06_-_SBIWTP_Final_SEIS_July2005.pdf

Final

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Clean Water Act Compliance at the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant

Prepared for:

UNITED STATES SECTION, INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION

In Cooperation with:

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Prepared by:

Parsons Pasadena, California

July 2005

Final

SEIS

Clean Water Act

Compliance at the

SBIWTP

USIBWC

USEPA

July 2005 cover.ai 6/22/2005 3:29:29 PM

FINAL

SUPPLEMENTAL

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

CClleeaann WWaatteerr AAcctt CCoommpplliiaannccee aatt tthhee

SSoouutthh BBaayy IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall WWaasstteewwaatteerr TTrreeaattmmeenntt PPllaanntt

Prepared for:

UNITED STATES SECTION

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION

The Commons, Building C, Suite 100 4171 North Mesa Street

El Paso, Texas 79902-1441

In Cooperation with:

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, California 94105-3920

Prepared by:

Parsons Pasadena, California

July 2005

COVER SHEET

FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

CLEAN WATER ACT COMPLIANCE AT THE

SOUTH BAY INTERNATIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

() DRAFT (X) FINAL

Lead Agency United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC), El Paso, Texas

Cooperating Agency United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 9, San Francisco, California

Abstract Pursuant to Section 102(2) (c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) proposes to analyze and evaluate the impacts of alternatives for the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant (SBIWTP) to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) evaluated alternatives for treatment of sewage flows from Tijuana, Mexico that cross into the United States along the United States/ Mexican border in San Diego County. The USIBWC is evaluating options for providing secondary treatment at the SBIWTP; or for another entity, either private or public, to provide secondary treatment, or by some other means.

The No Action Alternative and six action alternatives were evaluated in the Draft SEIS.

The alternatives were developed in a manner that would enable wastewater flows to be treated in compliance with the Clean Water Act.

Alternatives formulation was the result of a public consultation process that included regulatory agencies and environmental organizations.

The USIBWC has identified Alternative 4, Treatment Option C as the preferred alternative.

The USIBWC has considered comments on the Draft SEIS to identify the preferred alternative in the Final SEIS.

Other Requirements Served This Final SEIS is intended to serve other environmental review and consultation requirements pursuant to 40 CFR 1502.25(a).

For Further Information Questions on this Final SEIS should be directed to:

Mr. Daniel Borunda Environmental Protection Specialist

USIBWC

4171 North Mesa, C-100 El Paso, Texas 79902

Date Final SEIS available to EPA and the Public July 25, 2005

Final Supplemental EIS Clean Water Act Compliance at the South Bay IWTP

PREFACE

This document is a summary of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) for compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) at the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant (SBIWTP). The Final SEIS is a complete reprint of the Draft SEIS (December 2004), and incorporates corrections, clarifications and responses to comments on the Draft SEIS. The content of the Final SEIS is described below.

ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAFT SEIS

The Final SEIS incorporates corrections and revisions to the Draft SEIS for Clean Water Act Compliance at the SBIWTP (December 2004). This Final SEIS is a complete replacement of the Draft SEIS.

Executive Summary

The Executive Summary was revised to reflect changes made throughout the rest of the SEIS. The impact to marine biological resources on Table ES-1 has been deleted (which is consistent with Table 2.5-1).

Chapters 1 and 2

Only minor changes were made to Chapter 1. Subchapter 2.2.4.2 regarding the secondary treatment process for Alternative 4C (page 2-32) has been revised to indicate that proposed facilities would be designed to treat an average flow of 59 million gallons per day (mgd). Additional discussion of the Original Conveyance Channel has been added to Subchapter 2.2.7. Subchapter 2.4 has been revised to expand the discussion of the status of the Japanese Credit Plants within the Tijuana River Basin. A new Figure 2.4-1 showing the locations of these plants has been added. Table 2.5-1 has been corrected to show that terrestrial biological impacts are potentially significant for Alternative 6. Subchapter 2.6, Identification of the Preferred Alternative, has been revised.

Chapters 3 and 4

The following new subchapters have been added to Chapter 3: 3.6.3 (Noise Conditions in Mexico); 3.7.3 (Land Use in Mexico); 3.8.3 (Socioeconomics in Mexico); 3.9.2 (Public Health and Safety in Mexico); 3.10.2 (Demographic Data for Tijuana, Mexico); and, 3.11.3 (Energy Consumption in Mexico). In Chapter 4, the text for impacts from Alternative 7 has been modified to clarify the assumption that improvements to Mexican infrastructure would be made. In Chapter 4, additional evaluations were added to the impact analyses for the abovementioned six resource areas to show that no transboundary impacts would occur. Tables 4.8-8 and 4.8-9, projected annual economic impacts from Alternative 4C (Options I and II), have been revised. The cumulative impact analysis in Subchapter 4.12 has been revised to clarify assumptions concerning the Japanese Credit Plants in Mexico.

