARATOGA'
LOS GATOS
SAN Ci
.REDWOOD CITY %/f"-
athe'rtop
,i'J -P '
MENLo'pA
msiu
- \ I'-
1 I SBDA SERVICE AREA
VV////A APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF BASIN
\/((((UA PLAN ALTERNATIVE STUDY AREA
Figure 1
STUDY AREA LOCATION
AND PRINCIPAL MUNICIPALITIES
2
-------
liter, high concentrations of toxic heavy metals in the sediments, and
localized problems of fish kills and waterfowl botulism outbreaks
have all been attributed to the waste load accumulations in the South
Bay. These conditions have been thought to be further aggravated by
the lack of freshwater inflow during the dry season and the sub-
sequent reduced flushing of the estuary.
Recent implementation of secondary treatment has resulted in marked
improvements in Bay water quality. Nonetheless, strict water quality
standards and guidelines promulgated by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) and San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to protect the beneficial uses of the
South Bay cannot presently be met. The upgrading of the secondary
plants to provide advanced treatment is expected to improve further
water quality in the open waters of the South Bay in an attempt to
comply with the standards and guidelines. Each alternative discussed
in the Draft EIR/EIS was evaluated with regard to the achievement
of these standards and to the environmental impacts and economic
costs expected.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
During the development of the Water Quality Management Plan for
South San Francisco Bay (Consoer-Bechtel, 1972) and the Over-
view Facilities Management Plan (Bechtel, 1974), a number of treat-
ment and disposal alternatives were examined. The Draft EIR/EIS
evaluates numerous disposal alternatives, some of which were con-
sidered in these earlier studies. The criteria for evaluation in the Draft
EIR/EIS include legal and institutional requirements, economic,
engineering, and environmental (physical, chemical, biological,
and sociocultural) factors. All alternative evaluations are based on the
assumption that the advanced treatment recommended in the Over-
View Facilities Management Plan and described under the 1974 Nega-
tive Declarations will be implemented.
A description of the four viable and four rejected alternatives to the
Basin Plan Alternative are presented in the following subsections. The
alternatives fall into six general categories: (1) discharge to the Bay,
(2) reclamation and reuse, (3) discharge to the ocean, (4) disposal on
land, (5) nonstructural actions, and (6) no further action or deferred
action.
As shown in Figure 2, the Basin Plan Alternative consists of a regional
conveyance pipeline, connecting lines, and pumping facilities along
the southwestern shore and in the waters of the South Bay. The pipe-
line would be approximately 16 miles long, extending from a pumping
station at the existing San Jose/Santa Clara treatment plant to a dis-
charge point in the deepwater channel approximately one mile north
of Dumbarton Bridge. The pipeline would vary in diameter from 90
inches (inside diameter) at its southern end to 102 inches at the out-
fall. The three subregional advanced waste treatment plants (San Jose/
Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto) would discharge wastewaters
into this conveyance at pumping stations located near the treatment
plants. The pumping stations could be modified to accommodate
reversal in flow direction, if large-scale regional reclamation and
reuse programs that require transport of wastewaters southward are
implemented in the future.
SETTING OF THE BASIN PLAN ALTERNATIVE
The study area considered in the Draft EIS is that portion of the
Santa Clara County Baylands between San Jose and the Basin Plan
Alternative disposal point (Figure 1). This gently sloping, almost flat,
plain and the open waters of the Bay have been extensively developed
for urban, commercial, and institutional uses, including water pol-
lution control facilities, sanitary landfills, commercial salt concen-
tration ponds, and recreational areas (Figure 3).
The waters of the South Bay have a moderating effect on the climate
of Santa Clara County; this climate in turn influences the susceptibil-
ity of the area to air quality problems. The study area is in a critical
air basin; the combination of strong subsidence inversions common
along the Pacific Coast and a basin ringed by mountains and open to
3
-------
4
-
-------
*
1 ARTESIAN SLOUGH
SAN JOSE/SANTA CLARA
PUMPING STATION
GUADALUPE RIVER
I SARATOGA CREEK |
GUADALUPE SLOUGH
SANTA CLARA
ALVISO ROAD
|CALABAZASCREEK |
CARIBBEAN ROAD
SLOUGH
MOUNTAIN VIEW
SLQIJSb
SUNNYVALE
PUMPING STATU
/ \ \ .. >
| ALVISO FREEWAY |
STEVENS CREEK
MOFFETT FIELD
BAYSHORE
FREEWAY
-------
LEGEND
J — Residential
^ — Commercial — Industrial
— Agricultural
I — Government Facilities, Schools
] — Recreation, Open Space, Salt
Evaporators, Marshlands.
Figure 3
1975 LAND USE
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
the sea results in a high potential for impaired air quality. During the
summer and early fall, when air temperatures are higher, these condi-
tions result in periods of increased air pollution, primarily from non-
point sources such as automobile traffic. However, disposal is not
growth related and, since no increase in treatment capacity is planned,
no secondary impacts on air quality are expected.
Geologic hazards consist of the potential for major earthquake ac-
tivity along the San Andreas fault zone to the west of the Bay and
along the Hayward fault zone to the east. A major earthquake could
affect the structural integrity of a pipeline should the firm Bay Muds
supporting the structure lurch or slide.
