HomeMy WebLinkAbout0468.093Septe~~r 2, 1993
THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
Regiqnal Water ~~ality Contrgl Plant Wastewater Reclamation Fre
Design/Enyironmental Impact Report.
J'oiembers of the. Counc il :
Report in Brief
This is an informational report that summa.ri zes the findings of the
Reclamation Pre-Design/EIR study. No Council action is required.
A joint Study Session for Council and t.he Utilities Advisory
Commission is scheduled for October 4, 1993. Staff will return to
Council after the October 4, 1993 Study Session for approval of the
full EIR.
Background
In February .195:. S'''.Juncil authorized staff to proceed with the
first part of the Reclamation Pre-Design/EIR p::.--ojecr. {CMR:153:93l.
council stipulated that sta.ff present the findings of th~ various
r~clamation studies for revie~ prior to completing the second part
of the project (full EIR).
The Pre-Design/EIR is one of many tasks in step two of the three
step reclamation program as de.s.c~'ibed below. The reclamation
program is a regional one that. covers the entire service area. cf
the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (the Plant).
The driving force of the reclamation program is primarily the
pressure from the R&gional Water Quality Control Board {the Board)
to decrease the Plant~s metals dischargs to the Bay. A report on
the Board~ B emphasis and decisions with regard to the Plants
discharge limits was presented in a Council St udy session on July
~9, 1993 (CMR:393:93) ~ Reclamation is one of the Board's targeted
solutions for the plant in meeting its discharge limits. Staff
planned, and ..:autic: ... .:cl:{ p!:'":'c,?pned ",ith, the reclamatiG~ p:r'ogram
paralleling the Board' 5 development on the Plant ~ s discharge
limits.
-1-
Reclamation program Steps
Step one: the Master Plan r was completed in April 1992. The Master
Plan provided an evaluation of the application of reclaimed water
in the region. It also prov-ided an inventory of non-potable ..... ater
use within the region and a list of feasible proje<:ts. The
executive efummary section of the Master Plan was presented to
Council in a staff repor~ dated July 20. 1992 (CMR:358:92).
Step t ..... o of the reclamation prograr.. is deaigned to identify and
resolve the final'1cial. environmental and policy issues associated
with the program. The findings frQffi step two activities w':_ll
provide the information necessary to make aecisions on project
implementation. Two studies were performed under the step two
activities. the Financial Study and the Pre-DesigrJEIR study. Both
studies were completed in August of this year. Also in the
September 2 pa~ket is CMR~4~4~93. financial Analysis of the Water
Reclamation Plan, which includc-s the findings of the Pre-De
sign/EaR.
Step three of th~ rec}arrat.ion program would be final design aIld
construction of the proj ect: {S1 approved by Council and Partn~r
Agencies 4
Purpose of Phase 1 of the Pre-Design/EIR Study
The purpose of phase 1 of the pre-Design/EIR are:
• Perform environmental review and screening of the reclamation
program for -global" fatal flaws,
• Develop and evaluate altex:nati ve pipe route_", and reservoir
sites for the first reclaimed water project listed in the
Master Plan --project A.
• Perform environme::1tal review and screening of the developed
Project A alternatives for site speci.fic fatal flaws.
• Based on policies developed by the Reclamat ion Task Force.
establish the operations schemes and hydraulic models fOL
Project A.
• Select and recommend an environmentally and technically
feasible pipe route ~~d reservoir ~ite for Project A, and
-2-
•
-.? -.';
Provide a cost estimate within .-.50 percent to -3C percent
accuracy on project A (to te refin~d to ~JO~ to -lS\ in phase
2 of this Pre-Design project) .
Findings of Phase 1 of the Pre-Design/ErR Report
The report focused on the long-t~rm impacts of reclaimed wat~r on
plant-s, soils, public health, growth inducement. and utility
system. It also examined the short-term construction impacts, The
environmental analyses indicated that no fatal flaws (significant
impacts that cannot be mitigated) wi~h the reclamation program or
Project A have been identified. The study also research~d over
fifty years of history on reclaimed water applications in califor
nia.. many of which received less treatment than the Plant's
reclaimed water, and found no instances of a public health problem.
The report indicated that the most significant issue to be
addressed appears to be grolli-:.d water impact in certain areas.
However. the ground water impact: would be not iceahle and would
require mitigation only if the maximum amount of reclaimed water is
applied; a lesser amount of reclaimed water 'use will net contl."ibute
to any significant impact. The report further qualifies that the
ground water impact is mitigable, and that all other impacts can be
addressed by standard mitigation measures.
Three alternate pipe route-g. and reservoir si tE-S were evaluated.
Through the help of the Stanford University Planning Department, a
preferred pipe route and rese::voi.r site wad selected. The
preferred route (central reute) begins at the Plant, cresses U,S.
101 north of the Emba~cadero Interchange, and then heads southwest
along Char..niilg Avenue. Newell Street, Seale Avenue, and stanford
Avenue. The pipe will end in a reservoir in an abar,doned quan:y
site off of Old Page Mill Road,
The study provided hydraUlic modeling based en the reclaimed water
policies and operatiilg philosophy developed by the Task Force. The
reclaimed water pipe and reservoir were sized acccr~ingly~
sufficient for the fut-ure requirements when the remaining projects ..
whh. b were recom.."Uended in the Master Pl3.n, are implemented, The
stud)~ z:eported that the estimated capital cost for the preferred
route and reservoir site for Project A is $8.1 million. This is
consistent with the Master Plan .. which has originally estimated t~e
cost to be $8 mill ion based on an alternate rout-e and site. The
study also provided the annual operations and maintenance (O&M)
costs. Both the capital and O&M costs were used in the Financial
Study for the finance analyses.
-3 -
'!'he first phase of the pre-Design/EIR study consisted of the
environmental and technical analyses of the reclamation program and
Project. A. It reported tha~ reclaimed water from the Plant can
provide benefi<:=ial reuse as a mitigation measure to the Plant's
metals discharge and as supplement to the limited potable water
supply in the Bay Area. The study reported no unmitigable environ
mental impacts with the reclamation program or Project A. The
financial impacts of the program and Project A are identified in
the Financial Report. A joint study session of the City Council
<md the Utilities Advisory Commi,ssi('1I1. is scheduled fo:: October 4,
1993, to discuss the overall recla~ation program, summarizing the
associated studies and options for the reclamation project.
R~spectful1y submitted,
WILLIM< MIKS
Manager, Water Quality Control Plant
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director cf PUblic Works
Assistant City Manager
Attact-~ent: :P.eclamation Pre-Design/EIR Phase l report
Rel;;.ted CMRs: 358: 92
153:93
393:93
-4 -
• ,
--* ,"
, '.
•• it tR_ 4.
City or Palo Alto
Wastewater Reca.m=t'.;)~ Program
Project A
Prelimmary Design Report
and
Environ menta. Screening
CHlM BILL
Aqut 1m
-
• \
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ .. ,' . /. .
. ".~, -~ , ..
~,,-: ...
Preliminary Design Report
/7j~, -, '.
\ .:f
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
PALO ALTO RECLAMATION PREDESIGN
SU1IJECT: Palo Alto WIlSIeWlIIer Ra:lam.ati<Jn Program
Preliminary Desi", Rl:pon
l'REPAlUID BY: Peter RudelWaItT Resources Engineer
Bill Flc\;JEnvironmerual Enginee.
DATE: August 31. 1993
PROIECT: SF034797.EN.03
Introduction
ClfMH!l1..
This teclmical me;nO<a!ldum presenlS tbe results of our prelimi.n&<y design analysis of
Project A. IlIe reclaimed water """'POrt pipeline Cram IlIe Palo Alto RegWnal Water
Quality Control Plant (pARWQCP) 10 StwConl University. The technical m.."I11OfSDdum
includes • description aOO: evaluation of alternative pipellDe mule> and reservoir sites fot'
Projecl A, • description of bow IlIe proposed Project A f:i=i1ities were developed f<J(
different operating scenarios, estimated costs, and • piau for implementation of
Project A.
Background
The PARWQCP, operated by the City of Palo Alto, provides waslewater ""'!mel!! and
dispcsal services for the Cities of Palo Alto, Mountain VieW, 1.0. Altos, East Palo Alto,
the ToW!! of Los AlIos Hills, and Stanford University. The PARWQCP is an Olltborized
geoorator of high quality. fillered and disinfected reclaimed water for unrestricted .....
Because 1he reclaimed water Cram IlIe PARWQCP can provide beneficial reuse. ~
poIJIble water suppL;",; are limited, and because Palo Alto must reduce its volume "r
discharge and mass loading of ropper 10 the San Francisco Boy. the P ARWQCP
embaIked on a Wastewater Reclamalion Program. The program is slrUC1llred in lh<ee
or.ep<:
lOOl2049RDD 1
) li
\
•
•
•
Step l-M._ Plan
SlOp 2-Policy IDd lostitutlonai Arrana<metUsIl'ir.ancial F ... ibilily/!'Je·
delilft-.EIR
Step l-Final InstilUliollll 80d Financial Ar' •• geme"tslDe"'ilell Design!
COlllU'UctiQn
Step I, the Master Planning Step. resulted in the preparation of a Wilstewliler Reclo
m,1tion Master Plan (The Master Plan). The M.a!itcr Plan was completed in April 1992
by Brown and CAldwell and has been presented to all PARWQCP member agencie~ fOT'
their information and input. The PARWQCP 1S now proceedinr; with Step 2 of the
program.
Step 2 is divided into two phases, 'The purpose of the first phll5f: is to detcmliJle the
fundamental technical and envirorunental feasibility of Projec( A and .he reclamation
program. If any fatal flaw!!. were identified in this first phase, the PARWQCP would
suspend the program 31\d either mi(igate the flaws or discontinu~ the program. The first
phase incllldt:3 preclcsign and pre·FJR environmental screening, hom Which a preferred
pipeline route and reservoir will bt selected., The preferred ~\ipeline rottte and rcstrvoir
uhematbe will be further evaluated in the ElR which will be prepared during tbe se~ond
phase, Thjs lechnical memorandum (preliminary design rep<1rt) i~ patl of the
Pp:.d~signlE1R ponion of Step 2.
Project Descl'iptinn
The Mi';ster Plan identified se~era! different alternative projects that CQuid be selected
uooer tbe wastewattr reclamation progtam. They have beon labeled a8. PrQjCtl A,
Project S, AltefIlative B. Project C. lind Project D.
lOOI1049.RDO 2
Project A it the 11M ~ ........ project ~ iQ die M-.-P\aD fik ~
etrorts. Project A CO<IWIs of doJlW:riI>i .... \aimed _ for iniption '" _ ......
• ites u.:ludioa tho Palo AItl> ~\lIIlcipoI Golf Count, lIaylaodt AChIoIic C-, U.S.
Hipway 10011lmborcadero iDle"","",", E1eanor Port. R_ hrt., Pocn Porl<, Illd
Stonfonl UnlY.llily. Project B. A1tema1ive B,l'IojocI C, aod Project D..., ful!y
describe<! ill. tho MoaIer Plan. Tho prodeaign of _ pIOjecll " .... iacholed in rIUJ
JlIOliminllty design repon.
Purpose of Report
Preliminary details of Project A were developed as part of the Masrer Plan. 'The Mafoter
Plan belpel! ,hape !he proposed reclamation program aDd developed I prelirnilUll')' basi,
for implemen1ing PlOject A. Additional detail is requited to evaluate tht; financial
constraints Hlid implementation issues associa.tW wilh Project A before a decision om be
made 10 pc(}(':ced Wilh more detailed activities relattl!g 10 Project A, plaaned in P.hase Z of
Step 2. The-Phase 1 investigations iO.'CompJish the following: (0 develop alternate'
pipeline routes rux:J aJremlre resetvoir sites, (2) conduct aD jnitial environmental screeninE
of these altemllt1ves. and (3) br:tter establisb the implementation requirements imd
estimated costs for Project A,
The initial tnvironmen181 screenins proct:ss for Phase 1 fOCU5e5 on the folk)'IIing five key
i8~ues:
•
•
•
•
•
Lortg·term effects of reclaimed Water on plants
Ulng-lerm. effects of reclaimed warer on soils
Potential growth.inducir'l impact5
Long-Itnn ~tility syttem ~ts
Short-tenn construction impacts
The environmen~l sctorening has been conducted to identity any apparent significam
envirorunentai impacts mat cannot be feasibly mitiga«:d (Rflla' tlaws N
) associated With
IOOl1049.RJ.)D 3
I
I
I ,
Ji'
t!
~.
I:
!.$-
impk1neDl'" the pipeline IDII !'eIervolr ""mativ." The "'''''ninII analysis hi. been
completed. and no fatal flaws with lhc JeCiamation project (A) or pro,ram have been
identified. 'Th: most significant issue 10 be addressed in the E.m. .,pears to be the
potential impact of reclaimad. water on local groundwatet qt1lHty in the vicinity of
Stanford as the full project reclaimed Water flow re.\e it'!. ~hieved. [n O~t opinion, this
impilCi can be mitigated w~th tnt'mitoring and oontro} of SI:linit)' in tbe reclaimed water
and local groundwater. The resulta of this screening are liresented in a !lCparnte
enviro-nmental :u:.reenlng draft technical memorandum. (CH'2M HtU .. July 1993),
This report contains the following information to complete the Phase 1 investigations for
Project A~
• Identification of three alternative pipe route'~ inCl three alternative reservoir
:titer,;
•
•
•
Selection of the preferred pipt'linr: route and reservoir sile, in acc.ocdance
w1th input from the environmental screening Bnal)'sis, from Stanford staff,
fr('lm City of Piillo Alto. arA from the PARWQCP,
Pteliminary development (If the recommended facilities
Order of magnirude (+50 to -30 pe-rcent) CClst estimate!.