Preface

Chapter 5

Table 5.1-1 has been revised to indicate that no mitigation measures are available to the USIBWC for impacts to land use from discharge of raw into the Tijuana River or the discharge of treated effluent at Punta Bandera (for all alternatives).

Chapter 6

An update of applicable Mexican laws has been added to Chapter 6.

Chapters 7 and 8

A summary of the public hearing held on February 2, 2005 has been included in Chapter 7. Corrections to the List of Preparers were made in Chapter 8.

Chapters 9, 10 and 11

No substantial changes to these chapters were made.

Appendices A through G

The Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIS has been added to Appendix A. IBWC Minute 298 and Public Law 108-425 have been added to Appendices B and C, respectively.

ADDITIONAL APPENDICES

The Final SEIS contains two new appendices:

Appendix H, Comments on the Draft SEIS and Agency Responses. This appendix presents copies of all correspondence submitted by agencies, organizations, and individual stakeholders during the Draft SEIS review period. A copy of the transcript of the pubic hearing held on February 2, 2005 is also included in Appendix H. This new appendix also contains the USIBWC responses to comments received on the Draft SEIS. Revisions and corrections to the Draft SEIS described in Appendix H have been included in this Final SEIS.

Appendix I, Coastal Zone Consistency Determination. This appendix contains the Coastal Consistency Determination which was submitted to the California Coastal Commission in April 2005. This Determination evaluated the Bajagua Project, LLC proposal – Operation of the SBIWTP as Advanced Primary Facility, Secondary Treatment in Mexico with discharge to the United States via the South Bay Ocean Outfall (Alternative 4C, Option I) for the SBIWTP in consideration of the California Coastal Act of 1976, as amended January 2005 and the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. Based on this information, the USIBWC determined that the implementation of the Bajagua Project, LLC proposal (Alternative 4C, Discharge Option I) would not result in direct, adverse impacts to the coastal zone. The Determination was approved by the Commission on June 9, 2005.

ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) is analyzing the environmental impacts of alternatives for the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant (SBIWTP) to achieve compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA). Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, this Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) evaluates alternatives for treatment of sewage flows from Tijuana, Mexico that cross into the United States along the United States/Mexican border in San Diego County.

The SBIWTP, an international wastewater treatment plant located in San Diego County at the United States-Mexico border, plays a critical role in protecting public health and the environment of the south San Diego region. The SBIWTP treats an average of 25 million gallons per day (mgd) of raw sewage originating from Tijuana and then discharges the treated effluent approximately 3.5 miles out into the Pacific Ocean through the South Bay Ocean Outfall (SBOO). The SBIWTP and its system of canyon collectors prevent millions of gallons of dry weather flows of raw sewage from flowing daily from Mexico into the United States and polluting the Tijuana River, the Tijuana River Valley and Estuary, and south San Diego beaches.

The USIBWC has evaluated options for providing secondary treatment at the SBIWTP; or for another entity, either private or public, to provide secondary treatment, or by some other means. This action considers existing and new alternatives that would enable the USIBWC to bring the SBIWTP into compliance with the CWA and its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This SEIS evaluates new information on the current discharges of advanced primary effluent from the SBIWTP through the SBOO, as well as interim actions that would allow continued operations of the SBIWTP until the SBIWTP achieves CWA compliance. The alternatives were developed to enable the USIBWC to meet the purpose and need of this action and to guide USIBWC decision-making.

The No Action Alternative and six action alternatives were evaluated in this SEIS.

The six action alternatives were developed in a manner that would enable wastewater flows to be treated in compliance with the CWA and the SBIWTP’s NPDES permit. Formulation of the alternatives was the result of a process that involved consultation with the public, regulatory agencies and environmental organizations.

PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of this action is to provide wastewater management facilities that safeguard the public health, environment, public beaches, water quality, and economy of San Diego, California and Tijuana, Baja California, in compliance with the CWA, including potential interim actions that would allow continued operations of the SBIWTP until the SBIWTP achieves CWA compliance.

This action is needed because the SBIWTP currently operates and discharges only at the advanced primary treatment level and cannot meet all the requirements of the CWA and its NPDES Permit, including secondary treatment requirements.