One of the most characteristic features of the South Bay is the di-
verse habitat available for fish and wildlife. This habitat, designated as
a beneficial use of the area in the SWRCB and RWQCB Water Quality
Control Plan (1975), consists of open bay waters, estuarine and tidal
mud flats, fresh and saltwater marshes, salt concentration ponds, and
grasslands (Figure 4). Although somewhat reduced in productivity as
a result of water pollution problems and extensive urban development
pressures, these Bayland habitats still support a diverse plant and ani-
mal community, including three resident endangered species
(California least tern, California clapper rail, and salt marsh harvest
mouse). Portions of the South Bay have been designated as part of
the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge; in the area south of
Dumbarton Bridge, the wildlife refuge consists of the marshlands, salt
ponds, and sloughs from Alviso Slough north on the eastern side of
the Bay.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Environmental impacts can be categorized as primary (direct or
secondary (indirect). These impacts may be beneficial (e.g., protec-
tion of designated beneficial uses of the Bay) or adverse (e.g., pre-
emption of acreage from future development); some adverse impacts
may be mitigated or reduced in severity by implementation of
certain actions or measures (Table 1). Environmental effects ex-
pected from the alternatives are summarized in the following sec-
tions, and the alternatives are compared with respect to their effects
in Table 2.
S
BASIN PLAN ALTERNATIVE (ALTERNATIVE 1)
The Basin Plan Alternative facilities would be located on the Bay-
lands plain, roughly between the Bayshore Freeway (U.S. Highway
101) and the inboard levees of the salt ponds. Where possible, the
route would follow existing utility corridors. Pumping stations
would be located on treatment plant or industrial park property.
However, due to the nature of the Santa Clara Baylands, approxi-
mately 74 percent of the proposed alignment would be located in
relatively natural biological areas.
The main goal of the Basin Plan Alternative would be general improve-
ment in dissolved oxygen levels in the South Bay, which would
contribute to the protection of the designated beneficial uses of
these waters. Three wastewater outfalls to the Bay south of Dumbarton
Bridge, including one in the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Re-
fuge, would be eliminated. However, this alternative results in primary
adverse impacts during construction as well as secondary adverse im-
pacts during operation.
Adverse construction impacts include alteration of topography,
erosion, dust, air pollution, noise, degraded water quality, and loss
of biological habitat. All of these impacts would be short-term,
lasting only during construction (approximately two weeks at any
point along the conveyance) and the period immediately following
completion of construction. Mitigating measures such as route se-
lection, surface restoration, stream bank stabilization, and revegetation
would further reduce the significance of these impacts. The areas
most affected include the Palo Alto discharge canal and the Palo Alto
Flood Basin. These areas have been disturbed in the past and are now
recovering from this disturbance; construction would slow this re-
covery. No known historical or archaeological sites would be affected;
no relocation of residents is anticipated; and no long-term disruption
of aesthetics or access would occur.
Operation of the conveyance may contribute to degraded water
quality in two locations. The disposal point would be locally af-
fected by pollutants in the discharge, but no violations of water
-------
Affected
Project
Environmental Alternatives
Aspect (by Alternative No's.)
Table 1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Impact
Topography 1,3,5 Alteration of local surface relief from trenching in a
50- to 150-foot-wide easement
Primary or Secondary
Beneficial or Adverse
Primary, adverse
Mitigation Proposed
Removal of excess spoils to suitable
landfill
Air Quality
1,3,5
1,3,4,5
Water Quality 1,3,5
1,3,5
Erosion of stream banks and streambeds
Short-term, localized degradation from construction
vehicle emissions
Short-term, localized degradation from trenching-
release of methane, hydrogen sulfide, mercaptans
Short-term localized degradation of water quality as
a result of increased turbidity during stream crossings,
trenching in marshes or Bay, and spoils disposal at
Alcatraz
Short-term localized degradation in water quality-
decreased light penetration, decreased oxygen levels,
increased nutrient levels, and increased heavy metal
levels- as a result of disturbing sediments
Primary, adverse
Primary, adverse
Primary, adverse
Primary, adverse
Primary, adverse
Restoration and revegetation of land
surfaces, including resurfacing of
roadways
Scheduling of stream crossings to
periods of low flow to extent
practicable
Use of temporary cofferdams and cul-
verts during construction
Restoration of streambed and bank
topography
None proposed
Construction practices to minimize
air quality impacts on personnel. Emissions
cannot be avoided
Use of mechanical, bucket-type dredge
culverts during construction
Scheduling of stream crossings to periods of
low flow to extent practicable
Use of mechanical bucket-type of dredge
to reduce turbidity at trench
As in turbidity mitigation
9
-------
Affected
Project
Environmental Alternatives
Aspect (by Alternative No's.)
Table 1 (Continued)
Impact
1-5 General improvement in dissolved oxygen levels and
reduction of concentrations of conservative (non-
degradable) elements in open water south of Dumbarton
Bridge as a result of operation
1,3,5 General reduction in toxicity levels in open
waters south of the Dumbarton Bridge and in
sloughs
1,5 Localized minor degradation of water quality at dis-
posal point
1,3,5* Decreased oxygen levels in headwaters of Artesian
Slough as result of natural background and reduced
freshwater flows (removal of wastewater discharges)
1,3,5* Increased salinity in South Bay as result of decreased
freshwater flows
Sediment Quality 1,3,5* Short-term change in sediment quality as result of
use of clean granular backfill
1-5 Minor degradation of sediment quality at disposal
point
1,3,4,5 Potential for small improvement in sediment quality
in South Bay at old disposal points
Noise 1,3,4,5 Short-term, localized increases over ambient from
construction equipment
10
Primary or Secondary
Beneficial or Adverse
Primary, beneficial
Mitigation Proposed
Primary, beneficial
Primary, adverse Source control for conservative
elements
Upgrading treatment to advanced
levels
Primary, adverse None proposed
Primary, undefined* None proposed
Primary, beneficial
Primary, adverse Source control for conservative
elements
Primary, beneficial
Primary, adverse
Use of noise reduction mufflers,
"quiet" equipment
-------
Environmental
Aspect
Affected
Project
Alternatives
(by Alternative No's.)