• Implementation Plan
IdentlOtallon and Evaluation of SyS\(ll1\ Alternatives
Alternative pipeline routes and I'eservoir sites have been identified to serve the project
area identified in the Master Plan for Project A, The aitcmati\'c routes are identified and
lOOI2049.JU>D 4
""aNa""'. al1omllli •• lOIOf\'Oit ,I ... "'" ldenrir"", IJId evllualod. a..., tho optimal pipeline
route and reservoir sjt,e is m::ommendIlCI for &election.
ProJeet Area
'fhe project .... encompull<' the Cil)' of Palo Alto and Stanton! Unive .. il)',
Figure 1 provides an overall VlrW of she project area, the potential reuse sites, a~lcmative
pipeline: routes. and alttcm&'ive reser~()it .ite!. The ('lev.tion of the project area increases
from north to soutb from the PARWQCP. at an elev.tion of approximately S feel aoo\'e
msl, to the reS(."fVoir sitt·r; at an t-levation of 8ppro~illlattJy 180 fee( above msL 'The
projecl area consists of a mix of residential. business, and uni\'ersity areas with
undeveloped areas in 'he foothills south of Stanford University,
Alternative Pipeline Routes
Three alle·ntatj .... e plpeline roules were dC:'\Ieloped for this }Jredcsign effort. The purpose
of identifying several pipeline roules was to provide a comparative analysis for Lie City,
The alternative pipeJine robtes include the West. Central, and. East Routes. as well as two
additional route!> created ~y combining portions of the East and Cenb'al Routes. The
routes were chosen aflt:l' reviewing 'nformati~lr1 prescmed in ~ Master Plan, field visits.
discussions with City and Stanford personnel. and preliminary siting criteria developed
for the projcct. The mutes are identified in Figu~ 1 and are described )n the follow log
paragn.phs,
West ROll'e
The west roule begins at Ihe-PARWQCP, '-"TOSSes U,S, 101 north of \he Emt)lrcaliero
Interchange and men heads wtst I!Ong HamiUon Avenue, WeMtcr Street, and £veren
Avenue, The pipeline then crosses Alma Str~l. the Caltrain Rlt.tltclld, aoo F! Camino
Rcal (Highway 82) following Qu6.~ Road before entering Stanford Univel'Siry. Within
Stanford Vniversjty. the. pi~1ine follows C\lmpm Drive West to Re5t:n'oir Site No. I,
JOOl2049,RDU ~
I
• ~ ,
l'f
'.
{,
<.
~.
'"::,~ ...
0'
y>
/"" ~'" . .
. " ----.-",~
!
POSSIBLE ~ESERVOIR SfTE NO.1
~.,.., .
POSSI8LE RESERVOIR SITE NO.2
PREFEFIRED
m:5EAvQIFI SITI=: NO. J~_
'-<..---'" A. _e''''
....... ~~ .
\
,J"
-'-l~ -e~i \'
~:'~o!\,...J,~1 • ,t .". ,-!!t~'\·i; Ii ',' , ,_I\iI'd-" ~
d.···I ' ,.,,,..
..
'f'r~ ~. '.. {\~~:(-"-~/~,::~":'\':!
.,'" ~ .,' ,.,.'C,,". \"j"';"} ,'!,.\<
'.' . . ." . .,."" , ~" .. !! " ": .,,: ... : .. ~.;.,,~. "!
_'.' .• :,"_.; .... '\ •• "" •• v' .. b-...... . .. " ~'~'." .. "--.... d .i.'f-i¥.··!..~ ~~.,t"---"~' l' \.'.";;, . .K '\i ·k·: ,
'1 .' !r";~; :'/' .. , -~,<
ry', I "--. . ....•.. !:f "":.'.1
"'j" -=IE'~ ~l,
..
- --. .: ,.-'~ r' ',.. \. ' .. ' +-',,~,-~-. ,--~--:!-'--;,:-' -~. ",'
'. t...,..:;..;~·-\
'" "\. . '.\ '\ '.
\
:nI'!ANoA """'IU::-~",-\
\
\ --... '-~
/,JP[ERS nAP-I!; ~
I
I
I
)
I
{ ,
US WII£'IAOARCAO£RO
jp.jlLJ\Ctl"'''IGf; 1.-::-=-,-,_"
'---'---------(
---.... --V
!--:-.
~;.
,,'-;:
~
----weST ACAITE
CENTRAL fl'AEfE~RED
ROUTE
---EAST ROUT~ u.n REUSE "TE
"i';--~/
/'
aAVU.NOS
lO"'ll ",'''' ~!NID nlT
I""I ... -......... --~ ...... _OlPf~O''''' ... n.e
~SfI\1't~f M8OGOoO.1Wl11
IIt:~O""''''''_
Aft1l.E fie CENTER \\,. o
PAHWll(;rr---=-""-
f'tGU~E 1
ALTERNATIVE PIPElINI" ROUTES
>a::
<l:
Z
ANO RESEVOIR SITES ~
P'LO .LTD WASTlWA"" A'CL.AMAT""'IW
, fl'ROJI"CT A ct I . ,. 0-
JUt.,,;)·19U SI'Oa.1i1.EN,Q3 • f CllMHIU.
11 !I I .. ,.,~.· ,.
'I"'~ .~
"
.~
IUljacoat '" tho SIODfotd l>rivuw Rauae· II iI , .. 1ripotIoI 110M ..... ......s.jodt a c '.
would be '"'I"ire<I at U,S. 101. Alma S!IOet. CoIInID 1blb<laI. IIId EI ComIIIo ....
CIIIlTrIl RolIIl
The contral I'0Il'" bejJiru at tho PARWQ'::P. e_ ... U.S. 101 IIOlIh of tilt Embarcadero
In<en:llange. 8Ild __ • south _I along Cbanning A ....... Newell S1ree<. one! 5<.1.
Avenue. The pipeline crosse. Alma Stroet and Caluain Railroad II<8J' Pet" Pari<: and
continues along Stanford Avenue. crossing EJ Camino Real to Restrvoir Site No, 2, just
southwest of JlJnipcro Serra Boulev~rd or along Stanfotd Avel\\le 11-00 Junipero serra
Boulevard to Reservoir Si", No.3. just nonbW ... t of Old Page Mlil Road. It is
.nllcipated that bo.e-altd-jack crossings would be "'Iuired a' U.S. 101. Emllar'<:adero
Road, Alma Srret:l, Caltrain Railroad, EI Camino RAJ •• ud Jnnipc:· J Serra Boulevard.
Ea$/ Route
The east rOUle begins At tbe PARWQCP. runs south on East Bayshore Road, and I;TO.'i:rteS
U ,S, 101 at a bridge over Matadeto Creek, The i.,lpeline then heads soulbwest on
Colorado AVenue r;rossing the Oregon Ex.pressway on Bry~nt Street. The pipt'line
continues. on Bryant Street to Scale Avenue, croso;ing Alma Street and Caltrato Railroad
near Peers Park" The pipeli~ continues along Park: Boulevard. where it CtoSstS EI
Camino Reai, (0 the entram::e of Stanford University, Within Stanford University. the
pipeline fOHows Serra Street and Campus Drive F.,ast to Reservoir Site No.1. II is
anticipated that bore-sud-jack crossings would be required at Oregon Expressway. Alma
Street. Cait[ain P.ailroad, 8.00. El Camino Real, This route was no! considered with
Reservoir Siles 2 or 3.
Alternative Reseo'oir Sites
Three altetnlltive reservoir sileS were devoloped for this prede&isn efton. All three sitt'&
are on Stanford University property. Reservoir Site No.1. ll(U the lrnr.rse<;tiou of
lOO12049_RDD 8
\
~ .. • • •. ,
i· ~
~
I
(,'
I r
\,
t
t·
1'"' '1,
i, • I'", ,\\,
L ':}
,'! ~ ,
Iunipero $om Bwlev~rd _ CuIpuo Drive We .. , w .. p", .. oted in rile Reclamation
Master Pian. Thil .ite.iI "'llrmltly lIl!IIeveIoped and i ..... tile ""' .. end of Laguoit!
l..B.ke. Reservoir Site No, 2. near the 1ht(tl'leCtion of Juniparo Serra BotIlevard anJ
Stanford Avenue. is in \be undt:voloped foothj~Js south of tile main campus, Reservoir
Sire No. J is in an abaroloned quarry .ite off of Old Page MiIIl\olld. I\o .. ",oir Sire.
No.2 and 3 were developed during field visil5 and discussions with strff from rile
Planning Office at Stanf()rd University, The reservoir site!j are presented in Figure I.
Selection of Preferrc!d Alternative
The preferred pipeline route and reserv~ir site were recomnwnded and selected to provide
a focus for hydraulic calculations, facility ftqPirements. and cost ellotimaring. The
selection of the preferred route and site wert based upon technical Imd environmtn!al
crireda .lOO discussions with representatives of the member 8!~encies of the PARWQCP.
EVII/uation Criteria
Evaluation f;riteria for the pipeline and reservoit site are prer.ented in Table 1. In
addition, Stanford University conducled its own reservoir siting analysis, whid\ is
presented in detail in the environmental screening ttthni.cd tnemonmdum (CH.2M HIll,
July 1993) and was used in ldcmirying the recommended sit\!.
Allernative Evaiualirms
Tbe pipeline 1'Olltes and t ;scrvoir site!! were evaluAted from an engineering .perspecliV(~
using the criteria in Table 1. Results of this analysis are ~umrnariI.ed in Figure 2,
Slanford lJnivetsity's FlaMing Office was involved in [he routing and siting of facilities
on campus. The pipeline routeS and reservoir sites are also evaluated in the
environmental screening ulChnic.1 memorandum (CH2M HILL.luly 19(3) on a potential
lOOl2Q4.9.RDD 9
-----------
Pipeline: EAST ROIfTE () ct () 0
Pipeline: CENTRAl. ROUTE 0 () 0 0
Pipeline: WI'ST ROUTE () () () ()
SITE NO, 1 ,e e)_ () 0
SITE NO ~_-1---0 () () 0
S/TENO.3 10 0 0 0
()'. () ()
0 0 ~~~ () 0 ---f--() • ~ • • () () 00
0 0 ole;
POTENTIAL '''PACTS
0 MOiSt lavora.bIe
:) Moder,tety favorabte • least f.VO(~
FIGURE 2
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR PROJECT 'A'
PALO ALTO RWOCP Wol8TEWA1EA AeCL.AMA.l~ PRCIGAAII.~
PREOES!GN REPORT
'¥PHiaiNA CIftIHIU-----'
~ '~.
r. :
;.:
~'\ , ...
),
i I'I~ .•. ~
LI .. I .. 'fRill M ~'~.". ~ .
!t~
j,'
envirolUJleDtaJ lmpI<t buiI. A/tIIQUaII die _ ...w ___ .... two
_._. die COIICIuIioDl m die .......
T ...... PI ..... ___ SIQo~
PARWQCP ,,· ...... 1. R I , .......
C ... at. __
MllXimlu: lh~ number (1Od lOW .rea) of ~ial Rd.aift)Cd WIIG t.&tO .Ita: lUI ~ euil) tilt
fe_daod by ~ diltribWon Jilpelin6 -MhmniU' ~\tucdon-trlld.ed traffic lmpaM.f
MtnirniQ'; illlpllW to '&I'ac 1n!eK borderipg 'Jb'ml ulCd for p!pelint l'D!JLe$
Minimize cornmu.tlity dlIrupdoll durina ooll$truction
MiD.itl\i~ downtown b\llmeu dilTUptlon during constNCliOQ
Avoid, \0 tho cxtmlt pouibJe, untiliv!! land Ule "'* durinJ CC»aItn"!lion (t'I •• _. bOIpitall)
Vrr4l'!tvc walandJ. cmJb. and rip.rian IU'Cafi -I Minimiu dilNption of Mlljor IIlililieS
M\Ili.mi~. l[) the: c:~tenl JYl~"blt" tho kn~"\ of pipe rtqlJired I
Selected Alternative
Results of the alternative evaluations indicate lhat tile preferred pipeline route is the
central toute. 'The elimination of Reservoir Sit~ No. I elimit\fl:ted the western arM! l1\e
southern portion of the eastern pipeline routes from further cons.ideration. The nurthtm
section of the east route was dropped because of its distance from th~ proposed PrC'je.;;t A
reuse sites, The tentt61 route mt.'CU the evalu.ation criteria and provides tfv:o &honest
connt:ction between the PARWQCP and the I'CSI!n'oir site rewmmended b,. ':tanford
Universiry.
On the basiS of Stanford Ut(iVersity's evaluation bnd the evalUiltion criteria previously
de&cribed. the preferred reservoir site is Reservoir Site No 3. This 51(( is QQt visible to
tbc genaal pub1ic, and flit facUity would allow the reservoir (0 be built aboveground,
reduciOS the CQS( of tbe facility. Reservoir Sitt No.2 mEiy also be (eMibte if Go fali! flaw
with Reservoir Site NO.3 is found durll\g the final design. However, this site is visible
IOOI:Z04~tADP 12
tl
~ ..
(.'
~ let'
;:>l
j' •
~ ',H
•
"
\'~-'
~-:; .
1
i,ll,,' ~;
,11..
!,l"'i,,~', ,.,!
ill
j'
ilii'
Ii
i ~,;
to tho II-ral pubUc.,"'" Swdord Ulliverally would requu. <be tank to be at lea.t
paniAlly buried. RH\:rvolr S ... No.1 wu eliminated bocau" of possible conflict.< wirh
SQnford'!i Master ~111Jd cndanaercd species habitat for the tiger salamander.
F.clUtie. Development
Facilities for tlJe prefeJ~ pipeline route and reservoir site were developed u!ling five
operational cases, aS5()~ialcd design flows, and a hydraulh:: analysis. The opctark1Il81
cues ctwered reclaimed WI:te"t supply and demand from initial Project A startup [0 full
Project A development to full program development of Project A. Project Alternative B.