Executive Summary

ES-2

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

This SEIS has been prepared to enable the USIBWC to identify the environmental effects of alternatives being considered for implementation. The USIBWC considered a range of reasonable alternative treatment and discharge options to comply with the CWA. This SEIS evaluates the following seven alternatives and associated treatment or disposal options:

♦ Alternative 1: No Action (Operation of SBIWTP as Advanced Primary Facility) Option A: With No Future Improvements to Mexico’s Existing Conveyance

Facilities Option B: With Future Improvements to Mexico’s Existing Conveyance

Facilities ♦ Alternative 2: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary Facility With Treated

Flows Conveyed To Mexico for Discharge ♦ Alternative 3: Operate SBIWTP with City of San Diego Connections (Interim

Alternative Only) ♦ Alternative 4: Public Law 106–457, Secondary Treatment Facility in Mexico

Treatment Option A: Operation of SBIWTP as Advanced Primary Facility, Secondary Treatment in Mexico

Treatment Option B: Cease Operation of SBIWTP, Secondary Treatment in Mexico

Treatment Option C: Bajagua Project, LLC Proposal – Operation of SBIWTP as Advanced Primary Facility, Secondary Treatment in Mexico

Discharge Option I: Treated Effluent Discharged in United States via SBOO Discharge Option II: Treated Effluent Discharged in Mexico at Punta Bandera

♦ Alternative 5: Secondary Treatment in the United States at SBIWTP Option 5A: Completely Mixed Aeration (CMA) Ponds at SBIWTP Options 5B-1 and 5B-2: Activated Sludge Secondary Treatment at SBIWTP

♦ Alternative 6: Secondary Treatment in the U. S. and in Mexico ♦ Alternative 7: SBIWTP Closure/Shutdown

The three treatment alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration are:

♦ Operate SBIWTP with Treated Flows Returned to Mexico for Discharge to Pacific Ocean at a new discharge point south of Punta Bandera.

♦ Operate SBIWTP With Treated Flows Sent to Mexico and the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant.

♦ Alternative Treatment Processes and Technologies at SBIWTP (biologically aerated filters, pretreatment, aerated lagoons, constructed wetlands, soil aquifer treatment systems, infiltration basins and surfactant modified zeolite fields).

These alternatives were rejected because they either do not meet the objectives of the action, are inappropriate for the effluent from Mexico, or are no longer considered reasonable or feasible. Many of the treatment technologies considered do not take into consideration the specific characteristics of effluent coming from Mexico which exhibits acute toxicity and other toxic substances. The USIBWC has decided to

ES-3

consider implementation of mechanical treatment processes over natural treatment process which requires more time and larger land area. Natural processes can typically lead to more problems with vectors and odor. It is also important to keep in mind that, in accordance with all IBWC Minutes, Mexico considers their treated wastewater and sludge as their own resource that should be returned to Mexico for beneficial uses and/or reuse (i.e., sludge).

Public Law 106-457 On November 6, 2000, Congress enacted Public Law 106-457 (Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000). Title VIII of this law (Tijuana River Valley Estuary and Beach Cleanup) authorizes the United States to comprehensively address the treatment of sewage from the Tijuana River area. Subject to negotiating a new minute or amending Minute 283, the USIBWC is authorized to provide for a public-private wastewater treatment facility in Mexico to treat not more than 75 mgd of wastewater generated in Mexico. It also authorized the EPA to develop a comprehensive plan to analyze the long-term secondary treatment needs of the San Diego–Tijuana border region, analyze upgrades in the sewage collection system serving the Tijuana area, and identify recommendations for providing additional sewage treatment capacity for future flows.

Specifically, Public Law 106-457 authorizes the USIBWC to:

♦ Provide for a wastewater treatment facility in Mexico for the secondary treatment of no more than 50 mgd of effluent from the SBIWTP if such treatment is not provided at a facility in the United States (i.e., 25 mgd of advanced primary treated effluent from the SBIWTP and 25 mgd of raw sewage emanating from the Tijuana River area in Mexico).

♦ Provide additional capacity for advanced primary and secondary treatment of up to 25 mgd of additional sewage generated in Mexico, in addition to the treatment capacity for the advanced primary effluent from the SBIWTP, if the results of the comprehensive plan recommend providing such capacity in Mexico.

The USIBWC had not previously considered secondary treatment in Mexico as a feasible option for bringing the SBIWTP into compliance with the CWA. The 1999 Final SEIS did not consider secondary treatment in Mexico as a viable alternative because the United States did not have legal authority to construct a facility in Mexico. In addition, the Mexican Government did not endorse the construction of such facilities at that time. In addition, it was considered infeasible was because Minute 283 and Section 510 of the Water Quality Act of 1987 required secondary treatment to be provided in the United States.

However, on February 20, 2004, the United States and Mexican Sections of the IBWC signed Minute 311 (Recommendations for Secondary Treatment in Mexico of the Sewage Emanating from the Tijuana River Area in Baja California, Mexico), which provides a framework for funding construction, operation, and maintenance of a 59 mgd secondary wastewater treatment plant in Mexico, if secondary treatment of 25 mgd of advanced primary effluent of the SBIWTP is not provided in the United States. The Minute was formally approved by the United States Government on February 23, 2004, and by the Mexican Government on March 4, 2004, thereby entering into force as a legally binding agreement between the two countries.