Table 1 (Continued)
Impact
1,3,5* Local increases in noise over ambient from operation
of pumping stations
Biology 1,3,4,5 Trenching impacts, site preparation effects and noise degraded
habitats in Baylands or on land
1,3,4,5 Potential disruption of rare, endangered species, and species
of special concern during construction through noise, habitat
loss
1,3,5* Removal of fresh water from Artesian Slough, resulting in
loss of freshwater habitat
1-5 Potential decrease in biological productivity at disposal
points as result of changes in water quality, sediment quality
1,3,4,5
Potential change in biota in South Bay as result of changed
oxygen levels, salinity
Primary or Secondary
Beneficial or Adverse
Mitigation Proposed
Scheduling in residential areas to
normal working hours and in bio-
logically sensitive areas to times of
minimal impacts
Primary, adverse Location of pumping stations on
treatment plant property or in
industrial parks
Enclosure of pumping stations at
Sunnyvale, Palo Alto
Primary, adverse Use of narrow easement in sensitive (marsh)
areas, where practicable
Restoration of stream bank and streambed
backfill with clean material, and revegetation
of marshlands and grasslands to restore
habitat
Primary, adverse . Scheduling of construction to avoid marsh-
lands during mid-May through June nesting
period of the California clapper rail and the
Alameda song sparrow
Primary, adverse None proposed
Primary, adverse Source control for conservative elements
Primary, undefined** None proposed
11
-------
Affected
Project
Environmental Alternatives
Aspect
Archaelogical,
Historical, and/or
Paleontological
Resources
Land Use
(by Alternative No's.)
1,3,5
1,3,5
Table 1 (Continued)
Impact
Potential for encountering subsurface remains during
construction
Temporary (less than two weeks) disruption of some
road traffic
1,3,5 Preemption of area over pipelines from other uses,
such as permanent buildings
Long-term commitment of land use
Aesthetics
1, 3,4, 5 Highly visible during construction—short-term
1,3,5* Visible and audible pumping stations near parklands
Economics
1,3,4,5 Investment of capital costs, of which 12.5 percent
must be funded by the cities comprising the SBDA,
and a portion of which must be paid back to federal
government by industry under revenue program
1, 3, 4, 5 Annual operating costs for power, maintenance, and
administration
5 Reduced crop productivity due to mineral content
of irrigation water
12
Primary or Secondary
Beneficial or Adverse
Mitigation Proposed
Primary, adverse
primary, adverse
Secondary
Primary, secondary,
beneficial
Primary, adverse
Primary, adverse
Primary, adverse
Preconstruction survey to identify sensitive
areas or previously known sites
Maintain public access by temporary means
Use of signs, fencing where necessary to pro-
tect public safety
Location of pipeline within designated open
space and industrial properties consistent
with present and planned land use
None proposed
Restoration of land topography, revegeta-
tion to reduce postconstruction visibility
Landscaping to increase structure compati-
bility with surroundings and design of en-
closures to reduce noise
None proposed
Secondary, adverse Advanced wastewater treatment to reduce
salts—blending of water supplies
-------
Affected
Project
Environmental Alternatives ,
Aspect (by Alternative No s.)
Table 1 (Continued)
Impact
1, 3,4, 5 Employment generated by construction and local,
short-term economic stimulus attributable to
construction wages put into circulation
Energy Consumption 1,3,4, 5 Operation-consumption of electrical energy
Commitment of
Resources
1, 3,4, 5 Construction materials (pipe, backfill, concrete,
pumps, instrumentation)
5 Reduction in amount of water resources drawn
from existing state supplies
1 _5 Commitment of disposal point to wastewater
discharge
Primary or Secondary
Beneficial or Adverse
Primary, beneficial
Primary, adverse
Primary, adverse
Primary, secondary
beneficial
Primary, adverse
Mitigation Proposed
None proposed
None proposed
None proposed
None proposed
~Activity related to Alternative 5 only if off-season outfall system removes discharge from sloughs.
~~Undefined - nature of impact not clear at primary level; may be adverse or beneficial.
13
-------
r
LEGEND
Grasslands
Salt Ponds
CZ3
CZZI
Salt Marshes And Slough
"Eyebrows"
Managed Marsh, Primarily Fresh
Water
| | Oxidation Ponds
Figure 4
HABITAT MAP
14
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
quality standards are anticipated. The headwaters of Artesian Slough
may be degraded as they become more saline with the removal of the
freshwater discharges from the San Jose/Santa Clara treatment plant.
The headwaters are expected to exhibit an increased expression of
background oxygen demands. Reduced flows would also result in in-
creased salinity in the South Bay, to approximately those levels now
occurring north of Dumbarton Bridge. Levels of 50 ml/I of toxicity
expected to occur in the 1985 dry season would be approximately
at the toxicity guidelines of 40 ml/l. These changes in water quality
in the South Bay and its sloughs are expected to affect in an adverse
and indirect manner both biological productivity and habitat diversity,
particularly in Artesian Slough.