Proje~t C, \\nd Project·D, 'Design flows were developed for reclaimcu Willer suppl)' and
demand. Tbe bydraulk analysis sized the pipes, the reservoir, and the PARWQCP
pumps required for ea~h operatioIlaI casco
Operating Philosophies
Operation of the proposed facilities has a dire!;:.t j'llpact On the size And therefore me;: cost
of the pipelines. and ~mrage resenloil', D)scussiom. w,th the City of Palo Alto and
S\anf.:ml University have resulted in several operational deci!)IOnS including: (1) it!'"iga·
tion of parks and golf courses would OCCUr at night and would be cOnSiMeni With exi."iting
current itrigation practice§ because of high daytime public use, (2) (he project would
supply reclaimed water at a pressure sufficient to operate existin& sprinkler irrigation
systems at the parks ard golf courses, (.3) reclaimed water would provide a b8.8C flow for
Stantard'~ existing non;>otabie irrigation system, with the balance coming from the
existing Felt Lake nonpotable sl,Ipply, (4) irrigation at Stanford would occur during the
day when maintenance ,personnel are available, (5) Stanford wuuld provide the on-campus
facilities required to Uli(~ the reclaimed water. including il booster pump, if necessary, and
(6) realizing that the U~) of reclaimed water would be lowesl during initial Project A
startUp, Pro~t A fac"~i~ wrmld be sited to meet the IOI18-tenn projected demands of
IOOI1(U9.RDD 13
Project A; bow_v.,.. cOl1ltnWtlon of r .. ilI ... would l>o pIaIecI. If pouiIIIe. -..rdiag to
ICtual demand requirement.<.
In accordance with the ope"hltwnal guideliCQ p~ above. fIve case~ were dev.t::lopod
to identify potential operati.ng coaditions and system requirmlem& fer both Project A
stanup and fuH development. lbe cases art based on discussiOll5 with the City and
Stanford University, and. the unrestricted use of reclaimed water 8.5 provided in, tlJI!
PARWQCP permit. The five case. and rational are presented bere and develope<l furtber
)n the ~t section.
Ciise 1 was developed to allow SWlford Univer..ity ((I apply ,"Iaimed water during the
day during fuJI Project A dcvclopmenl. Case 1 met SUAfonS's m.anagc:meru ob;ec:tives,
allowed reclaimed watl!r t.o be stoted in It reset\loir to balance nighttime demAnds from
other reuse sites. And decreasc:d. facility s.Ur!> from those tt-.at would be required if an
reclaimed water demand was. mel at night.
Cast 1 was developed 10 allow Ib~ remaining reuse: sites ~o apply le<;lajrned water during
the night during fun Pr()jCCt A development Irrigation at night allows the public ~o use
the Te\."'1'eationa1 facilities of parts and golf COlIrse5 durjng: the d1\Y without interference
from sprinklers,
Cases 3 and 4 wete' tkveloped for the same r.easons deSl.;ribed fvr Cases 1 and 2, ex..;ep\
at the lower reclaimed Water demand of initial Project A startup. Ca.se 5 was. de'feh"J)ed
to size ~he facilities to mee( the future demomd of the full Jttlairoed water program,
including Project A. Project Alteruative B. Project C. I.nd l~ject D.
The reUse sites idemitied as "existing reuse sites· include Shoreline Golf Park: Links.
Greer Park. Palo AltO Municipal Golf CourSl!. and Baylands Athletic Center. 'I'he I'CU~
sites identified as ·otht:r reuse sites'" include the U,S, Highway lOI/Fmblra.dero
lnterchange, Eleanor Park, Rinconada Park, and Peers Part.
lOOJ2049.RDD 14
I ,
)i,.
f
~ t·:,
;~I\l
,.
)
.1
t
I'!:
I
I
~i' , Ii
Cos~ 1-FIlII Pro/.'CI A DeveIoJlllflMtlDaytime Operalum (It, Figure 3)
•
•
•
•
Reclalm~ water derr..and is based on peak month/average day demand.
Daytin1c operation is from 7 a.m. to 10 p,m. (IS houl'S).
~'tanford uses 2,900 gallons per minute (gpm) of recl.aimed waler and
1.200 gpln (rom Felt Lakt. nonpotable waWr supply.
No "existing" or "other" rruse sites are irrigared.
• Reclaimed water il sent lO the pl'Oposed Rc!;ervoir Site No.3 at a rate of
480 gpm ro balan("c the nighttime demand,
• The PARWQCP can supply 3,650 gpm, n hours a day.
Co"e 2·-Full Project A [)eveiopmenllNighttime OperOlion (see Figure J)
• Reclaimed water demarv1 is: bafiCd on peak month/average day demand.
• NightrinK_ Opt'ration is fmrn 10 p.m. 10 6 a,m. (8 hours),
.. Existing leuse sites account ror 3,825 gpm in demand.
• Othrr reuse sitell account for 4~O gprn in demand,
• Tlle PARWQCP Can supply 3.6~O gpm, 23 hounl a day,
Case 3 -illitful Proj."t A til StUT/up/Daytime Op.,..lIIon (see Figu,., 4)
• Reclaimed water demand is based on peak mon('b/average day demand.
• Daytime (lpcrattQn is from 7 '.m. \0 10 p,m. (15 hours).
10012049. RDD 15
I
I
I
5.000,r----,r-----,----
''L~ -
j TOTJ
~ ,~
.....,
_'~DBMNO
SI'~ DaofAND t;':,!,!,;3
OO~?JJ
@221
OTHER _DEMAND
El!AI«lIIPMK
~PARK PEEII8_
CALTRANS
RESERVOIR DEMAND
~
~ .... "'" ''L","
~
..... O\IROAY
FIGURE 3
DAILY SUPPLY AND DeMAND FOR
FULLPRDJECT'A'DEVELOPMENT
CAS!! 1 -DAmME OPERAnON
CASE 2 -NIGHTTIME OPERAllON
PALOALTOPNK#WMTEW .... TEJliAf:CUlMATION~ ';;;,rNtl PRmUION ~pORl CNlHIU I
6,00) r----..
LmENO -f~":i:,: .. 3
@?;;;J@
EXlST1H8 DBIAHO
sr~DaIANO
OTHER _ DEYAHD
EI..EANOIIPARI<
RINCOIIAIlA PARI<
PEERS PARK
CALTRANS
--'---i --~--,
•. ()()(,~ __ ~ ___ -+-__ --+-~~--J ____ + __ _
i I 10TAL, .!! 3.QO\t~2,510gpm
!ii' i'IIIl--
i
OJ
~ ..
::>
"
,
'(>.<;s,.
'0\10.
AVA1LA8LE pA.RWQCp SUPPlY: 2.900 QPm
,
~ ,~
24-1iOU1\ D"~
FIGURE 4
"'''lSl. ..,.... "'<;s,.
DAILY SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR
INmAL PROJECT 'A' AT STARTUP
CASE 3· DAYTIME OPERATION
CASE 4 • NIGHTTIME OPERATION
, ..... o;s. .....
mo ,I\l.TO RWCICPWIo8T(WATER I"ECL.AMATlON PROGRAM
1"11011'" III! PREOESIQN R£POAT
wIt1?a1ZP"INP CMlHll1c---....
.~
.
~,";
,~
['r .\foI
\";·,1
ifi'
~
Ii
I I,
if
r
I'
I
~~ ,,'
• Stanton! .... 600 IP'D of. ndalmed -; die .....mm, Iniptjon
dahAIId Ii "'111 Pek lAb ............ _ IUPPly.
• No "oxi8tiq:" or "0Ihet· rwee I~. ~ trripterj,
• The PAllwQCI> can supply 2,900 gptl\. 23 lIooni. day.
• No """'s. It nquired at SWlfonl.
Case 4 -lnitUlllfljtCf A III SItutllp/Nirhltbrlt 0pe1Plio1l (Itt Flpn 4)
•
•
Reclaimed water demand is b .. ed on peak monrhlaveragc day demand.
Nigh«""" operation i. from to t).m. to 6 a.m. '8 hou,,).
• Existing reu~ Sites accOUnt flK 2,060 gpm,
• Other reuse sites accourn for 450 gprn,
• Tho PARWQCP tan supply 2.900 gpm. 23 hours a day.
• No s!orage is required a1 Sranford.
Co .. 5 -UIIi_. Devewp",ent of Projtet A, AII'mMiv. B, C, and D
(See Figure 5)
• Reclaimed water demand. based on peak m'frnh/lverage day demand.
• Nighttime opetBtion is from 10 p. m. 106 a,m. (8 hours),
It Existing re\l5e sites iccount for 3,825 gpm.
• Othet reuse sices iCCQUm for 4.50 8pm
• Daytime operation i,. from 7 a,m. to 10 p,m. (1S hours),
IOO1204SUU>D 20
~ ,
~,1'
------
TOT~ Yr ..... ~--I LEGINl 7.000 r-.~~
I
I
~ ~.OOO
i
,,,,'>$>. -~ ,~
24-1tOUR DAV
FI\o~'RE 5
.. ~
'No.
ElOSTING~
STANFOnO OEMANO
OTHE~ REUsE DEMAND
aeANORPAAK
RlNCOHAIIA PAAI(
PEERSPAAK
CAlTFIANS
PROJECTS ALT. 8. C., D
,,\S> , ..... '1$\
"'"
DAIL'r !'UPP~y 4ND DEMAND FOR
CASE 5 • " .. flU"'" DEVELOPMENT
OF PROJECTS 'A', .. LTE~NAl1VE B,
C,ANDo
mOAL TO RWOCP WttA91mItTV'lI'llClNAATIOf"~
,~ 1M PREDEIIGtoI R£PORT _~'r' CMlHIIJ.:.---.l
i)\>
" I
f
• Stonford .... 2.900 IJIIlI of ~Ialmod ....... 1.200,.,... rn. Pel!
~ nonpollble W1!Br 1UPP1y·
• Ilernm4 from I'rojedI AIlemativc B. C. Ind D is II'PfOJ<imaItI,
4.000 SPill over • IS-bout period, This demlnd iI split at 70 pm:eJ1I
(2.800 gpm) oJ<olivot<d \0 • takenff poi.,. aI the iDtenectioo of Embotwdoro
and Baylibo", RoaO and 30 pe=nt (1.200 SPIll) delivere<! to a !llke<>1'f porn.
at Peers Park:. 1'b.is demand will be stored at additional raervoir sites jor
use at night.
• The PARWQCP can supply 6.000 gpm.13I1oun; a day,
It Reclaimed water is sent to me proposed Re~f1Iojr Sitc No. ;\ at a rale of
480 gpm ({l baia-oce the Project A nighttime demand.
~sliln Flows
Design flows were developed from information pres.ented in the Master Plan a.nd
discus·siollS with stiff from the City lind Slanforo Univmity. Design flows. include the
PARWQCP supply, eXisting demaoo for cuneru. £e\l.st sites. imltia' Project A &til.mJp
demand, and full Project A development d.tmand for ,«1aimed water. These ooign
flo'Ws are combined with lITigation scheduies to de:vclop facility sius.
Rrclaimed Water SUpp(y
The Master Plan indicated that the PARWQCP reclamation f,leHity i.s presently capable (<1'
prodU.~lng an average of 4.0 mgd. ()f reclaimed w&tet that r)1()!ts DHS criteria for
unrestricted use. For initial Project A implementation, il has been lS.iumed 011.1 the pian~
will p"xluCt 4,0 mgd (2,900 gpm. 23 hours per day) ,DJ .ha. for 1 hour per day
( • .,umet! to be from 6:QO .,nt, to 7:00 a,m.) lhe fiI.et ••• !.be PARWQC'P w."ld be
backwushed and 110 flow would be available: to the reuse sites. For fun Project A
UlOtlO49.RDD 23
Implementation, it lw been wumed Il1II the plant', flKUitie. will be expanded to meet
the tccillimed 'water demand.
Reclaimed lVaur IHIJIIJIIIJ IJi E,dsd", Sitts
The nistmg dt~mand for reclaimed water, without the implementation of Project A. is
apprQximately i19& mgd under peR month/avenge day flow conditioru or 2,060 gpm per
an 8-hQur in'igation period. These flows were developed ftorn the Mum Plan and
discussed wim PARWQCP lUff, This demalJd comes from four reuse fi,itc:s. Shoreline
Park Golf Link!; and Greer Park Mve bten receiving reclaimed water since 1991. The
Palo Alto Munidpal Golf COllrse and Rayland AtbJetK:s Ce.nlrr &Te schedule" to receive
redaimed water by the faU of 1993, The eXisting and full development demands for
thc5C four reuse site" afe presented in Table 2,
Taflolt 2
R~lnMd Wltu Dmulndlat ~dd'" SjjH ....... "WI [h~~I.~nj -Pull MllftllhlA. ..... p' thy o..a.nd ...... M"pt~II.~~r.l. r.y Poimtlld ....... Ir ..... I ..... TIm. FI" • ...... lrris,.tlw! Tw., .....
Sltt N ...... imldl .... , ~ ... , (m,d) "" """ Sl\t:lrc!1I\t h,i< Golf Ur,!n Q.4~ • ,., (I.W " I.~~O
! Gnu p,,1: .1< • "" 0." • "" J>;.!j,-, Alw MunlClpIIJ Oo;f r;f\lJrlt Q,lfi • ,., 0.12 , UZO
BlyJIII(!.' "Ihttll~ C.ru~'· tpH • "' .... " III
Tital 0.9S • I.'" Ul • ],S2~
'Tk ruk ""'ntW.ntll~" d.y nDl/OlI O«1.I.r in Jllly. ---_.