Implementing a secondary treatment facility in Mexico consistent with PL 106-457

ES-4

would provide the secondary treatment originally to be provided at the SBIWTP in accordance with Minute 283.

On November 16, 2004, Congress passed legislation to amend Public Law 106-457.

The legislation, Public Law 108-425, was signed by the President on November 30, 2004. This legislation amends the Tijuana River Valley Estuary and Beach Sewage Cleanup Act of 2000 to extend the authorization of appropriations for such sums as may be necessary to implement the legislation and for other purposes.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

The environmental impacts of each of the treatment alternatives and discharge options evaluated in this SEIS have been summarized in Table ES-1.

Table ES-1. Summary of Potentially Significant Impacts for Alternatives

Potentially Significant Impact Applicable Alternative Water Resources Protection of water quality in the Tijuana River and Estuary by diversion of dry weather flows at the international boundary

Alternative 1 Option A

Water quality of storm flows crossing the international border into the Tijuana River and Estuary

Alternative 1 Option A

Water quality objectives for protection of marine aquatic life in the South Bay Ocean Outfall area of influence

Alternative 1 Options A and B

Effects of Punta Bandera coastal discharge on total coliform bacteria concentrations at the international border shoreline

Alternatives 1 Option B, 2, 3, 4 (Options A, B and C with Discharge Option II), 5 (all options) and 7

Effects of Punta Bandera discharge on water quality objectives of the California Ocean Plan for protection of marine aquatic life

Alternatives 1 Option B, 2, 3, 4 (Options A, B and C with Discharge Option II), 5 (all options) and 7

Biological Resources Terrestrial Resources. Loss of up to 30 acres of non-native grassland (sensitive habitat)

Alternatives 5 (all options) and 6

Impact to non-native grassland from construction of pipelines connecting SBIWTP and the Bajagua Project treatment plant site

Alternatives 4 Options A and C with Discharge Options I and II, and 6

Disturbance of least Bell’s vireo from construction traffic noise along transportation routes to the SBIWTP site

Alternatives 4 Options A and C with Discharge Options I and II, and 6

Impacts to Southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo from construction of eastern pipeline corridor in Mexico

Alternatives 4 Options A, B and C with Discharge Options I and II, and 6

Loss of up to 33-acres of annual grassland at Bajagua Project treatment plant site

Alternatives 4 Option C with Discharge Options I and II, and 6

Estuarine Resources. Degradation of estuarine habitat at the Tijuana River

Alternative 1 Option A

ES-5

Table ES-1. Summary of Potentially Significant Impacts for Alternatives (Cont’d)

Potentially Significant Impact Applicable Alternative Cultural Resources Potential loss of archaeological material as a result on construction

Alternatives 3, 4 (Options A and C with Discharge Options I and II), 5 (all options) and 6

Potential loss of paleontological material as a result of construction

Alternatives 3, 4 (all options), 5 (all options) and 6

Land Use Adverse effect on land uses along the Tijuana River and at Imperial Beach as a result of discharge of raw sewage into the Tijuana River

Alternative 1 Option A

Adverse effect on Imperial Beach coastal uses from increased discharge of treated and untreated effluent at Punta Bandera

Alternatives 1 (all options), 2, 3, 4 (Options A, B and C with Discharge Option II), 5 (all options) and 7

Socioeconomics Economic effect on coastal-dependent businesses at Imperial Beach and along the Tijuana River

Alternative 1 Option A

Public Health and Safety Potential health hazard from contamination and vectors associated with discharge into the Tijuana River

Alternative 1 Option A

Potential health hazard from recreational use of seawater contaminated by increased discharge at Punta Bandera or the South Bay Ocean Outfall

Alternatives 1 (Option B), 2, 3, 4 (Options A, B and C with Discharge Option II), 5 (all options) and 7

Environmental Justice Adverse effect on minority and low-income population from discharge of untreated sewage into the Tijuana River (2023)

Alternative 1 Option A

Adverse effect on minority and low-income population from temporary beach closures due to high bacterial concentrations in seawater (July/August 2009 – 2023)

Alternatives 1 (Option B), 2, 3, 4 (Options A, B and C with Discharge Option II), 5 (all options) and 7

IDENTIFICATION OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

The USIBWC has identified Alternative 4, Treatment Option C, as the preferred alternative in this SEIS. This alternative would enable the USIBWC to meet the purpose and need for achieving long-term compliance with the CWA in accordance with Public Law 106-457, as amended. This alternative was selected for the following reasons:

♦ This alternative would provide secondary treatment for the SBIWTP’s effluent.