Hazards to structural and operational integrity of the Basin Plan Al-
ternative include potential damage by earthquake, plant upsets, pump-
ing station malfunctions, or power failures. Each of these potentially
could result in a bypass of wastewater to the South Bay. The proper
selection of pipeline alignment, the use of pilings placed in stiff clays
in areas of soft muds, and backfill with coarse granular material are
expected to minimize, to the extent possible, the potential for earth-
quake damage. Backup pumping systems and power supplies, as well
as some storage capacity for bypassed flows at Sunnyvale, should re-
duce in-Bay impacts that could be caused by system failures.
Operation of the Basin Plan Alternative is expected to result in elec-
trical energy consumption in 1981 on the order of 7.9 million kilo-
watt-hours per year; this is equivalent to approximately 4,900 barrels
of crude oil per year. To place this in perspective, the same energy
consumption would occur if each of the residents of Santa Clara
County burned two 150-watt light bulbs for slightly less than one day
each year. Capital costs for the conveyance and pumping stations are
estimated to be $86 million (1978 dollars escalated to 1980), 87.5 per-
cent of which is covered by federal and state grant funds. Annual op-
erating costs (estimated for 1981-1982) of approximately $320,000
(power consumption, maintainance, and administration) would not
be grant fundable.
16
Each user — residential, commerical, institutional, and industrial —
that discharges into the SBDA sewer system must pay a fair share
of the cost of operating and maintaining a conveyance pipeline. A
system of "user charges" would be established to accomplish this. In
addition, each industrial user must pay back to the cities in the
SBDA its share of the federal funds for capital costs; this is known as
"industrial cost revovery." Annual revenue requirements for industrial
users, therefore, might impose a burden on the individual industries,
varying with the percentage treatment capacity of the system attri-
butable to each industry. Seasonal, large-volume dischargers, such as
the canning industry, are expected to have higher revenue require-
ments than year-round and low-volume dischargers.
NO ACTION BEYOND CURRENTLY APPROVED
IMPROVEMENTS AT TREATMENT PLANTS (ALTERNATIVE 2)
Under this alternative, the upgrading of SBDA treatment facilities
to the advanced levels covered by the 1974 Negative Declarations
would be implemented, but no further action would be contem-
plated (Figure 5). Continued discharge at present disposal points
would retain freshwater flushing in Artesian Slough; water quality
standards would not, however, be met south of Calaveras Point
during dry and canning seasons. Environmental benefits that could be
attributed to retaining fresh water in Artesian Slough should be
recognized. A no further action alternative could be considered part
of a deferred action program, where the effects of the approved
treatment could be monitored and documented.
No additional costs or construction impacts would be incurred with
this alternative. Should additional action be required at some future
date to meet water quality standards, the cost of this new action
would be significantly increased over present estimates and the
effects of inflation on labor and materials would all contribute
to this increase.
-------
No further action does not comply with Basin Plan prohibitions
against discharge south of Dumbarton Bridge or to tributaries on the
South Bay, does not guarantee a 10 to 1 dilution rate, and may result
in toxicity levels of up to 400 ml/I.
INDIVIDUAL OUTFALLS TO BAY SOUTH OF DUMBARTON
BRIDGE (ALTERNATIVE 3)
Using separate outfalls, dischargers would convey effluent to the near-
est deep water south of Dumbarton Bridge (Figure 6). Under this
arrangement, effluents from the San jose/Santa Clara and Sunnyvale
treatment plants would be combined and conveyed to a discharge
point in the vicinity of Calaveras Point; effluent from the Palo Alto
plant would be discharged from an outfall in deep water northeast of
its present discharge location. This system should meet dissolved oxy-
gen requirements in open waters of the Bay, while discontinuing waste-
water discharge to the sloughs. However, improvement in waterquality
in the South Bay would not be as great as would be expected if dis-
charges were relocated north of the Dumbarton Bridge through the
proposed outfall, and the prohibition against discharge to the Bay
south of Dumbarton Bridge would not be met. As with the Basin Plan
Alternative, this alternative eliminates freshwater flushing of the
sloughs during the dry season, endangering the freshwater habitat of
Artesian Slough.
The nature and extent of construction impacts from this alternative
would not be significantly different from those of the Basin Plan
Alternative, although more extensive impacts would occur on natural
habitats such as marshes and salt ponds.
The cost of construction and the first year of operation is estimated
approximately 80 percent of that of the Basin Plan Alternative, or
$69 million; however, this estimate does not provide for the technical
problems of construction in salt ponds. These problems are expected
to increase construction costs and time.
This alternative is compatible with local or small-scale reclamation and
reuse projects and could function as an off-season disposal system for
such projects. This alternative is less compatible with large-scale Bay
Area reclamation than the Basin Plan Alternative, since a regional
collection for Santa Clara County would not exist.
UPGRADED TREATMENT WITH CONTINUED LOCAL
DISCHARGE (ALTERNATIVE 4)
No new conveyance systems would be built in this alternative; each
treatment plant would continue discharging at its present location
(Figure 7). Treatment levels at San jose/Santa Clara would be up-
graded beyond the advanced levels currently approved. Additional
treatment would probably include breakpont chlorination for
residual ammonia removal and carbon absorption for removal of toxi-
city and for further removal of oxygen demanding materials.
17
-------
This alternative should meet dissolved oxygen requirements in open
waters of the Bay. The sloughs would continue to receive flushing
flows, and the freshwater habitat would persist in Artesian Slough.