Reclaimed WQJu Demand a/ SlarVord and Other Reust Sit.s
In addition to the CI~istjng demand(l for teclaimed water as presented in Table 2, five
additional reuse sitc:s will he added to the Projcct A system, These reuse sites include
U.S, Highway lOliEmbarcadcro Interchange, Eleanor Park, Rinconada Park, Peers Parle.
and Stanford Ullivetsity. The demands for these sites at initial startup and full
deve10pment an:: pn!semed in Table 3, These flows were developed from the Master Plan
and were discusstd with the PARWQCP staff,
l00l104~JWD 24
~ .-,
............................ c:-. ..... • --.. N_
-fIrIP.....," .... r.k~.-. ""'-... -. ......... --... -.... - --.... --..., _I -.... -' U.I!. Hia" .... , 'Olll!mb.l~.", .... • " .... • " ~U;"ba/ll'
lilnnnrPJ,1tI '01' I OJ 0,019 • ..
RIw:~'''rIt. 0.101 • '" 0.101 • . '"
Pnr: Put. 0.011 • no (um ~~
~~ot'l ." • .,. •. " ~-+ '" -----
SlIldl'Id Univrniry 0.S4 " "'" 2,1'1' !~ 2.900
ToM ." " I.Oro '" " i U~ -"Th~ !M'I" rnn~lh!a\'~"Rl f10wt tX:rl:' in lui)'
Hydraulic Analysis
A hydraulic analysis was prrfonned t') determine preliminary sizes fot the Projecl A
pump litation. pipelines, and storage reservoir. The analysis was alf.O used 10 aSSoe5!i the
jmpa~:t of it phased deve}opmel11 of L"H: project facilities. The ability 10 dela)' cUlISfruction
of some projcct facilities was also evaluated.
DeS(fn Crittria
Design ctiteria for [he hydraulic analY5is were dcvelo~ for the rensc siltli, the (:O'j
nyaoce pipelines, and a storage reservoir as follows:
Reuse SII .. :
10012(1049. fWD 25
•
•
•
JrrI,atio. _. for Il1o 10,,,,, ,It<> II< as prol!Olll<d in the Muter
PlIn (llrown .... Clldwoll, 1992) durllljl tho peal< demand ... DIIt of
July.
Irrigation at Stanford University will occur 15 hours per day from.
7:00 a.m. 10 10:00 p.m.
Irrigation at the mnainin.Q: reujC sites will ocCt.U' 8 hOI .. ,:: per night
from 10:00 p,m. to 6:00 a.m.
CODVey'"'' Pipelines:
IOOt;!049.1tDD
•
•
•
Pipeline sizes are bMtd on pt~k month/average day future flows as
presented in the Master Plan.
Hazcn-Willj.ll.ms C-vaJo.e of 130 for aU pipes (includes friction and
mmor losses),
M8.l\imum wate.r velocity af S feet per second.
• Ma.ximum frictlQn los!;. of 8 feel pet 1,000 feet.
• Minimum residual delivery p~s5ure of 10 p~i to tbe propOlled
Stanford University storage restl'vuir at a qlll':l1)' silt off OM Page
Mill Road.
•
•
Minimum delivery pressure of 70 psi 10 Eleanor Park, Rmconada
Park, and Peers Perle for sprin.\:ler irrigation
Separation from potable wakr iys,em in conformance with the State
of California Dep'runenl or H'~lth Smice. (DHS) stAndards.
26
-------------------
Srorqe R...noIr:
• Tho ~ir would be an eacJoeod, cm:ut.r coatretl: ItaKtufe,
approximately 180 roe' in diameter IIId appl'O<imaldy 20 rtlet \&II
(100,000 ,all(}lll).
• COPIU'UCtion activities. nraal1andstaping, and An operation building
may teq\llre a SO-foot zone ilI"OUaJ the lIonge ft:Kl'Voir, or • tolIl
LInd n:quimnel\l of approximately 200 r .. , by we r ..... or
appro~tmAte.ly 1 acre.
• The 5tor&ge ~sef"Oif at the ptefertcd. site would be built at gropoo
surface. l1O( buried,
• 1be low-water point in the reservoir would be 175 feet in "Icv,cion.
whicb allows the reclaimed waler pipelilk:: to deliver wat('r to
Eleanor Park:, Rinconada Park, and Pars Part at a pressure
suitable for sprinkler irri!18tion. (No1e: A re!Oervoir in dowflfown
Palo Alto at Hawthonr and Alma was considered but Was too low
in elevation to ~ workable.)
DescripdiJn of Hydroulic AlUllysis Model
The preferm:J conv~)'ancc system fnr the. P4.RWQCP rc::ciaimed water project was
analyz.ed using. CH2M HILL's computerized hydrauli\; modeling softwa.re (Netwk
Vcr. 8.52). The Nctwk software ta1culatts prc:ssures and flows in pipeline distribution
systoms given vartoUi boundary cor.Jitions such as water demands. storage reservoir
elcVlllions. ground clevati01\.~. end prusun: requirements. Inputs for the model include
pipeline dia.meten and lengths. tb'Mttting: nodes. WireI' demands and elevilions at 1'lOdcs.
and hydt'aulic lass roemc.icnts,
IOOI1049,RPD 27
i ~
"
1M ICIUIIS of tbc Nctwli: lIIIIy'i, for. given .. t ,.f condltloao provkl. tbc followinJ!
Ir.fcrmation,
• l.litinJ; of pipeline flows, velOcttie5, nnd bead loss
• Listing of noctal deliveries and delivol'Y pressure
• Amount of flow int%lll of selected n:servoirs
• Flow and head mJuirements from pl.lU'P stations
AltemaDv, A"alysi5
A total of five h.:{drauliJ; alternatives were analyzed using Nctwk.. The alternatives
consisted of the five casr.s ckscribed carHer. Node diagnm~ of tbt' five cases for the
Project A reclaimed water system were developed and are prc8entt.d in Appendi", A, The
node diagrams ptesent the hydraulic information as!'ociated with the distribution 5)1litcm.
Re5uils
A summ,UY of the Netwk modeling results for the five cases are presented in Tll.ble 4,
The Nelwk input and output files are presented in Appendix A.
II
'hb)e ..
Nrfwk Hyd.-.uUe MachUnt Results. rtlr Proje:\ A
I PARWQCP
PI", lI'udlpR~~
Total Apprexlmai. ....... R..ervob' Si" Sl .. LlIlptlth Neild
C ... (apm) (I"\) (Ind., 1ft) tft) .p'
I 3,380 700.000 • 700 2fiS Jll
12 '.900
" 25,200
24 '.(Y.I(l i -2 4.27$ .. 6 700 197 )00
12 6,900
!
18 25,200
24 M50 J... __
....
IOO1204Sl.RDD 28
T_.
_~-.._tar ..........
P .... WQCP
",. ..........
T .... .............
FloW' .~r. SIx '-" -C ... capon) (pi) 0adIl (1\) (1\) hP'
3 600 NOD< 6 100 m SO
10 28.200
18 SO
4 2.!llO N .... 0 100 210 1\iO
to 28.200
I. SO
5 7,31() 1OO.1lOO 6 100 lIS ...
12 '.m
I. J.1,200
" 3,050
'PARWQCP etlm:rt. mclaimtd 'l.jlller cIq.\lld1Y l' 2,900 8Prn, 23 hoUri per dAy. I _~~Qrsepower ~~ I'm ~~mbinrd PlI~ mJ ~lor ~{(jci.!!9 or 7(J pt1'C~1 ~
Pipeline sizes for the initial Projecl A syslem, represenlcd by Car.es :3 and 4. Were
dil;'rated tly the day time demand from Stanford ~n Case 3. The small Jeng,th of
J 8-inch-diameler pipe was to Ilccoum for the existing roost; site: nighuirue demand~ in
Case 4.
Pipeline sizes for Full Dcvelopml''lt of Project A lD'fo,,"'ed !.tvetal Netwk itetations aad
are represented by Ca~s t, 2. and 5. 11litiaUYt Cases 1 and 2 were analyze(! withoullhe
intlutnce of full program development reprrsemed by Case 5. When Cue 5 was run, it
~ffec(i\'ety intreased 3,050 feet of pipe for Cases 1 and 2 from J8· .0 24-inch-diameter
pipe from the PARWQCP 10 U.S, 101. 'l'Mrefore, (b~ reconunendrd facilitjc5 :o;hown in
Table 4 for Cases). 2, and ~ were determined as follows:
• From the PARWQCP "' lJ ,S, lOl by C ... 5
• From U.S. 101 to Stanford by Case I
• From Stanford to the reservoir sire No.3 by Case 2
IOOI2049,IWD 29
.~
r
I
I' :
~:
Pacilities 10 be COnstnlCtod are boted 011 1IdI developmelll of Project A and 0100 bave the
ability 10 meet 11111 program developlll.... The City doe. no' want to .,. .. 11 • pipeline
for the initial Project A system Ind IfIOtlIor ptpehno far full <!."elcpmetll of Project A.
E.tlmated Costs
00 the basis of the facilities developed in this preliminary desi8R report and the oper
ational ~I14rios described above. capital and BMual cos.s hwe been developed for
Project A.
Capital Costs
A capital cost eStimate was prepared for full development of Project A facilities in accor
dance with the guidelines of the American ASM>Ciali.Jn of eeoS! Engineers. This is an
approximate esrimate made without detailed engineering data. The estimate W~~ founded
on cost curves and preliminary estimated quantilies of major facility components, It is
expected that this estimate falls between an order~of-magniwde COSt estimate
(~SO percent to -30 percent) and a budget-level cost estlmale (+:\0 to -15-percent).
Pipeline costs were developed assuming II C(lst of $6 per di •. meter-inch per fool which
included trench excavation, materials. and backfill. The pileline costs took imo account
that construction would occur in COU8csted areas and neighborhoods thal would require
extensive traffic control, IferlCh sheeting and/or backfill. and rnay require tempol'iil)'
paving. Bore-aod-jack crOSSings were estimated at $19 per (Iiametcr-inch per foot using
the carrier pipe which is 6 inches !iarger than the reclaimed Water pipe.
Asphalt/concrete paving replacement was estimated. for 8 6-f<IOt-wide strip along tm
pipeline route, Pi.peline apptlrtenances wtre estimated to be ;:0 percellt of the pipeline
cost!'.. StQrage rcseNoir coS1S were developed Assuming an alll')veground concrete
SUllcture at B cost of $500,000 fol' B 700,OOO-galJori uscrvoir, Capital COsts (or the
lOOll049.RDO 30
pomp s .. tion modlflcat/QN II tho PAAWQCP -tIOI bti:Wo<t .. !lOOt of ~ A, ..
l-.quelled by the City.
TIle cilpital costs include IevtJral all()Waoco.i and continaenciQ, A tlOQStnlctiOli contin
ge",y (1' portent) was it»luded to COV<f materiols, abor, and equipmem """"'""'Y foe
collO!NCtion items that toold n<>l b< detailed at tbis lev" of .tudy. In addition, allow
ances were included for engineering design, services durin,g construction, lega.i. and
pennining (17.5 pertent).
The estimated capital cost for full development of Project A '5 approximately
$8.1 million and is presented in Table 5.
The cost e~(imate!il. shown haVe been prepared "or guidance in project evaJualiofi and
implementation from the infDnnalion available at !,he time of the estiMate. 'The fmal COStS
of the project and resulting feasibility will depenJ on aeruallabor :'00 mattrieJ cOSts,
competitive market conditions. actQal site condj(ll}ns, final project SCopt', irnplemcnt.:aion
schedule, and olhn variable f&ctors. As a result. the final project costS will vary from
the estimates presented here. Because of thtse factors, funding needs must be carefully
reviewed prior (0 making ~pecific financial deciSions Ot estabHshing project budgets to
help ensure proptr: evaluation and adequate funding.
l00I;'!049.ROO 31
""" . I C_~fet~lta-hlDrt"''' ,............. ..;,. P..;; om Mn) .---, ... Q.adIi,Y l!BM c_ tll T.uI(lJ
~
• Plpllo JncIWliq TI\I" 6u&.,.tI"",fICI. ~1i1\\\
11.. J ...... piiWIM LP ),01;(} ... 4l9,IJOO , II·wll. pjl'llu. LF 1',1-;)1 ". 1,711,j))d
'", Il-bQ plllllllll L' 6,900 " 497,000
d. '.,*~-p~;jine LP 100 " ~
2 BII,.·IUId·Jlclt C~., . U.S. H.tr ..... y lOl L' "" '" 118,00I)
Il. En!bIrutHru LP 2 .. '" '1.0Qt'I , AI ... SU1M11JId CaltIIIM .... l!t1Iki LP , .. '" Ul,<nl , Camillo Ilel! LP ,,. '" !i1,OOO
1 A.C "'''it4 bjllKmoIIn SF ~)O • 160,000
• Pipeline AlIIlurtelWleel LS • ,"","" 413,00I.l
5lIb1C1f11 Pipr:IIru~ '.'13 rOOO , Slunle ""V!T'OI:I\r I LSI • ,""noo '(I,J,OOO
!luIJI~"\ 6/(1).(.00 -I I 1 , C"mIN(UOn ('''n(llIif .... ~ (I~% I ~
S~hrcnal ContlN,:lJ(In Cl;IJI fi,9!J,OOV , E~"lIetrtll, DUll". !f;rYi«' D\lttn. CeMlI\W.llt>1\, I I UIO,UOO
and ""!TIIIIIt", (J7_'~1 I
TOial 1I.l2,,1)1)
Annual Co.ts
Estimaled aMual operational costs were developed for ~he pipelines, storage reservoir,
and power for pumping and aU' presenl~d On Table 6.
Tablot6.
UtlmJded Alfftu.1 Operation and Mal .. te .... nl:e CovU
(01'" ProJuct A Palo Alto RMI.lmcd W.f"r ProJtet (1993 doIl.N)
Ann ... c~
PrtIJecf lIt'm <tly.)