The Bajagua Project, LLC proposal is one of the secondary treatment alternatives that is designed to meet secondary treatment standards and California Ocean Plan requirements. Preliminary project details and a description have been developed for Alternative 4C. Bajagua Project, LLC is the only firm known to USIBWC at this time to have undertaken environmental and engineering studies and other advanced work that will facilitate timely design and construction of secondary treatment facilities in compliance with the court order dated December 6, 2004 entered in California v. Duran, Case No. 01-CV- 0270BTM[JFS] by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

ES-6

♦ This alternative would be consistent with Public Law 106-457, the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000, as amended. This alternative would also be consistent with IBWC Minute 311 and the Potable Water and Wastewater Master Plan for Tijuana and Playas de Rosarito, prepared by the State Commission of Public Services Tijuana (CESPT) and the EPA.

♦ This alternative would meet long-term needs of the San Diego/Tijuana Region.

This alternative provides an opportunity for Mexico to expand its treatment infrastructure/capacity and reduce or eliminate dry weather raw sewage flows into the United States. Alternative 4 Option C promotes potential re-use activities in Mexico thus reducing its dependence on Lower Colorado River water supply and other water sources. This alternative promotes, after 20 years, the enhancement of CESPT’s institutional capacity because the facility will be paid in full. Given projected increased flows in Tijuana, this alternative would provide the best long-term approach to meeting the wastewater treatment needs for the region.

For additional bases for the selection of the preferred alternative, please see Subchapter 2.6 of this document. The USIBWC considered comments on the Draft SEIS concerning the preferred and other alternatives.

-i-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE……

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................ES-1 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................... XIV CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Purpose and Need .................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Background ............................................................................................... 1-2

1.4 Alternatives ............................................................................................... 1-3

1.5 Public Scoping Process ........................................................................... 1-5

1.6 Historical Setting ...................................................................................... 1-6

1.6.1 History of Contamination .............................................................. 1-8

1.6.2 History of the SBIWTP ................................................................. 1-8

1.6.3 International Agreements Relating to the Treatment of

Tijuana Sewage...........................................................................1-10

1.6.4 South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant

Environmental Review.................................................................1-12

1.6.5 NPDES Permit.............................................................................1-13

1.6.6 Cease and Desist Orders ............................................................1-13

1.6.7 Lawsuit ........................................................................................1-14

1.6.8 Public Law 106-457.....................................................................1-14

1.6.9 Status of Mexico’s Pretreatment Program...................................1-15

1.7 Project Setting and Facilities Description .............................................1-16

1.7.1 Location of SBIWTP....................................................................1-16

1.7.2 United States Setting of the SBIWTP..........................................1-16

1.7.3 Mexico Setting.............................................................................1-18

1.7.4 United States Facilities................................................................1-18

1.7.5 Mexico Facilities ..........................................................................1-19

1.8 Scope of the Environmental Review ......................................................1-21

1.9 Organization of the Document................................................................1-22

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ........................................................ 2-1

2.1 Process Used to Formulate Alternatives ................................................ 2-1

2.2 Description of the Alternatives ................................................................ 2-4

2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action (Operation of SBIWTP as Advanced Primary Facility)............................................................................ 2-4

2.2.2 Alternative 2: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility with All Effluent Treated at the SBIWTP Returned to Mexico.......................................................................................... 2-9

2.2.3 Alternative 3: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility and Convey 14 mgd of the SBIWTP Effluent to the City of San Diego Facilities with Remainder of the SBIWTP Effluent Return to Mexico ............................................................2-14

Table of Contents

-ii-

2.2.4 Alternative 4: Public Law 106-457 (Secondary Treatment

Facility in Mexico)........................................................................2-20

2.2.5 Alternative 5: Secondary Treatment in the United States at SBIWTP ......................................................................................2-34

2.2.6 Alternative 6: Secondary Treatment in the United States and in Mexico .....................................................................................2-45

2.2.7 Alternative 7: SBIWTP Closure/Shutdown ..................................2-45

2.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration............................2-47

2.3.1 Operate SBIWTP with Treated Flows Returned to Mexico

for Discharge to Pacific Ocean South of Punta Bandera............2-48

2.3.2 Operate SBIWTP with Treated Flows Sent to Mexico and

SBWRP.......................................................................................2-48

2.3.3 Other Alternatives .......................................................................2-48

2.4 Related Projects.......................................................................................2-49

2.5 Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Alternatives .......................2-56

2.6 Identification of Preferred Alternative....................................................2-56

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.............................................................3-1

3.1 Water Resources........................................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Freshwater ....................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Ocean Water .................................................................................3-5