Oxygen depletion in the dry season and the buildup of conservative
elements in the sloughs would continue, however. This alternative
does not meet the prohibitions against discharge south of Dum-
barton Bridge or to dead-end sloughs, nor does it provide the 10:1
minimum dilution required by the Basin Plan. Toxicity levels of
400 ml/1 would be expected to occur in the dry season of 1985 in
the South Bay.
18
Construction impacts would be less extensive for this alternative,
is limited to the San Jose/Santa Clara plant site.
The cost of construction and the first year of operation is estimated
to be approximately 1.4 times that of the Basin Plan Alternative,
or $121 million. Costs of operating the advanced treatment facilities
will be greater than those of the Basin Plan Alternative primarily
due to increased consumption of chemicals and energy. Reclamation
and reuse on a local scale would be compatible with this alternative;
however, it would be less compatible with large-scale Bay Area re-
clamation than the Basin Plan Alternative, since a regional collection
for Santa Clara County would not exist.
-------
Environmental
Aspect
Construction
Related
Topography
Water Quality
Air Quality
Sediment
Quality
Noise
Biology-Habitat
Table 2
COMPARISON OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Basin Plan
Alternative (No.1)
Alteration along alignment
of 50- to 150- foot-wide easement
Turbidity and degradation from
release of benthic pollutants in
Bay and streams from 4.2 miles
dredged trench and from seven
stream crossings
Dust, odors, and construction
equipment emissions along Bay-
lands and in Bay
Replace polluted sediments
along alignment in Bay with
clean backfill
Construction activity, including
pile driving for portions of in-
Bay pipe and for pumping
stations
1.3 miles in salt marsh, 0.8
mile in mud flats, 4.4 miles in
grassland, 3.4 miles in open
water, and 2.4 miles in dikes
affected by trenching
No Further
Action (No.2)
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
No effect
Individual
Deepwater
Outfalls (No.3)
Alteration along short,
on-land connector routes
Turbidity and degradation
from release of benthic pol-
lutants in Bay and streams
from 5.0 miles of dredged
trench and from two stream
crossings
Upgrade
Treatment (No.4)
Limited to San Jose/
Santa Clara plant site
No trenching in Bay or
streams; no impact
Reclamation
Reuse (No.5)
Alteration along easement to
market as well as along back-
up disposal routes
Turbidity and degradation
from release of benthic pol-
lutants in Bay and streams
from construction of off-
season disposal and bypass-
varies with system chosen
Dust, odors, and construe- Dust and vehicle emis- Dust, odors, and construc-
tion equipment emissions
at plant sites and in Bay
As in Basin Plan Alterna-
tive, more extensive in-
Bay effects
Construction activity, in-
cluding pile driving for
pumping stations and for
some portions of outfalls
sions at San Jose/Santa
Clara plant construction
site
No effect
tion equipment emissions
along distribution system, in
area of reclamation plant, and
at off-season outfall construc-
tion site
No effect except for off-
season outfall
Noise limited to construe- Construction activity, includ-
tion activity at San Jose/ ing pile driving for off-season
Santa Clara plant site
outfall; construction noise for
reclamation plant and distri-
bution system
Approximately 1.5 miles Some grassland for San Off-season outfall varies with
of salt marsh, 1.6 miles of
mud flats, 0.6 mile of grass-
land, 3.4 miles of open
water, and 4.8 miles of
salt pond affected by
trenching
Jose/Santa Clara up-
graded facility; no
trenching
system chosen; reclamation
plant and distribution system
primarily grassland-mileage
depends on system and market
location; significant amount of
acreage expected to be disturbed
19
-------
Table 2
Environmental
Aspect
Basin Plan
Alternative (No.1)
No Further
Action (No.2)
Biology- California clapper rail near
Rare or En- Palo Alto section; potential
dangered salt marsh harvest mouse
Species population near Palo Alto
No effect
Archaeology No known sites; some po-
tentially sensitive areas in
Baylands
Land Use Temporary disruption of some
road traffic, use of Palo Alto
Municipal Airport and Yacht Har-
bor, Sunnyvale Industrial Park,
restricted briefly
No effect
No effect
Visibility
In Baylands, short-term
No effect
Operation
Related
Water Quality
Should meet dissolved oxygen
standards in open water;
Artesian Slough sensitive to
reduced flushing and increased
salinity; sloughs may not meet
dissolved oxygen levels of
5.0 mg/l at all times of year;
salinity of South Bay increases
to open water levels; potential
open water levels; potential
for slight buildup of con-
servative elements (exceeds
guideline at 40 ml/I toxicity
by 10 ml/I); compatible with
reclamation
Dissolved oxygen
standards in open
water are met
most of year;
Artesian Slough re-
ceives flushing flows,
but oxygen deple-
tion for dry and
canning seasons is
common; no salinity
change; potential for
buildup of conserva-
tive elements to 400
ml/1; compatible with
reclamation
20
Individual
Dee pwater
Outfalls (No.3)
Upgrade
Treatment (No.4)
Reclamation
Reuse (No.5)
California clapper rail and
salt marsh harvest mouse
populations near Palo Alto
and at the San Jose/Santa
Clara and Sunnyvale
alignments
No effect
Off-season outfall system
similar to Alternatives No.