Full Dcve[clpmenl Pipeline! 2&.001) •
RCJervoir iO,OOQ I
Pump St"tlOn rowl:r 29,000
Total AtIllUai COM. .',000 I
lnitie.l QeIJ(IQpmmt PipeliMs 1f1,Q(~--l
Rcaen'oir 0 :
I
Pump Station PowlI!r '.OOJ
TM.I AMual Cost )3,000
----
IOOJ2049.RDO l2
------
Annual maim ........ and repaln we ... based on pe~ of IIJo initial lOIII COftS1rV<tlon
,ost p .. .......a In Table S, n.... _., dorIved !rom J ...... (19\W) and proJO'"
.experience, w ... lB&UmO>d to be: plpellIm-\l,SO peroenI, .... rvoir-2 "..... .. , AnDIlaI
power con. for !be PARWQCP ",,",I' .utio. wo"" calQallllld u.m, roclaimed wile,
demand of Slallford Univeaity .nd ·otber-reuse lite's fur an 8J1IlIII.1 'Volume of 36S ac~~
10e! fot initial ope,atio ... and 1,375 "" .. ·r ... ror the fuU developl,,,,,II, an """rail pwnp
and motor cffic~ncy of 70 percent, and power cost It $O.061I1:Wh.
Implementation
Implementation of Project A should be conducted \n two phases. The firs! phase would
([k:.lude con.totruc.lion of \he prQ))Osed pipelines from the PARWQCP to Stanf<Ird
Univeniity. sized for full Project A development, and the expansion of the reclaimed
Wa.tl,!f pumping capacity to meet the imlial Projcci A demand II the PARWQCp. The
second. pMSf: wl)uld lntlude e.:tending (he pipeline from SW)ford to ResetvOlr Site No.3,
con~m.lction of I ttscrvOJr at Site No.3, alJd iocreasing the pumping ca.piK"il)' at the
PARWQCP. The pump stalion sbou~d he buill so mal additional pumpi for Ihe ~f)nd
phast can be easily added to the system. The facililJeIi required for r.he two phases ",re
proYided in Table 7.
The ~cond phase would be required when tl\e red'iili~ waltr demand" could nOI be
consis~ently met by Ihe firsl phase. facilities. This would occur wt.en Ihe reclaimed wilter
demand was greater ilia.1 approximately 2.9<K) gpm,
U,(U2049,)IDO 33
" I' l ~I
I :.i'
, I TabJt,T
_ ........... Df Projtd; A
_ ... It ......
SIn ~ It_ -. 1-( ..... ) (II) Coal) , (lip) --
I 2. l,05O NIJIlC 200
'8 15,200
12 No .. • 700
2 24 None 700,000
18 N_ I '15
12 6,900
6 N.". ,
As presented in this repon. Project A r"cilities would be adequate (0 meet the
requirements of adding project Allematives B, C, Bnd D w,:lh the rollowlng 8s~ump[ions:
• Resetvoit Site No.3 would not be requited hy the additional p,(oje.:ts.
• Demand from the additional projecrs would i;le approximately 4,000 gprn
over a 15-holJe period, thiR demllnd would be split at 70 pen;ent deiivered
w a fakecff point at the intersection of Embarcadero and 8ayshore Rond
and 30 per.::enl deliven.-d [0 &. takeoff point ;/t Peer's Puk.
References
Brown and Caldwell, 1992. Willer Rtclamarion Plan for the Pa.lo Alto Regional Water
Qualify Control Plant, ,A.pril.
CH2M HILL. 1993. Draft Technical Memorandum, Palo Alto Water Redafnatil1n
Program Environmental Screening. Joly.
IOOI2049.RDD 34
,---------~-----~,-
J ..... , M,E, 1984, ~Jiln IIItd (}p6ratlotJ of FilI'7ft Imgat/lJn Syst,r,u,
Socle1)l olA.rlcullWoJ ElIgluom. St, 100tph, MIchipn,
lOOl1{)4I1i.ROD 3S
I
I
l MIcricu
~, ,~ ,
I t~~;
AppeDd'" "
HydrauUc Analyses
The hydraulic analyst;' involved fiyr different evaluations of the preferred pipeline
ioute. a.nd reservoo aite.
The attached input (.IN) and output (.otrr) files art' included for reference. The file
names a:,d 8 brief description arc listed below. Node diagrams follow the asft)C.ld.~ed
file~
FIIeN .. " Deotrl_
PAC.ASEl.IN Que ]:
PACASELOUT Fun ProJcct A Dc:~Jopml!nl
Daytime Op~r.fion
SllInford UDlwnity RC'daimed W.fer Demltr:d of Z.900 gpm
RC6ervoir IV be-fm~ at 480 Jpm
PACASE2.IN C,tiC 2:
! PACASE]·OUT Full Froittt A OClielopr\u:M
NiV-uimC' Opertlion
City Reclam.e.d Wa~.el Dema!1d o( 4.l15 &\.'m ,
PACASElB.1N Casc 3:
PACASElB.OUT Inltilll ProjClI::i A s.tartul'
D.y.,,,,,, 01"_""". ~
Soa.'o,d Un,"c,,'.,. Rec'.,,,,cd W .. " D<m •• ' "f ,,), gpm ,
rACASEA8JN C~\!4;
PACAS~8.0UT 1nl\\l)\ PlOio.~1 A ~taT\ur i
NtghUul\c Opeu.\il1l'1 I
City RC£\ail'l;ed Water Dt1l1ano of2510 ~pnt ,
rACA.">~IN Casco 5.
PACASES.OUT Ulima!e Development of Proj'::Ct!i A.. A!tt'tI\i!ou\'c B, C, ;i~d D
DaytIme Opmuion
Stanford Univcniity Rccl3iMcti Water D .. It\and of ;'.<J(lU y..l"m
ProjectS Alll~rnalh·c a, c. <lnd 0 RCL)atm('d W:.lcr Dr.:!lliLnQ q(
4,0011 gpm ,
IOOll~7t..R"D A-J
~-'I
l' r
i . . • . · · · . . . . . . · . . . . . . :
" 1 -;
I -;! .. : ! i s .!' ! :
~ g " • ~ : i ; ~ " ":
• ! • " ~ ~ ~ • ~ ; ! i ~ s ~ 1 H N ~ ~ :::. • -11 ~ ~ , ! ; .; = : ~i 2 .i ~ S ~ j · ~ Ii · ; ~ ~ fi
~ • i > " • l l i j a:i · . ~ ! ~ • !i i ~ ~ ~;: f .. ~I ~, ~ · ~ 1; § J> .. .i-f ~ g I u ~ a ~ ! . J: 1:1 J &i > {; ). i ~
f &li i ; 5 : -· i
f · -! ~ ~ i ~ § . . • . · · · . . . . . . · . . . .
__________________ ~7lfiii-ifi·.<iif~,.·.-.'.7.-._ ... -~~~ •.• ,~~~-~-___ ... ~~ __ .... "_ ..... _ ... _ ........ --
r
0:
I
d
\0.' ~ I ~ .
H
Ii
II ~ I "' , ., i
db=::
;; C Ie
I j = "1 -
I! ~
~ .
I;C i t
~i i ~ • s --. -. Ii = : CI
il H
;O,*;t8;:1i1~;itt:l!2:s1
0.0 ...... ..; ... ..;. ...... ,013
q~~~t!=!~~'::; o ...... :!o .. !:~:!! ......
~,p;~~:'!'I!:q~~
........... 0 ......... __
OOOI:lOOODoQIO ..
!!~!~8~~~!;
OOOOODOoOOOO
ii:!!:!":!=!:!:!:i~
!UUUHU
~!U§§UUs
.. __ .... ""_a ... llllllla<.milliL·.·~ .. ~!I!::~·i:lW~·~.:~~·_~ .. o;-;_ ... ·-~·~b ... · ,,' _';'~._'~ __ ""'''''~'''aoII'.-';
.. ~:: ..
, • ~ .... '-~. ~
~ ~
" 1 -, • . ,
'*-
,
• 2: , , ~ 1 .\ '"
g,s.~It;c:::&::::~~g
!~~~~~~!!!i!~~
ra~:;:8::::~~~;.!~~:a
~ ~ ~: i i ~ :i ~ ~ ,. r"
;;e~s::tlt;e;~.t::c!;:~g
i~l~S~~~~i~S
~~~!!~8~8f!~~" "'~~~;;:;~.t~~~-
"22222900_0 .....
~C5;~e:~~~~~~0!!=:
00000000.0_'";-
" :
J. -~
,.'
('i 1-;
I
, j
'-.'
< 1,,"1
-' -
~i , i
,
I
I
, 0 '7 " " .. c " '~ >-,~ , " ~
~ ~
~
.1 ,1 !.
~ I
j .J
~ 1/
1 >;
" ,
'I • '-j '>. ~ ~
£ ;.
"'; ...
~
'" ';.-• '., cI:
'"
1 I
;'I "
~r ;:-'"
" 1 -, ~ .
> , ,
~ ~-<,
• ;;{ ,
" 0. .., } • J " ~ ~ , ;1 • ~ ~ 0
'" <
" ~ ~
--:-' t. ,'. , \-
,
0 "
('>~. , ~ 1
~ ~
~ ,
> , ,
'" :'-' ,
;.;
l " n " " '" >; " ... A~ ... ~ ,
t! , .
.. . .. . . .. . .. . " . .. . . . . . .. .
. .. .. . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . .. . .. ..
.! i
...;N . . : :
i I
.
j
0 :; ~ , Ie ~ r -§ ~ I 0 ,-
g 8 .; .,; ~ " ~~ .;
.; .; ~ :. .\ .:. ~ . ~ ~ 7 ~ t'~1!: \! ~ ~ ~ ~ .: : : ... • ~ ~ ~ ~~: ~
I ;; Q. Q Q :;; ;; " i •
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i I ~ ~ ~ ~ • , ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ • · il
~ . ~ ~ ;; • • i
~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ i ~ . -:;
~ ~ !:: '>
$ ~ § ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ • ; ~ ! ~ ~ " ~ ~ • ~ , ~ i1
.
;;
i
" 5
i
"9'~!;J:::;a!l"::it:~88
I ~ "':"'~""";~~~"';";"'i. 2Jil~222 2N~""
~~':I'':-~i~'8:.':;;5t
L :r
s;i:;jli.f-;'~~:i~;e:
r
1= ~~~~~~~~~~~~
.~ !~f§~,';~~:i:~
. ~ g88gg8g8~888
~E "':~t;!~~~Ri!~"';5
~ 888ggg8gg8~.'e
io~;:i~~g';cic:>~Z
I ~ -.-~ .
=~ ~§a§~~!18§;r
.. ';';';';000';';";";-
'Ii ~2~§~~~e~§~i
'iP~~~~:::~~~~~
CII'~~"'~OOO""""'"
45a~~=~;;~8:'7 Qo.ooo.o.,.'':O''':.
~~~~~~:.::~;:;.~
... c:>DO ....... "" ... o .......
,,"OoOOOODOOOOO
~g~~;~~~~;~
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~:!':!.~~:!'=t:!~
. . .
i
[
I·
I ,
[
I
I
[
[
i!
o! ~ -,
J.! 'i ill .
~
,
.!
.: ~ '" 0
j "
~ ~ , ~-!
~
'1
f ~ '" $ 'i'
"" " ( "J • , [. :.),. . " ... , . !' jl" " . l ,
~ ... .} !'-• ~ "" . .. r·
~ ~ ~ e. ;~ ~ ~
• ...
~ ~ ~S'" "-"" 9 ""'
"!o ;-
. . " " ~ .. , -. ~ . " • -:;; ?; ~ <>.' , , 3 • '" ~"')~"
'c:. -;; ~
1 • ,
8
~
" , -.. -.
_0
" •
,
;;
~
l ~ \ N'
• • r ~
1 t ,
~ < I~,
". , • •
Q ~
..; "~
• ," " .~ ;-I • , , ' t < . . , .:'
} . r··
'.
.' 'c-o
"'t ~
" '. .,
'.
'-'. t:: " ..
___________________ ............ n ......... ~"'ii*_~~~~~~~·,~:~
.. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. " .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. . . .
\
!
i
I
I
! .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. . . .
E i
~ ~.-
•= :
i i
~~ ~ ___ ~ _______ ...I!cIIIHIliIi •• rnn!l· 1i·lilal!lllili7I1iillllllil!lli.<-~·~!i'iiZRf'iiiI!j;· ~;Z:oiIi=*I5lIil:il_L:"'
•
"'lllllllt
-
1=
!!
!!
e "-~ :;;
-~ ~
is ~
~
I~ -. · -
: -:I: =~
e • i l
" . _It •
S:.::~::~$jt;;8
~~i~~!!E~~
8.~ Ii!!!! 8.,!!!!!!!
" ............ _ ... ",.0-#0 ___ .... N ......... ~
~:;=i~~S!~JIl~
~ .......... O ... ,.. ......
~:!::: .. 8S=-a~
,;,,:.nio"'ici~
~~~~~~~~~
00 ........... 0 ... ,.. ......
gggg88S88
i§§i';~§§~
OOClOQOC:loOO
~~~!~g!~g
~~~~~~~~~
,~::!~-.o~~~~
:;~ii~i~~~ii ...... ..... ..
!£!§;§~~!C
~!ilJ~§!§~
!~!!~~§e~
~;i. 'It ~~
1'1
'1 • • ~
6 I • • ~ I
3)1
~I -I ~ > • ~ a.
"'i .. , ",I
~I
~ "\I
6 • • c a
~ , ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I .. '.
I
I:
1
~ .
I·
i
j
I
I
I
~ '~
.',
lJ
l:\I
~ !p' ~I " .-J
~ II .-,
I ,i${
'1: ... cq ,<J
'I I
jI .....
~ ;f. '. ~ -J'!' ....
• ~ ! .... "-,;:;,o?
d ... .,
.~ 2
t ~
;
" '-• .... ,
~
~, ~ ... ~. " ""'1 • """ • e
0 ~ ~ , • '~ ......
~
1 JO
~ .... • ~
~ i ~..., • ~
\l --!~
~ " '-_iii.
l ~'
'"
1
!