3.1.3 Groundwater ...............................................................................3-14

3.2 Geological Resources .............................................................................3-16

3.2.1 Regional Geology........................................................................3-16

3.2.2 Local Faulting..............................................................................3-16

3.2.3 Historic Earthquake Activity.........................................................3-19

3.2.4 Seafloor Conditions.....................................................................3-19

3.2.5 Geology of SBIWTP Site .............................................................3-19

3.2.6 Geology – Mexico .......................................................................3-20

3.3 Biological Resources ..............................................................................3-20

3.3.1 Terrestrial Biological Resources..................................................3-20

3.3.2 Estuarine Biological Resources in the United States ..................3-27

3.3.3 Marine Biological Resources in the United States.......................3-27

3.3.4 Terrestrial Biological Resources in Mexico..................................3-32

3.3.5 Marine Biological Resources in Mexico.......................................3-37

3.4 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ...............................................3-39

3.4.1 Cultural Resources......................................................................3-40

3.4.2 Paleontological Resources..........................................................3-43

3.5 Air Quality and Odors..............................................................................3-44

3.5.1 Meteorological Conditions ...........................................................3-44

3.5.2 Air Quality Conditions..................................................................3-45

3.5.3 Odors ..........................................................................................3-48

3.5.4 Ambient Air Quality and Odors in Mexico....................................3-50

3.6 Noise .........................................................................................................3-54

3.6.1 Ambient Noise at the SBIWTP ....................................................3-55

3.6.2 Future Noise Conditions in the Project Area ...............................3-55

3.6.3 Noise Conditions in Mexico .........................................................3-55

3.7 Land Use...................................................................................................3-56

3.7.1 Existing Land Uses in the Tijuana River Valley ...........................3-56

-iii-

3.7.2 Planned Land Uses in the Tijuana River Valley ..........................3-60

3.7.3 Land Use in Mexico.....................................................................3-63

3.8 Socioeconomics ......................................................................................3-63

3.8.1 San Diego County .......................................................................3-63

3.8.2 Local Area ...................................................................................3-64

3.8.3 Socioeconomics in Mexico ..........................................................3-65

3.9 Public Health and Safety .........................................................................3-66

3.9.1 Previous Studies .........................................................................3-66

3.9.2 Public Health and Safety in Mexico.............................................3-69

3.10 Environmental Justice.............................................................................3-69

3.10.1 Demographic Data ......................................................................3-70

3.10.2 Demographic Data for Tijuana, Mexico .......................................3-73

3.11 Energy Consumption...............................................................................3-73

3.11.1 Fossil Fuels .................................................................................3-73

3.11.2 Electricity and Natural Gas..........................................................3-73

3.11.3 Energy Consumption in Mexico...................................................3-74

CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................... 4-1

4.1 Water Resources....................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Standards of Significance............................................................. 4-2

4.1.2 Alternative 1: No Action (Operation of SBIWTP as

Advanced Primary Facility)........................................................... 4-3

4.1.3 Alternative 2: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility with All Effluent Treated at the SBIWTP Returned to Mexico.........................................................................................4-11

4.1.4 Alternative 3 - Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility and Convey 14 MGD of SBIWTP’s Effluent to City of San Diego Facilities with Remainder of SBIWTP’s Effluent Returned to Mexico .....................................................................4-12

4.1.5 Alternative 4 - Public Law 106–457 (Secondary Treatment Facility in Mexico)........................................................................4-14

4.1.6 Alternative 5: Secondary Treatment in the United States at SBIWTP ......................................................................................4-19

4.1.7 Alternative 6: Secondary Treatment in the United States and Mexico.........................................................................................4-22

4.1.8 Alternative 7: SBIWTP Closure/Shutdown ..................................4-24

4.2 Geological Resources .............................................................................4-25

4.2.1 Standards of Significance............................................................4-26

4.2.2 Alternative 1: No Action (Operation of SBIWTP as

Advanced Primary Facility)..........................................................4-26

4.2.3 Alternative 2: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility with All Effluent Treated at the SBIWTP Returned to Mexico.........................................................................................4-26

4.2.4 Alternative 3: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility and Convey 14 mgd of SBIWTP Effluent to City of San Diego Facilities with Remainder of SBIWTP Effluent Returned to Mexico .....................................................................4-26

4.2.5 Alternative 4: Public Law 106–457 (Secondary Treatment

Facility in Mexico)........................................................................4-27

-iv-

4.2.6 Alternative 5: Secondary Treatment in the United States at SBIWTP ......................................................................................4-28

4.2.7 Alternative 6: Secondary Treatment in the United States and Mexico.........................................................................................4-29