1, 2 or 3; may disturb
raptors during distribution
system and reclamation
plant construction
No known sites
No effect
No known sites
Temporary disruption at
Palo Alto Municipal Air-
port, Yacht Harbort, road
crossings between San
Jose and Sunnyvale
More localized to plant
sites, open water, short-
term
No effect
Localized to San Jose/
Santa Clara plant site,
short-term
Off-season outfall and
distribution system similar
to Alternatives No. 1, 2 or 3
at least as extensive as Basin
Plan Alternative; Long-term
land use commitment
More visible in Santa
Clara Valley, short-term
Should meet dissolved
oxygen standards in open
water; Artesian Slough,
sensitive to reduced
flushing and increased
salinity; sloughs may
not meet dissolved
oxygen levels of 5.0
mg/l at all times of
year; salinity of South
Bay increases to mod-
erate levels; potential
for buildup of conser-
vative elements to 125
ml/1; compatible with
reclamation
Should meet dissolved
oxygen standards in
open water; less sensi-
tive to loading variations;
Artesian Slough receives
flushing flows but still
subject to periodic oxy-
gen depletion; potential
for buildup of conser-
vative elements to 400
ml/1; no salinity change;
compatible with
reclamation
Ability to meet standards de
pends on off-season disposal
system chosen; wastewater
loadings decreased in dry
season; water conservation
possible
-------
Table 2 (Continued)
Environmental
Aspect
Basin Plan
Alternative (No.1)
No Further
Action (No.2)
Individual
Deepwater
Outfalls (No.3)
Upgrade
Treatment (No.4)
Reclamation
Reuse (No.5)
Sediment
Quality
Noise
Biology
Land Use
Minor degradation at
disposal point—accumu-
lation of conservative
elements possible;
potential for improvement
in South Bay and sloughs
Local increases over am-
bient due to pumping
station operation
Conversion of freshwater hab-
itat in Artesian Slough to tidal
marsh; potential degradation
of benthos north of bridge at
disposal point
Preemption of land area over
pipeline from other use; area
committed to pumping station
use at treatment plants
Continued potential
for degradation in
sloughs, at lower
rates due to advanced
waste treatment
No effect
Artesian Slough re-
mains freshwater;
no change in ben-
thos; effects of
oxygen depletion
continue to be
felt
No effect
Minor degradation
at disposal points in
deep water; potential
for improvement in
sloughs
Potential local in-
creases due to pump-
ing station operation
Conversion of freshwater
habitat in Artesian Slough
to tidal marsh; potential
degradation of benthos at
disposal sites in South
Bay
Preemption of land area
between San Jose and
Sunnyvale; commitment
of land at treatment plants
to pumping stations
As in no further
action, potential
for degradation in
sloughs but at lower
rate of buildup
No effect
Artesian Slough re-
mains freshwater;
no change in
benthos
Commitment of land
at San Jose/Santa Clara
plant to upgraded
treatment system
Off season outfall system
effects similar to Alternatives
No. 1, 2 or 3.
Potential increases in
ambient noise in Santa
Clara Valley along
distribution route
Similar to off-season
disposal system chosen
Commitment of land
at San Jose/Santa Clara
to reclamation system;
commitment of land
area over conveyance
route to compatible use;
preemption of land use
in Baylands depends on
off-season disposal sys-
tem chosen
21
-------
Environmental Basin Plan No Further
Aspect Alternative (No.1) Action (No.2)
Visibility Pumping stations at treat- No effect
ment plants audible, visible,
but not inconsistant with
present use
Economics and
Resources
Costs of
Construction
and First-Year
Operation
Estimated to be $86 million
capital cost (1978 dollars,
escalated to 1980) and $280,000
first year operation costs
0.0
Energy
Consumption
Approximately 7.9 million
kilowatt-hours per year in
1985, or 4,900 barrels of
crude oil
No increase
Resources Construction materials (pipe,
Committed backfill, concrete, pumps,
instrumentation)
No effect
22
Table 2 (Continued)
Individual
Deepwater
Outfalls (No.3)
Upgrade
Treatment (No.4)
Reclamation
Reuse (No.5)
Pumping stations at
treatment plants audible,
visible, but not inconsis-
tent with present use
Expanded facility
at San Jose/Santa
Clara, not incon-
sistent with present
use
Expanded facility at San Jose/
Santa Clara not inconsistent
with present use. Pumping sta-
tions visible, audible in Santa
Clara Valley along distribution
lines; visibility of off-season
disposal system depends on
system selected
Approximately $169
million (does not account
for additional cost for con-
struction in salt ponds)
Approximately
$121 million
Approximately $323 million
(does not account for revenues
for water sold; assumes 67
million gallons per day)
Approximately same
as Basin Plan
Alternative
Increased consumption
for advanced treatment
(not determined
quantitatively)
Increased consumption for
advanced treatment and
distribution depending on
treatment level selected (be-
tween 5 and 15 times Basin
Plan Alternative, assuming
50,000 acre-feet per year
transported to South Santa
Clara Valley)
Construction materials
similar to Basin Plan
Alternative
Construction materials
for treatment plant
Construction materials for
treatment plant, off-season
outfall, and conveyance to
market
-------
Table 2 (Continued)
Environmental
Aspect
Basin Plan
Alternative (No.1)
No Further
Action (No.2)
Individual
Deepwater
Outfalls (No.3)
Upgrade
Treatment (No.4)
Reclamation
Reuse (No.S)
No additional chemicals
consumed
No increase
No increase
Consumption of Consumption of chemicals
chemicals in treatment in treatment
23
-------
RECLAMATION AND REUSE
(ALTERNATIVE 5)
Reclamation of wastewater from the SBD A treatment system, and the
reuse of this water, was considered as an alternative to disposal. De-
pending on the market location, size, and water quality requirements,
a reclamation and reuse alternative might include a reclamation treat-
ment plant for additional treatment of a portion of the SBDA efflu-
ent, a distribution system to transport reclaimed waters to the market
area, and an off-season disposal system for discharge of that effluent
not reclaimed (Figure 8). The benefit of this alternative is conser-
vation of water resources by using reclaimed wastewaters in place of
potable water supplies.