6
-;
t c. ,
I:
1
.. -,
•
~
-,
'0
~ J
" 3
"-: '" c.. ,
~..,.,.
" ,
",. /'
___ ... R'_os .~ .!t", '
,
I;., ""' 0.
\
'" ~
,
'" '" '"
I'~ i -, • , ,
!
~ J'
-•
\
,',
= .:
: c • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
1
I
I
-• ','" *' • ' ..
?~~!!~§~~~
~~~~§~~§~~
• :!
:
I
I
i
r ;;;
~
w a
~ ~
I
i :
i " . ~
. ~ ~ i!
~
I
I;
~
iii
J:;::~::H;a~1I!;t#2
i~~~8i;i;:;:~ ........ '" .... ---........
#'t:1:::~~!'~~~8
~i~it~e~::ii.
~"'l!";~"'8 ~~tH~~~"~
:~P~l!!~~g~~~~
... 0 ....... --..... 0 .... ...... _""#'oj""' ... ';!
8888888888
i';~o5i5~cio~
~~~~~~~~8.~ .. oo""ooooo~
ggg
~N"
g0<=o:.ooo ",~:it:iI2:IC-
~~!3;~~~~8.~ ____ "'0000
~28;.=S888
o ... ", .. ~...;':oo
:!:;:i:J.!~ ..... gg ..;' ·~c CGO
000000000
g;g~~~a;~
~~~~C!: .. ~'=:~
~~~~of)O~~~
Ii : Lt· ...
-'.~' .. ~~.' ... ~ ..
~----.............. ---
I
• z • 0
i
1
I.
I
I.
i
I
I
i
!
i
I
i
I.
I
I
I
I
I
j
!
I
3 00'
~ .',
•••
,', '
I 1-::
1 ; \ -r
I
I
I
I
L
r
, c • .~. I • , ' •• ~ ~';. ~ ...
.. . . " .. " " ,. .. .. .. " .. .. . .... ..
.. .. . .. .. .. " .. .. . .. .......".
~-
"~----'-'
.tZ -.,
1I:::;:;;:a~"~~;:$g
!ii~~~~~;~~~
~~2;e~~::;,:~.:!:; ~ 0
~ ~ i; ~&S~!~~~~:' ..;~
i"
il ~
:::I:S"~':I~~~ji!;:~8
~£!~iS!~$~2~
-~ ~88g.g&882ggg
~i ";i!i~;;;;i~i~~5'"
! 8a8gggggggg8
';I';';';';§';~';!~
J Q-~~~~~~~§.~~~~ a t a.aooo .... aooo_'!!
~
i iii ~~~§~.§~~~§!~
II ~~Ii;~~i;s:~::~~ ." ....... "" ... O ......... f'II~O · ~~~~~"!~~~~~ B = · ., o~~lta=iI::" .......
~ ~ ~~;:~~~~.~~~~ X~ .............. G ...... .., ... ~_
~~ ;, .. ; g g 82 g g g:8 g:g
g;;iio~@agg!i
~~~~ ~~t:lX1i" .
fj oooooaooooo
~~!~!;~~~!~
~ ~ --A _ ~~9:~~""::"':~C!""::C;
~A:!:!"!!:!:!!!~::::' · ~~8§~§j~!~~ ~ti
!~ :::t ... hi...... ...
: ~ !!BHHHU
I! "'§I!U§l!UU a .,
I -. ~~g!!~§~~!i r ~ i
;:
______ ~ ______ .l'""O::'..,., .. ".:'~
~d
e~
~~ . ~
1 ~
! I
~ .1 Ii,,;
1: ~
~
~ '-i fl.1
~I
~I
~ o • i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
l ~
~
~
J
~
I I
~
i
'I
:jl
~
\>\
\I
~ ,'" ,
i..
'I:
" \ ~ (j .,.
'~
->i
~
" ~ ~
••
..-,
-$ .. -" • ~
I'
!
;!
J
~ ~
~
'<
"-c;
•
t ! i r, <-I n Q.. ~,J ?I L ~T
" ..§. ...,~ ., 'i I: 1: l 1. -= \11 -• ....
! ' -I, ~ .~ ~ , ~ "'-'\ ~ ~ "L
~ rJ~ ~ 1l. c
" '" 1 '-• ... ....! ~ i '-~ f"C'" tt -~~ ... J . '" '"
".
" ,t" ...
~
~
" ~ .,
" ~
'" ~
II
~ t_ , ~ .,
'-'. 1 ;;;:
(...;, ,
~~ ~
,1 ~' \' ,~
'" c " -!
" ~'. ",,~ 001 ~ ..... 'l'-, 05
~>
'-'
,.1 ,
~,
f ,
~ c:... , --:;,
~
'" "... &
,
,
"
?
-" ~ \ ,
I'
I
i , '
r
-
L---___________ _
1-
" ,
.. • ". ; ) t, , ,
'. .~ • -l>-
." .. ,.t:,
,-
~ -< 'c,
=11.
,
~ ",. -,
:
,.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
PALO ALTO WATER REClAMATION PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING
CIlItIHlll
SUBJECr: Pre~EIR Environmental Screening of the Palo Alto Regional
Water Quality Control Plant Water Reclamation Program and
Pl'Oject
DATE:
PItI1PARED BY:
PROJECT,
Augu" 31, 1993
Richard Notton, Environmental Planner
Valerie Young, Environmental Planner
Dave Rlchard5Ol1, Environmental Engineer
Bill Fick. Environmental Engineer
SF034797.ER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this environmental screening is to identify any significant and
unmitigable environmental impacts. or "fatal f1l\W5," that could result frlJrn
implementing the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant's proposed water
reclamation program, This analysis suppll!l!lents R California Environmental Quality
ACT (CEQA) Initial Study thOl was previously prepared for the project. In October
1992. Th~ analysis is intended 10 provide the Palo Alto City Council, its Regional
Water Quality Control Plant partnets. and tht: generai pUblic additIonal information
before the City Council decides whether to proceed with the pte-design work for the
project. If pte-de!iign of the project is, authorized, then an Environmt:ntal !mpacf
Report (EIR) will be prepared to facilitate full environmental review,
The Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (PARWQCP) is prop06ing to
implement a water reulle program for two purposes: (1) to decleRlOe the u')e of
potable water where such high-quality water i!i not needed (e.g,. for use,. such as
Inndscape irrigati()n). and (2) to to reduce the Plant's dischar~ of trented wastewater
to the San Francisco Bay, which would a"i.ilst the PARWQCP in complYing with
\:opper discharge Iimils recently imposed by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
The PARWQCP has developed 8 watet reclaml\tion program that would consist of
the treatment, distribution, storage, and uS(' of highly.trenle-d redaimed water for
landscape irrigation 1'.t Stanford University, city parki. and other large irrigatt:d areas
wilhin fts 5crvice area. The pr(,sram would be phased over time to spread CI15tS. The
first phase would c=nta;1 the development of a pipeline to Stanford UniverSity, the
construction of a storage reservoir in the foothills ur Stanford. Jlnd lile use of
reclaimed water at Stanford and s.everal city parks. This phase ha~ been identified as
'c',
i0;
I
!.o !":,!
IjI)
!ifi
'ti r "
I·
1.,"-
i"
Tl!CHNJCAL MEMOIL\NDUM
Page 2
Au,"" 31, 1993
Project A in tilt, Water Reclamation Mallf:r Plan that was prepared by the
PARWQCP in 1992.
This technical memorandum documenu the environmental screening analysis
conducted for the proposed project. and comi,b. of II disc:usslon of the methr.xkllogy
usedl the various project alternativcs coDlidered., and the screening analysis tesults.
Using e~licit environmentBl review criteria, aval.labJe backgrounfi infOTlua:ion, find
the result$. of several field viajts,. three altematiY/~ pipeline ro'J1es Hod three reservoir
sites were identi6ed and comidered further as f'easible alternativell from an
envirormentaJ standpoint. From these alternatives. a preferre-d pipeline route and R
preferred reservoir site were selected. In addition, operational scenarios and
appliciltion rates developed for engineering des'lgn purposes were used to evaluate
potential water u!ieatelated impacts.
The results of the environmenull screening sugs;est that while consttuction of a
pipeline and roservoir could result in potential I~nvironmental impacts, none of those
impbcts would clearly be significant and unmitigable fot the pipeline route!i and
reservoir ~ites invf>stigated. In addition, because the reclaimed water genemted by
the PARWQCP is highly treated and contains relatively small concentrations of
metals and other constituents, use of the wate, for landscape irrigation would not
pose a threat to human health,
Because of the relatively high concentration of total dissolved soUds (TDS) in the
tteated wastewa'ter, relative to the potable water provided by the Hetch Hetehy
System, appropriate management practices would be necessary to addrts."i the
potential for impacts to soils and vegetation. Such management prl\ctices could
include, for example, controlled application rates, limited application areas, and
poSSibly blending with other water source~. With the proper management and use of
the reclaimed water, potential irnpacl$ to soils and vegetation are antidpated 10 be
mjtigabJe.
Because dissolved solids are not taken up by plants and would be leached through the
root zone, howC'ver, there is some potential for the movement of those constituents to
ground water. Even so, based on the limited analysis performed for this screeninga
level review, it 8_ppears that the potential increallt. in TDS reaching the ground water
would not be substantial enough to constitute 8 SiBnifkant, unmitigsble impact given
the water application rates antiCipated for the ell.tly phase!! of the water reuse
progrem. In addition, because the PARWQCP is planning future mea5ures to
improve the qu,dity of its treated W8!itewater with respect to TDS, increased use of
t~ated wasteWll.ter as the quality of that water is improved should not tesult in
significant impacts to grol.lnd water.
TEC~CALMEMORANDUM
Page 3
August 31, 1993
Based on the environmental scruning-Ievel enalysii performed, therefore l therc are
no apparent fatal environmental flaws associated with the propo&ed water reclamation
progtatn. The screeniIllalevel anal)'lil performed s.uggests that impacts to ground
water would nOI be significant and unmitigabk; although this determination cannot be
drawn conc1u5iveJy until additiona1 analysis is performeU, AJ noted, tbe potential for
impacts to ground water, as wei! 81 othet environmental impacu, will be fun)'
addressed if the project proceew and a full EIR is prepared.
After prcsenting the methodology and general results of the environmental scree,ning
analysis, thj, technical memorandum conclude, with • discussion of fIVC issue:ft.
determined to be of greattst concern to the aty and to the general publiC. These
js.·mes include:
Potential watet use-related impllcts to health, seils, \'t.'gelatJOn. and
ground water
Potcnti"1 impacts rela.ted to the Siting of a I"Cservoir
Potential pipeline constru,tion-re)ated impacts
The potential disruption of existing utilities
The potential for growth indue-ement as a result of the: increased
availability of nonpotable, reClaimed water,
PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW
This section distusseli the purpose of preparing an environmental screening an!llysis
for the proposed water reclamation program and the relationship beTWeen this
analysis and CEQA requirements. This section also provides a general overview of
the need for and components of the proposed water reclamation -program.
Purpose or the EDvlronmental !>elUnlng
The purpose of this memorandum is to present th~ r~sults of an environ!!lental
screening analysis performed for a water reclamation program proposed by the Palo
Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant. The purpose of this ell\'ilonmenta)
screening is to identify any appartnt, significant, and unmitigable tnvironmental
impacli that would clearly relult from implementing the proposed watcr reclamation
-}""
~i t
~; 1
~ ...
"
,.
i',
I~ ,.
TECBN1CAL MEMORANDUM
P"Ilc4
AUJUSt 31, 19!i3
progntm. Such im!"'ct. wouJd bo colllidcred "rat .. 1 flaws" boeRuse they would make
the program infe .. ible .. proposed.
This environmeil1talscreening was designed to st:.j1pl~mcnt 8 California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study which was bcc" prepared for the proposed
program in October 1992. However. because tNt emphasis of the environmental
screening was to identify fatal flaws only, and nul 10 ronduct the analy5is and
documentation ;lppropriBle for 8 full CEQA Em'iromncntallmpact Report (EIR), the
analysis perfomled and presented here discusses in deta.il several key issues only.
Specifically, this analysis focuses on those issues >!lDticipated to be of panicolar
concern to the pubUc and/or issues where there uppenrs 10 be IKlme potential for
significant unmiitigable impacts. The analysis da.~s not addtess in detail those iMues
where the poteuial for significant impacts appeal'S to be minimal, or where those
impacts are e~:cted to be readily mitigated. The appropriate analysis and
documentation for all of t~e!ie issues will be prO\lided in the EJR prepared for the
proposed water reclamation program, should the City of Palo Alto and the other
parterns of the PARWQCP decide to proceed wnh the program.
Overview
The environmental screening analysis addresses g·enerally the entire water reclamation
program propoS4~d by the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant's ]992
Water Reclamation Master Plan, but focuses primarily on "Project A" 85 defined by
the Master Plan, Thi!i memorandum was prepar~d to document the screening
analysis process and re$ults, and consi8ts of the following sections:
A brief projec! df',scriptiun (where ":project" is used as defined by CEQA
to describe both the water reclamatIon program and its related projects)
A discussion of the methodology used in conducting the environmental
screening
• A sUlPmar)' of the project alternatives identified and evaluated
• The results of the screening analy8is
A brief discussion of the key environmental issues (as identified through
the environmental screening process (It known to be of concern to the
general public)
TEClINlCAL MEMORANDUM
P"I\C s
August 31, 1993
PROJECT DESCRJPTION
The Pain Alto Regional Water Quality Controll'lant (PARWQCP). operated by the
City of Palo A1to, provides wastewater treatment and disposal services for the Cjtic,
of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, and East Palo Alto, the Town of I...os: AltOfo
Hills, and Stanford Univer5ity. The P ARWQCP is authorized by the California
Regional Water Quatity Control Board (San Francisco Boy Region) as a generator of
reclaimed water suitable for "unrCltricted" usc. The State of O;lifomia. through its
regolation' (Code of California Regulations. Titl~ :2) hS5 determined that wastewater
treated to the level required for unrestricted Il'..c, which incJudes disinfection and
extensive filtctin~ can be used safely for the i.'riga.tion of food crop$ and ia;ldSC'apell
where humans might rome into contact with the water, such as parH and golf
courses.