4.2.8 Alternative 7: SBIWTP Closure/Shutdown ..................................4-29

4.3 Biological Resources ..............................................................................4-29

4.3.1 Standards of Significance............................................................4-29

4.3.2 Alternative 1: No Action (Operation of SBIWTP as

Advanced Primary Facility)..........................................................4-30

4.3.3 Alternative 2: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility with All Effluent Treated at the SBIWTP Returned to Mexico.........................................................................................4-31

4.3.4 Alternative 3: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility and Convey 14 mgd of SBIWTP Effluent to City of San Diego Facilities with Remainder of SBIWTP Effluent Returned to Mexico .....................................................................4-32

4.3.5 Alternative 4: Public Law 106–457 (Secondary Treatment

Facility in Mexico)........................................................................4-33

4.3.6 Alternative 5: Secondary Treatment in the United States at SBIWTP ......................................................................................4-38

4.3.7 Alternative 6: Secondary Treatment in the United States and Mexico.........................................................................................4-40

4.3.8 Alternative 7: SBIWTP Closure/Shutdown ..................................4-41

4.4 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ...............................................4-41

4.4.1 Standards of Significance............................................................4-42

4.4.2 Alternative 1: No Action (Operation of SBIWTP as

Advanced Primary Facility)..........................................................4-42

4.4.3 Alternative 2: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility with All Effluent Treated at the SBIWTP Returned to Mexico.........................................................................................4-43

4.4.4 Alternative 3: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility and Convey 14 mgd of SBIWTP Effluent to City of San Diego Facilities with Remainder of SBIWTP Effluent Returned to Mexico .....................................................................4-43

4.4.5 Alternative 4: Public Law 106–457 (Secondary Treatment

Facility in Mexico)........................................................................4-44

4.4.6 Alternative 5: Secondary Treatment in the United States at SBIWTP ......................................................................................4-45

4.4.7 Alternative 6: Secondary Treatment in the United States and Mexico.........................................................................................4-46

4.4.8 Alternative 7: SBIWTP Closure/Shutdown ..................................4-46

4.5 Air Quality and Odors..............................................................................4-47

4.5.1 Standards of Significance............................................................4-47

4.5.2 Alternative 1: No Action (Operation of SBIWTP as

Advanced Primary Facility)..........................................................4-47

4.5.3 Alternative 2: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility with All Effluent Treated at the SBIWTP Returned to Mexico.........................................................................................4-48

4.5.4 Alternative 3: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility and Convey 14 mgd of SBIWTP Effluent to City of

-v-

San Diego Facilities with Remainder of SBIWTP Effluent Returned to Mexico .....................................................................4-48

4.5.5 Alternative 4: Public Law 106–457 (Secondary Treatment

Facility in Mexico)........................................................................4-49

4.5.6 Alternative 5: Secondary Treatment in the United States at SBIWTP ......................................................................................4-51

4.5.7 Alternative 6: Secondary Treatment in the United States and Mexico.........................................................................................4-53

4.5.8 Alternative 7: SBIWTP Closure/Shutdown ..................................4-53

4.6 Noise .........................................................................................................4-54

4.6.1 Standards of Significance............................................................4-54

4.6.2 Alternative 1: No Action (Operation of SBIWTP as

Advanced Primary Facility)..........................................................4-54

4.6.3 Alternative 2: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility with All Effluent Treated at the SBIWTP Returned to Mexico.........................................................................................4-55

4.6.4 Alternative 3: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility and Convey 14 mgd of SBIWTP Effluent to City of San Diego Facilities with Remainder of SBIWTP Effluent Returned to Mexico .....................................................................4-55

4.6.5 Alternative 4: Public Law 106–457 (Secondary Treatment

Facility in Mexico)........................................................................4-55

4.6.6 Alternative 5: Secondary Treatment in the United States at SBIWTP ......................................................................................4-56

4.6.7 Alternative 6: Secondary Treatment in the United States and Mexico.........................................................................................4-58

4.6.8 Alternative 7: SBIWTP Closure/Shutdown ..................................4-58

4.7 Land Use...................................................................................................4-58

4.7.1 Standards of Significance............................................................4-58

4.7.2 Alternative 1: No Action (Operation of SBIWTP as

Advanced Primary Facility)..........................................................4-59

4.7.3 Alternative 2: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility with All Effluent Treated at the SBIWTP Returned to Mexico.........................................................................................4-60

4.7.4 Alternative 3: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility and Convey 14 mgd of SBIWTP Effluent to City of San Diego Facilities with Remainder of SBIWTP Effluent Returned to Mexico .....................................................................4-60

4.7.5 Alternative 4: Public Law 106–457 (Secondary Treatment

Facility in Mexico)........................................................................4-60

4.7.6 Alternative 5: Secondary Treatment in the United States at SBIWTP ......................................................................................4-62