Studies of the viability of reclamation and reuse in the Bay Area have
been sponsored by various member cities of SBDA, by the Depart-
ment of Water Resources, by the Santa Clara Valley Water District,
by the State Water Resources Control Board, by the EPA, by the
State Department of Water Resources, and by the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation.
Assuming a market in the Santa Clara Valley for a portion of the San
Jose/Santa Clara effluent, construction impacts would include those
anticipated for an in-Bay outfall system for off-season discharges as
well as impacts on water quality, air quality, habitats, and aesthetics
in the grasslands and agricultural lands of the Santa Clara Valley.
The extent of these impacts would vary with the market served (i.e.,
Santa Clara County only or Santa Clara and San Benito Counties).
Operational impacts would be primarily related to the cost and quality
of the water in the market area. Salt buildup in soils, restrictions in
crops, and the high cost of treating wastewaters to acceptable quality
levels are all factors with potentially adverse impacts. Bay impacts
would vary with the disposal system chosen, but, generally, would
result in significant changes in water quality over those achieved
with disposal alone only if the major portion of the effluent could be
reclaimed year-round.
24
The cost of construction and the first year operation of a 67 mgd
facility is estimated to be 3.8 times that of the Basin Plan Alternative,
or $328 million. Increased cost is primarily due to increased treatment
requirements and the cost of conveyance to the market. These include
significant increases in energy consumption. Not included in this cal-
culation are the revenues that would be receivedforthe sale of reclaimed
waters. When these are included, the cost comparison between recla-
mation and the Basin Plan Alternative increases the favorability of
reclamation.
A study to determine the engineering, economic, and environmental
feasibility of reclaiming a small portion of SBDA wastewaters for agri-
cultural use in the South Santa Clara Valley and the Bolsa area of San
-------
-------
Benito County was undertaken for this EIR/EIS. As an option for
water resources management, such a small-scale reclamation/reuse proj-
ect has the benefits of (1) reducing SBDA discharges by approxi-
mately 10 percent, (2) increasing the amount of irrigation water with-
out increased use of potable, diverted water supplies, arid/or (4) open-
ing up additional lands for irrigation. Disadvantages of such a project
are primarily economic — depending on the level of treatment used,
reclaimed water would cost between $150 and $570 per acre-foot. If
fully subsidized, the cost to the user (the farmer) would be between
$9 and $56 per acre-foot. However, in water-short areas, in drought
years, and in areas with low-quality water supplies, such a water
management option may be economically feasible and could be
implemented regardless of the disposal alternative chosen.
OTHER ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives were analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS along
with the above alternatives but were rejected for reasons of cost or en-
vironmental impacts.
Consolidation with Other Discharger Authorities
This alternative would involve consolidation with other discharger au-
thorities in San Mateo County, with discharge north of the San Mateo
Bridge. It has been considered in earlier management programs. While
it would meet water quality requirements in open water, many of the
environmental disadvantages associated with the five previously de-
scribed alternatives would occur, such asdecreased freshwater flushing
in the sloughs. This alternative has more severe construction impacts
and a higher cost (approximately twice) than the Basin Plan Al-
ternative. Since many of the other Bay Area discharger authorities
have completed independent studies and, in some instances, begun
construction of their own improved treatment facilities, consolidation
would require forfeiture of invested funds by these other authorities,
with no guaranteed benefits accruing to these authorities as a result
of that action.
26
Discharge to the Ocean
This alternative would consist of a collection and disposal conveyance
from the Baylands to the Pacific Ocean. A tunnel through the Santa
Cruz Mountains, a deepwater ocean outfall, and a series of pumping
stations would be required in addition to the major portion of the on
land systems of the Basin Plan Alternative. Construction impacts
would be significantly increased over those of the Basin Plan Alterna-
tive and would affect additional acreage of grassland, woodland, coast-
al zone, and ocean habitat. Water quality in the South Bay would be
expected to improve to levels similar to those expected for the Basin
Plan Alternative. Freshwater habitat and flushing in Artesian Slough
would be lost. The increased costs (approximately 2.7 times that of
the Basin Plan Alternative) and construction impacts are not justified
by the small increment in improvement in Bay water quality over the
Basin Plan Alternative.
Land Disposal
Transport of effluent to a land disposal site would remove wastewater
from the Bay and improve water quality to levels similar to those ex-
pected for the Basin Plan Alternative. However, suitable land disposal
sites do not occur in Santa Clara County, and public acceptance outside
the county appears to be lacking. In addition, construction impactsfor
a conveyance, storage, and dispersal system would be large. Construc-
tion and operation costs might range as high as eight times that of the
proposed project, and energy usage would be significantly greater.
Nonstructural Wastewater Management
Nonstructural wastewater management would use phased develop-
ment of treatment and disposal facilities to meet water quality criteria.
This alternative entails source control, land-use planning, and enforce-
ment of environmental regulations to control the quality and quantity
of wastewater. The alternative modes of disposal discussed in this re-
port were designed as part of a phased development plan, which
in turn was designed in response to source control, land use, and
-------
environmental regulations. For this reason, nonstructural wastewater
management is not an alternative mode of disposal; it is a criterion
for disposal and has been incorporated as such into the alternative
disposal systems.