This section of the technical memorandum briefly discusses why the PARWQCP ha~
determined that a water reclamation program i5 necessary, and then describe" the
various components of the wat~r reclamation program that it ha:\ proposed to
implement.
Need for Ih. Reuse of ReclaImed WaIn
Recently, the PARWOCP and other water &.nd wa.stewater agenC-ic!i in the San
francisco Bay Area have recognized a growing need to explme, develop, and
encourage the reuse of reclaimed water, for tyro prinCiple reasom.!
Reclaimed water can be used for a variety of bCl1eficial purposes thaI
don't reqUire "potable" water (i.e., walf.T of sufficient quality In bt-used
as drinking w!:ftet). [-'or example, waler used for landscape irrigation
need not be the highcl!it quality, potable water. Because pota.ble waler
supplies are hecaming increasingly limited with the occurrence of
periodic droughts, increasing populations,. and increa5;ng environmentlil
concerns, facilitating the use of reclairued water where less-than
potable-quality water can be used is increasingly being recognized 85 a
worthwhile endeavor,
The PARWQCP, along with most other wastewater treatment plants
discharging to San Fnlnclsco Bay, is UJ1t.1er orden from the Regional
Water Qualhy Control Board to substantially reduce its dischruge of
copper to the Bay, Although the corcentration of copper in the
PARWQCP's treated wastewater is roughly 3 orders of magnimde
smaller than drinking water standards, the concentration of copper in
j,\!
~. .
I) i
... -1
f' ;;11
~.
f.·1
~I
,\j
~
~-..
i -~'l iI
1/ l\ ....
I '
! '~
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Page 6
"'''8''11 31, 1993
the effluent beins put into the South Bay is 'till high enough to
lldversely affect Ihellfisht which are highly sensitive to selected metals
such B5 copper. Beca~ removing more copper from me treated
wastewater ber.omes technically irlfeasiblc. or at best very expenlive,
when the concentrations He a~dy so ~maU. one cost.effective
alternative is to find other uses fCIT the treated wastewatet thllt wollld
not require diSCharging it to the Hay. Thus, uainllOme amount of
hJghly·treated wastewater for use~ such al landscape irrigation would
provide the additiopal bto-nefit of 11Uowing the PARWQCP to teduc.e the
amount of wastewater it discharges to the Bay, and thettby reduce the
amount of copper it discharge!!. to the Bay as wei:.
Ali noted, most other wast~llter trcutment pla,nts. di5charging to the Son Francisco
Blly are facing similar constraints and the challenge to limit discharge~ of coppel', ali
well as other metals and contaminants potentially toxic to aquatic life, into the Bay.
The PARWQCP and neighboring WBstewater (reatment agencies, inciudi'lg SunnyvaJe
and San Jo~e. have independently dete~.1ncd that any successful effOrl to reduce Ihe
tOla1 amount of copper being discharged by e3(~h treatment plant must include a
reclaimed water reuse component. Such progmms will augment other effol'ts, such 8S
WBlite minimization, to reduce copper discharge~ to the levels required by t:le
California Regional Water Ouality Control Board.
The Proposed PARWQCP Water redammtlon program
For the re8Son~ described above, the PARWQCP hall recently undertaken Ii WRter
reclamation program effort, This program C(lnsists of the follOwing three steps:
1. Development of a Master Plan
2. Preparation of pre-program arrang.ements and evaluations
3. Completion of program arrangements and construction of
implementation projects
The PARWQCP completed the first step of this process with the release of iTS Water
Reclamation Master Plan in April 1992, and is now undertaking the Step 2. The
second step involves making initia.l policy and institutional arrangemeJ11S; evaluating
the fintmcial feasibility of the f>iogram; preparing the "pre~design" of the pipelines,
structures, eqUipment, and operational plans thilt would constitute "Project A" and,
more generally, the entire program; and ("onductinl~ the necessary environmental
review for the program,
TECHNICAL MEMOJlANDVM
Page 7
AUg>lSt 31, 1993
As part of Step 2. the PARWocP' is preparing some preliminary infonnation to
prelOCnt to the Palo Alto City Council to help the Council determine wbether to
proceed with implementalion of the program. The preliminary information consists
of the eaviromnental screening information presented by tru. Dlemorandum and
tentative cost C$tUnates and seltcted pre..design enainecring W(lrk that will be
documented by the PARWQCP separately. This environmentalacrer-ning tr.thnical
memorandwn it intended "-' facilitate early environmental review of the program by
both the Palo Alto City Council and the general public.
~ noted. the program considered under this environmental screening efton consist."i
of the cntire water reclamation program proposed by the PARWQCP's 1992 Water
Reclamation Master Plan in general and, in particular, "Project A" as df"fined by the
Master Plan. The Master Plan estahlishc:s H program that provides for the ux of
reclaimed water throughout the service area of the PARWQCP. In laying out this
program. the Master Plsn Identifies potential reclaimed water USC!S and \lSCrs,
dilOcus5es \lser~rel8ted water quality requireme-nts, identifies insti1utional
considerations. and discusses potential f.,J.nding liOuICes.
The program it~lf, as devised through the master planning pTOIr.A!Ii!!i, is to be
implemented through several phase~ and consists of an increasr In reclaimed watt:r
treatment capacity. a water distribution, storage, and use system em:onlp85Sing th~
PARWQCP's service area, and end-uses for the recleimed wat!!r, The rrogram is to
be phased prhnilrily to distribute costs over time and to allow (or the development of
institutional arra.ngements between different jurisdictions as necesS8I)'.
Figure 1 presents th!.'! different projrcts that would constitute the program with retJard
to distribution of the reclaimed water. Figure 2 presents. the ultimatt I>uildout of the
proposed program nnd lists the mos.t feas.ible reuse sites as determined through the
master planning prnce"-'rhe potential reclaimed water uses identified and
eonsidered in the Master Plan include primarily landscape irrigation and, to a less!.'!r
extent. indufOtri&1 cooling. vehicle wO'ihing., and possibly marsh wildlife habitat
enhancement. None of the proposed water uses would entail the jrrigation of
agricultural crops.
AB Figures 1 and 2 illustrate, Project A would estaolish an initial distribution system
and set of water naers. Each SUbsequent project would then build on that initial
~tem Rnd add additional water users until ultimate buHdout of the program with the
completion of Project D. Currently, the PARWOCP has the capacity to treat up to
approximately 4 million gallons per day (IIlgd) of 'Ir,,-stewatc:r to the level necessary f ... 1T
use &!I nn unre!;tricted reclaimed water wurce. Upon implementation of Project A.
approximately 5 IIlgd of reclaimcd wattr would be produced and delivered for use on
, '
I'
I I,
!1
TECHNICAL MRM(lRANDUM
P"l!"S
AUgu .. 31. 1993
the overose day during tb. peak water use mOllth. Uf". full Implementation 01 tho
progrom. opprOJdmately 9 myd of reclaimed w.ter would he proouced .nd delivered
for use under the same conditions.
The PARWQCP already has in place a reclaimed water treatment facility. lI1creasing
the capacity of tlUs facility would involve relatively minor modifications 10 th~ plant,
such 8S adding new filters Bnd pumps. but would not require lubstan\ial plant
8ltcrBtion~ or c:om:truction. Therefore, lubJlantial physical changes to the
environment that 1NO\l1d occur during impJemenl8ticIn of the waler reclamation
program would indude the taying of distribution pipelines. 1he placement of pump
stations as necc5s8ry to move the water, the construction or modification of water
irrigation systems tit reclaimed wate" Ule sitts, and the construction of at lcast one
r!':c1aimed water re.'Jervoir. In addilion, changes to the environrnent could occur over
time as B result of ,applying lreated wastewater to the IQnd. The reclaimed water
reservoir(s) required for the program would mOS/. Iikc1y be 8 tank placed on ground
surface or panially underground, as dictated by ~,ite constraints atld system
operational needs such as hydraolic pressufe requirements. The ultimat'! extent of
pipelines, pumps, irngetion systems., and I'cservoirs would be determined as the
phased program is implemented and the fipal pipeline TOllte!) and water users Brc
identified.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING METHODOWGY
The pipeline routes and water use sites illustr8t(~d on Figures 1 and 2 were proposed
through the ma.ster planning process, bot have not yet been finalized. The purpose of
this step in the PARWOCP's program deveJopr.llent process, as discussed above, is to
finalize the pipeline route and water user .. itea: 10 be developed undu Project A and
to perform the nece5sary project-level environml~ntal review for Project A. In
addition, the environmental review will look more generally at the entire water
reclamation program.
Environmental S(reenln& Prior to i'ull Environmental Review
In order to allow for final consideration of the proposed program by the Pillo A1to
City Council prior to the program's implementation, preliminary work has been done
to identify JeVetal &Jternative pipeline routes and correspondins water use sites for
Project A. In addition, several preliminary alteri!I&lives for Siting a reclaimed water
reservoir have been ~dentified. UsinS these prcUminuty alternatives, a preferred
pipeline route, reservoir site, and operational scenario (including 1,I,er sites, wa.ter
movement and storage. and application rates) he.ve been identified. Bnd constitute a
'* altuM " 'IWQOP
-&aftZ&'"
PROolECTA
-(lI-__ V __
III OM.y _____ ,... .... --
PROJIECTD
--
MNcia t """*"
'AI'II<
~ ..
,ARK
L~
.AIII<
Figure I Altern .... PrOj<>Cts
~-~~: .. ---. .,.:. '"::--
,
j ~~ hi i II} t tl
I ..
IS" I! .;:
I m
5 'n iii' I <>
fij
I I !
h ;;:
I ! I ~ ~
~ !
i II " co u::
~ &
IH I il II III ...
I
..• --
I
'" ...
",
'" n .,
Y1 ...
'" .. .. •• n
'" ~
>'1
'" ..
'" = '" ,. ... ... ... ., .., ..
YO
UI:I
(
r
•
\
~--?
/
-~~<Iii--
-' , " -~ . ,
I
I,
I'
I~
TECHNICAL MEMORAlliDUM
Page 13
AIlJUSI 31, 1993
more refined venion nf Project A OS proposed in the Maiter Plan. Finlllly, Ih ...
preferred componenti. of Project A have been eva!t,l8.tcd at an environmental
screening level to determine whethor tbel't; ace an)' fllw environmental tt.~
85l1.oclated wilh the proposed project In addition 1.0 this environmental M-reeniog
information, ensineering desip and project COlt information is beini prepared for
City Council oonsideraticm and will be documented separately.
The remainder of this Kction briefly describes the methodology used to identify
alternatives for the various project components. to select the preferred project
cOlnponents, Hnd to evaluate tho!it: components for fatal flaws.
Identlftcatlon, Selfetlon, and Evalu9tlon or Alternatlv.s
The PARWQCP and the City of Palo ~to determined that it would be appropriBte
to identify and considc-.f a range of rCllSOnable pipeline routel, storagt reservoir si;e~~
and reclaimed water use site:o beyond the components identified as Project A in the
MaSiter Plan to en!iure that the best aJl~8round project is detinel1 with regard to botT;
envitonmental and engineering t'Qncerns. In addition, this effort to identify ;:nd Kleet
nppropriate altetnati'Ves will provide valuable documentalion for the altemative$
analysis thai will be I'equired, jf and when the water re-dentation program ill $pprovt~d
by the Palo Alto City Council and the full EIR is prepared.
Accotdillgly, environmental planners, scientists, and engineen worked 8i an integra1cd
team 10 perform the following tasks:
•
•
•
Define criteria that could be used both to identify and select tJroject
alternative$ and 10 evaluate the preferred a.lternatives
Consult 8S necessary with the City of Palo Alto, other membt r cities of
the PARWQCP, state and local agencies, and Stanford University to
collect information and identify pIOje~t constraint:>
Conduct reconnaissance-level field vi",its to identify potential
environmental concerns related to pipeline routes~ reservoir sites, Hnd
wafer use
Develop pipeline route and reservoir site alternativl:;J, ba~d on the
criteria, background ,information, and site visits noted
Select preferred pipeJine route and reservoir site alternatives, based con
the cnteria, background information, ahd site visits noted
'I
~c ,i
~:
ft.,
),
;;"ii
~,
~I ti f
t!.
'"
j,
\:
I¥
TECHNICAl. MEMORANDUM
Page 14
August 31, 1\93
• Evaluate the preferred vipc:Jine route and reset"Oir lite alternatives for
lata! flaws. based on the criteria, background jnformtltion. Bild site \'isits
noted
As the lattcr Itep' were performed, thc initial enviwnmental SCI"eMini criteria
K1cntif-eQ under the first step were expanded and rt~fined. The final set of ct'itena
used are presented in Table 1. ]n a..:ldition to pipeline and r~lervoir siting crit<;;nll.
three more glloeral criteria relsting to the uSC find operation of the redaimed water
!System we-ce identified, as pres~ntc.d in Table 1.
Several field visits were conducted by the project team to identify potential pipeline
routes B.nd re!.t",oir site1 that would meet the criteri':! listed on Table 1 and that
would sAtisfy engineering design requirements. The key element! of the project that
are ftx:ed include the location of the trea1mtnt plant itself and the need for Stanford
University to be the principal water user. 'fM components 0( Project A for which
alternatives call be identified, therefore. include the pjpelin~ route lIelected to take
water from the plant to Stanford University and the exllet location of the rcselvoir
site within tbe western, higher area of Stanford Unwcnity. Because potential
reclaimed watel' users be~idC!i Stanford Univenity Include primarily large irrigated
areas such 8S ci ty parks, the number of additional usen; pllt on the !iY8ttITl is largely a
function of the mlIin pipeline route selected and the opportuni\ics to fun ft:c\1t!r lines
from that main iine.