4.7.7 Alternative 6: Secondary Treatment in the United States and Mexico.........................................................................................4-63

4.7.8 Alternative 7: SBIWTP Closure/Shutdown ..................................4-63

4.8 Socioeconomics ......................................................................................4-64

4.8.1 Standards of Significance............................................................4-64

4.8.2 Alternative 1: No Action (Operation of SBIWTP as

Advanced Primary Facility)..........................................................4-64

-vi-

4.8.3 Alternative 2: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility with All Effluent Treated at the SBIWTP Returned to Mexico.........................................................................................4-67

4.8.4 Alternative 3: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility and Convey 14 mgd of SBIWTP Effluent to City of San Diego Facilities with Remainder of SBIWTP Effluent Returned to Mexico .....................................................................4-67

4.8.5 Alternative 4: Public Law 106–457 (Secondary Treatment

Facility in Mexico)........................................................................4-68

4.8.6 Alternative 5: Secondary Treatment in the United States at SBIWTP ......................................................................................4-72

4.8.7 Alternative 6: Secondary Treatment in the United States and Mexico.........................................................................................4-73

4.8.8 Alternative 7: SBIWTP Closure/Shutdown ..................................4-74

4.9 Public Health and Safety .........................................................................4-75

4.9.1 Standards of Significance............................................................4-75

4.9.2 Alternative 1: No Action (Operation of SBIWTP as

Advanced Primary Facility)..........................................................4-75

4.9.3 Alternative 2: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility with All Effluent Treated at the SBIWTP Returned to Mexico.........................................................................................4-76

4.9.4 Alternative 3: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility and Convey 14 mgd of SBIWTP Effluent to City of San Diego Facilities with Remainder of SBIWTP Effluent Returned to Mexico .....................................................................4-76

4.9.5 Alternative 4: Public Law 106–457 (Secondary Treatment

Facility in Mexico)........................................................................4-77

4.9.6 Alternative 5: Secondary Treatment in the United States at SBIWTP ......................................................................................4-79

4.9.7 Alternative 6: Secondary Treatment in the United States and Mexico.........................................................................................4-80

4.9.8 Alternative 7: SBIWTP Closure/Shutdown ..................................4-80

4.10 Environmental Justice.............................................................................4-81

4.10.1 Standards of Significance............................................................4-81

4.10.2 Alternative 1: No Action (Operation of SBIWTP as

Advanced Primary Facility)..........................................................4-81

4.10.3 Alternative 2: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility with All Effluent Treated at the SBIWTP Returned to Mexico.........................................................................................4-82

4.10.4 Alternative 3: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility and Convey 14 mgd of SBIWTP Effluent to City of San Diego Facilities with Remainder of SBIWTP Effluent Returned to Mexico .....................................................................4-82

4.10.5 Alternative 4: Public Law 106–457 (Secondary Treatment Facility in Mexico)........................................................................4-82

4.10.6 Alternative 5: Secondary Treatment in the United States at SBIWTP ......................................................................................4-83

4.10.7 Alternative 6: Secondary Treatment in the United States and Mexico.........................................................................................4-83

4.10.8 Alternative 7: SBIWTP Closure/Shutdown ..................................4-84

-vii-

4.11 Energy Consumption...............................................................................4-84

4.11.1 Standards of Significance............................................................4-84

4.11.2 Alternative 1: No Action (Operation of SBIWTP as

Advanced Primary Facility)..........................................................4-85

4.11.3 Alternative 2: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility with All Effluent Treated at the SBIWTP Returned to Mexico.........................................................................................4-85

4.11.4 Alternative 3: Operate SBIWTP as Advanced Primary

Facility and Convey 14 mgd of SBIWTP Effluent to City of San Diego Facilities with Remainder of SBIWTP Effluent Returned To Mexico ....................................................................4-85

4.11.5 Alternative 4: Public Law 106–457 (Secondary Treatment Facility in Mexico)........................................................................4-86

4.11.6 Alternative 5: Secondary Treatment in the United States at SBIWTP ......................................................................................4-87

4.11.7 Alternative 6: Secondary Treatment in the United States and Mexico.........................................................................................4-88

4.11.8 Alternative 7: SBIWTP Closure/Shutdown ..................................4-88

4.12 Cumulative Impacts .................................................................................4-89

4.12.1 Related and Proposed Projects...................................................4-89

4.13 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ................................................................4-93

4.14 Relationship Between the Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity ...................................................................4-95

4.15 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ....................4-96

CHAPTER 5 – ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS ................................................. 5-1

5.1 Mitigation Summary.................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Mitigation Monitoring................................................................................ 5-7

CHAPTER 6 – COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS IN

THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO.................................................. 6-1

6.1 United States Regulations and Permits ........................................