Alternative (Estuarine) Alignment for the Basin Plan Alternative
This subalternative would involve a common conveyance from San
Jose to the discharge point north of Dumbarton Bridge, with the align-
ment being located primarily in the waters of the South Bay. (Figure 9).
Impacts associated with operation of this subalternative would be
identical to those expected from the Basin Plan Altervative. Construc-
tion impacts, however, would be significantly increased: more salt
pond, mudflat, and open water habitat would be affected; increased
construction time would be required; and more dredge spoils would
be generated. In addition, construction in salt ponds would be more
costly, because special techniques would have to be developed to
avoid disruption of salt pond operation and to prevent breaching of
the dikes. As a result, construction costs would be slightly greater than
those expected for the proposed project. The estuarine route, then,
has been eliminated from consideration, since, when compared with
the Basin Plan Alternative route, it does not improve water quality,
is not less costly to construct or operate, and has more adverse en-
vironmental impacts during construction.
LESLIE SALT COMPANY PARTICIPATION IN THE BASIN PLAN
ALTERNATIVE
For the past several years, Leslie Salt Company has stored the toxic
residue from evaporative salt production (bittern — the highly concen-
trated fluid which remains after salt crystallizes out in the salt ponds).
However, this storage is encroaching on the productive salt ponds at
the rate of one per year and, consequently, is reducing the diversity of
the habitat in the National Wildlife Refuge as well as limiting the eco-
nomic production of salt in the South Bay. Since bittern is highly
toxic and cannot be treated for toxicity, it may be discharged only
after dilution to 100:1 concentrations. One source of water for di-
lution is the Bay itself; however, a toxic plume of wastewater might
affect as much as one-third of an acre of Bay bottom under such con-
ditions. Another source of dilution water is wastewater from a South
Bay discharger. SBDA is a logical choice of such diluent, and should
the Basin Plan Alternative be implemented, it is technically feasible
for Leslie Salt to connect to the disposal pipeline in order to dis-
charge bittern.
There are institutional constraints to tine joint participation of SBDA
and Leslie Salt Company:
• SBDA is a chartered municipal discharger located entirely
within Santa Clara County, while Leslie Salt is an industry
in Alameda County; the SBDA charter would require
amendment.
• Leslie Salt Company would have to arrange payback to
state and federal granting agencies of the pipeline and
diffuser capacity preempted by their use.
• Leslie Salt would have to arrange self-monitoring and auto-
matic shutdown of discharge to assure 100:1 dilution
minimum discharge at the proper flows and discharge only
at ebb tide in winter.
Should SBDA select a discharge alternative other than the Basin Plan
Alternative, Leslie Salt Company would have to make other arrange-
ments for bittern disposal.
27
-------
/¦
LEGEND:
ON-LAND PORTION OF
ESTUARINE ALIGNMENT
ON-WATER PORTION OF
ESTUARINE ALIGNMENT
ON-LAND ALIGNMENT
m.*,
V ..-''A ..AK'V \
»*•"* 4v^TvS*P51( \iipT: W
JSfc.i
• ¦-?&££ O, . *' TuniXf 7 /ir^i ¦;
"iJ '"mmt
28
-------
lii
' $8': ,
|;
T. '.;.• -V' < A ,„sr"' . ' 'v V.V'-.t '\ , - 1. . * 'AV >VV ^re-V-
>'fe ¦ . ¦ 4r »? f ¦
• / >rA ¦? ^ r?-A H' 1 if *""*»^ ^ - vv-
_i T*^"^ _V^~-rS3l^
-------
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A 45-day review period (minimum) is scheduled for the Draft EIR/
EIS, which will commence following the distribution of approxi-
mately 250 copies of the Draft EIR/EIS in September 1978. Distri-
bution of copies will be in conformance with the EIS regulations of
EPA and the directives of the EPA Region IX Administrator, as well
as the EIR regulations of the City of San Jose, as they apply to
SBDA. Approximately 400 copies of this Draft EIR/EIS Summary
will also be distributed at that time.
After a one-month period for Draft EIR/EIS review, a public hearing
will be held; it is tentatively scheduled for 18 October 1978. The
hearing will be announced in local newspapers and by mailing an-
nouncements to potentially interested agencies, organizations, and
persons at least 15 days before the date of the hearing. The hear-
ings will be sponsored by EPA, but it is anticipated that SBDA staff
and consultants will also participate and present a summary of environ-
mental and socioeconomic impacts associated with the proposed
project.
Depending on the nature and extent of response during the scheduled
hearing, additional public hearings and/or meetings with interested
groups may be conducted. Written comments will also be received
during the first half of the review period and will be responded to in
a Final EIR/EIS. Copies of all significant written review comments
will be included in the Final EIR/EIS.
the Final EIR/EIS.
30
The proposed project has received substantial public exposure over
the last five years. The considerable number of verbal and written
comments received during this period has been generally constructive
in the development of the project. It is hoped that the Draft EIR/EIS
and this summary will elicit additional comments during the review
period that may be utilized in the final stages of planning for the
project.
Copies of the Draft EIR/EIS will be available for review at the Water
Division of EPA Region IX at 215 Fremont Street in San Francisco
and at the SBDA offices at 801 North First Street (Room 320) in San
Jose. Copies will also be supplied to public libraries in the SBDA
service area, so that interested persons may review them at these
locations.
"to GPO 690-0'
------- |