The participation of Stanford Unlve.rs\t)' in the progratl, is particularly important
hecause of the potentially large amount of acreage available for Irrigation lJ!;ing
reclaimed water. In addition, because 8 primary purpOfre of the storage reservoir
would be to provide hydraulic pre.ssure throughout the distribution ~y~'em. the best
location for the r.~ervoir would be at a relatively high elevation, such 8S at the base
of the Stanford f(lOthiU~ west of Junipero Serra Boulevard.
Because jurisOktion over land uses within the Stanford campus helongs to Stanford,
the University Planning Office conducted its own siting analysis to identH'y potential
reservoir sites. The Planning OffICC prepared thi, anal),sis. using its own
environmental and (and development criteria a.nd tak.ing into oonf;idt'·f1:I.tion the
engineering dCi'sn reqUirements for the project. The results of this a.nalysj" H(e
presented in 8 mer.norahdum prepared by the Planning Office~ whic;h is included as
Appendix A to this tethnical memorandum. In order to more fully ttddress the
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Page 15
August 31, 1993
n~' = JlIIri""' .... ta1 s.n.nlIo. Crtterla
'PAIlWQCl" 110<111_ V .. .".........
'PIpoIlne Roate .JIII The distribution pipeline route atld resclVOI.r Ale .hould be
Re .. no!r Site selected lu(:h that the ')'Item at t whok: I
Seleetlod Crtterla · Maximizes the number (and tt~tal area) of potential i
t!:c1aimed water UK !lites t\'tat can easi!y k-rtnched I
by the diltribution pipeline I
Minimitts. constnKtion-fclated traffic imp':If;Ui I ·
· Minimizes irnpac\Ii 10 Jarge street ttees ,
i
· Minimizes community disr.;p1ion during construction
· Minimizes downtown business disrupt lOti cUliflg
con:i.ruction
· Avoids to the extent p.."156ible sensitive land USe areas
during con5truC1ion (e.g, hospitals)
· Preserves wetlands~ creeks, and ripanan areas
· Avoids known and i.\is~cted cultural rewurCes
• Minimizes aiSfllption of other utilities -Watu Use Criteria The rtclaimed water use system should be desIgned and
operated such that:
· Potential impacts to human ~lth, if any, art
mininmed
• Potential impacts to soils Bnd planfs, if any, art
minimized
• Potential impacts to surface and/o" groundwater
quaJity. if any, are minimiv:d
,i~
't.
~
i l
(.
I
j
".: .
"
I"
I
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Pose 16
Aueust 31, 1993
pot e nti81 for impacts to biological resources in siting the ftJelVoir, a l'eparate
reconnausancewlevel site visit and evaluation was performed by CH2M HILL 'The
lc-chnical mt:mofandum prepared to summarize thiJ bioJogir..al resources evaluation is
included a. Appendix B.
Based On the criteria, engineering considerations, project constraints, and Stanford
Univenity siting analysis de.rn"bed. three alternative piptdine routes and three
alternative: Tesel"Yoir lites 'Were &elecled for cv;aluat.ion. Thc:se alternatives 8ft:
presented and described in more detail in the following 5m:tion. Using fhese Slime
criteria and considerations, tbese project components were then more thoroughly
evaluated and a preferred pipeline route and res.!rvoir site were sr,Jecled. This
preferred route and site are also prosented HIld discussed in more detail below. In
addition to addressing these project alternotivc:s, pl'eliminary calculations were made
10 determine application rates and other reclaimed water maoagement requirements
(e.g., blending) that would be necessary to avoid liignificEtnt, adverse, use-related
impacts to the environment.
Environmental Screening Analysi.
The development and use of explicit screening criteria to consider a. vRriety of
alternatives and more thoroughly evaluate 8 limited set of feasible alternatives
essentially constituted preparation ~f the environmental screening a.nalysis. In other
words, the screening analysis was effectively performed In identifyins and evaluating
the set of fea!.ible project alternatives, and the preferred alternative pipeline route
and reservoir site wert: selected based on the results of that analysis in conjunction
with engineering design CI ;teria to a.void fatal flaws. The final work performed in
completing thl! environmental seruning effort. therefore, was to prepare a mutrix
pre~nting schematically the results of the analysis and a discussion of the key issues
raised. Th~5e maletial5 are presented in the final ~ection of thi!! technical
memorandum.
PROJEC)' ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives Selected ror Further Consideration
Figure 3 iIIu5trates the three pipeline routes and th.lee reservoir s.ites identified for
further consideration through the process described above. The alternative pipeline
routes include r,he East, Central, Bnd West Rout~s., as well IlS two additional routes
(reated by combining the East and Central Routes (e.g., fOllowing the Ea~t Route
from the treatment plant to Peers Park: and the Central Route from the Peers Park to
'" r,;...,
'<" "'v~
". .. '
~
_/".
'. ,.
)
" _" •• ~. ro' 00
f1"
/'
/
1-
<,
o
('C.
(~~.
4,
POSSIBLE Rr:$~YOIF1 !1ft. NO, 2
v
~ ... ~
~:3 9f03H97.EN
-;.r;---(t~~;:':'..'~;-";"'~"\
'I" :;~'J ~':;;~~ii:
F
, .
-',_ 'v~
7"
/
Wllil'!ll
WEST ROlHE.
CENTRAL ",E~AAEO
ROUTE
E..,ST ROUTE
[':'::~=-:1 REUSE SITE
~/
./
•• n 0 tn.. h •• ~.n
~~ ...........
INII[ tIN'~ 'M, ... 114
~lfTlO.l'E ~1IT'JMCIM...f II'»O(:uTl:""
Al':f"AOOI.Qu.¥",,~
-, "·,.A
FIGU~E ~
, ,
>a:: « z
~
ALTERNATIVE PIPELINE ROUTES 1-'
,"ALO ALTO '¥a.STEwATEA RECLAMATION W
PROJECT A Q!
-I aQlHIll. 0..
.. ~
I ,
-:~
v: I
'.-.",.
,
" "' « «
"' ~
f w '" ... ... ... 8 ~ il in
'" • "'''' '" '" ... ...... ... ~
'" ~8 '" ::>
'" '" w
;0 "'" w '"
I I
"-
i
, ,
I I , , I
J I I u
\-
------.. • • • •
' .
. ,
,~,
L>-'",
"
f
I
___ .c.
'" 0 z
~
'" (5
~'
" " w
'" '" ro
'" '" 0
"
-,
c-,<
S
A~\fNIWm?ld
"
0 z J w
" '" { ~If '\ ",0 z ffi~ ~ ~'" ,
i woo
"'''' " '" 0 •
~
i
1'ECIINICAL MEMORANDUM
Pasc 19
AUgu&1 31, 1993
Stanford UniveRlty). The thttJe reservoir lites include an open area near the comer
of Campus Drive Welt and Junipero Serra Boulevard, an open area 8crOli Junipero
Serra from Stanford Avenue. and a smaU abandoned quany lite near the cotner of
Junipero Serra and Page Mill Road (tho .mallor of tho Iw<l quarry .ite. in Ihe
vicinity). Each of the three !lites as mown of Figu~ 3 repreJ.Oent 8 gen~rallocalion
and not necessarily the precise location where J. reservoir WO'dld ultimrstely be placed.
AI illustrated on FiguTe 3, the alternative pipeline routes have been defined to foHow
specified .treets for evaluation and coit-estimating pwposes. In some stretches of the
altemative:: routes identified. such as the portion of the East Routt extending
southeast from Bayshore Road along Colorado Avenue, the route as shown would
likely be the fi"sl foute for practical reasons. Because the location of undetgr(lund
utilities have not yet been fully inveslig8lted, however, some amount of flexibility in
defining the final route may be necepssary, especially wi1hin smaller rOEldwa~.
Nonetheless, modifications to the routes noted would be relatively minor. involving a
shift of One to scveral hlocb, and would not sut>&tantiallv affect the rcsults of thj,
environmental screcning ana1ysis.
It is unticipated that all pipelines except tho~ leading directly to the. reservoir find
user sitelt would be ple.c.ed within roadways adj8C\!nt to exis.ting utilities IlilJch th<J.t
those existing utilitics art': not disturbed. &!cause of engin~erin8 and rcgulatory
requirements pertaining to the conveyance of water in gene!"",) and reclaimed water In
particular, the trenches required would be approximately 3 to 4 feet wide snd
approximately 10 feet deep on average. The actual depth could vary, however,
depending on site conditions along the selected pipeline route. These specificatians
aft"! typical for water distribotion pipeline~, though in some instances deeper than
what is necessary for potable water lines and other utilities.
Prererred Alternatives
Having identified a range of alternatives (or further considei8tion, a preferred
pipeline mUle and reservoir site wert': ~clected to represent Project A. This route and
reservoir si:e, along with anticipated water dij,tribution, storage, ftnd use &$SumptiGns,
win be u.~t:d to genenlte preliminary project tost es1imates for thto design.
construction, and operotion of Pruject A. The PARWQCP currently anticipiltes that
this version of Project A wiU be presented as the propos-ed project to be: wmpleted
through eltgineering pre-design and to he give:n fuU cnvinmmental rt-view in an EIR
"Ine final tomponents of Project A that are ultimately adopted and evaluated if! the
EIR may differ somewhat. however, per.ding llircction provided by the Palo Aim City
Council and any necess.ary modificatioll5 identified during the more detailed
enginul'ing design and environmental review work to come.
,
!
~
I
TE<.."IINlC\1, MEMORANDUM
Po~ 20
August 31, 1993
Using the rmiew and lClection procell deacribcd above. the untra) RO\lte WBS
~Iectcd u tile preferred pipeline route, 8S noted on Figure 3. h with the other
routes, thil ItnJte would I8tiafy cnsfneering design requiremt:Qu and would grmetally
meet aU of the environmenltll slting CriteriR p .. sentedin Table I. Relative to the
other potenti.~ route., however, the preferred route would have the added henefit.
of:
Maximizina pott:ntiul \lie lite", includjns especially Rilloonada Park
Repl'c5enting t.he Sht:lrtC$' pipeline distance: considered (85 measured by
linrBr feet), and thereby minimizing the tola1 amount o[ community
diliruption
Avoiding concentrated commercial/husiness dirstrict areas
Avoiding both San Francisquito and Matadero Creeks
It should be noted that Greer Park, IOC8t~d at the corner of BS)'5hore Road ana
Colorado Avenue, already receives PARWQCP reclaimed wtlter for landscape
irri~ation via an existing pipeline, This park wouki not be serverl by propm.ed Project
A and, therefort, would not count toward use sites made available by u~ing the East
Route in its entirety.
Also using the review and selection process dC!lcribed ahove, the reservoir bite near
the corner of Junipero Serra and Page Mill Road, referred to 8S the SmaJi Quarry
Slte, was selected as. the preferred reservoir site, Altbough tht reservoir site ncar
Campus. Drive West was presented as 8 potential terminus {or thr Wcst alld C~n'tal
pipeline route!!.. u~ of this site could result in fIIubst31ltial impacts to the California
tiger salamander because of its proximity to Lake Lagunita (see Appendices A !lnd
8); this site was not considered funher as a 'Viable alternative. Both the Small Quarry
Site and the site tiM.! Stanford Avenue, however, are at an adequate elcvation and
would be gentraUY HC("..r;ptsb)e to Stanford University. The Small Quarry Site w\Juld
offer ~verH.J 8,;tditiona) 8dvantBges over the Stanford Avenue Slle, rlisking it the
preferred alter,1ative.
The Small Quarry Site ili further removed from Lake Laguni<a than
Stanford Avenue and thus minimizes to the extent pOSsible the
disruption of biological reM)urces, inr:luding primarily the California tiger
&alamander (.ee Appendix B).
TECHNICAL MEMORA.'mUM
Page 21
AUjU,t 31, 1993
• The Small Quarry Site would n01 Ix! visible from ttaveUw roadwa)'5 and
therefore could be ploced a_ ,,,>ODd rather ,han bting bu<lc:d. As
diBcuued in AWCfidix A. Stanford TJnivenity would request that IllI)'
reservoir placed witltin a blJItJy vi,it'" orea be partially 0< completely
burled to minimize visuoJ impacu, Use of the SlDan Qumy Site ,""uld
thua minimize the disruption to subsurface geology and fIOils, as well as
greatly reduce the potential (Pta of collltTlltting the rescnooir.
In addition to ~lectjtlg It preferred pipeline rolJt'~ and reservoir lite. a tr.ntative range
of water application fateS for Project A. including primarily Stanford University, hav('
heen cblculated to t1S&e1S project costs and determine design reqlJirements. This
range of application rates has been used also t'" tvaluate the potenfial (or u,'ater u~e
rdated impac.ts to ~oils, planti, an!;} surface and ground water quality,
Alternatl.e. Not Considered
In addition to the pIpeline routes iIlustraied on Figure 3, a variety of other pottlltial
routes were conliidered early in the environmental screening proce~!i, For examr!e,
consideration was gjven to placing the pipeline above ground within 'he Matadew
Creek rlsht·o(-way in order to minimiK community and tra{flC a""ruption'Oo_ These
variou& alternatives wefe quickly disqualificd bccau.~ they would clearly rel.uh in
uno.cccptable environmental impacts or unnecc.~ss8ry engineering difficultie.!l, or a~ in
the case of the Matadem rOute, would not be fea,ible for ill$titutional r~a!K)ns.
Similerly, a variel)' of resef'\'oir liites were Cl1115idercd, including tne sites docutnt!nled
by the Stanford Univefflity Planning Office ($ce Appendix B). but were not considered
further for heing marginal sites or unnecessarlly problematic.
RESULTS OF THE SCREENING ANALYSIS
Although the environmental screening was designed primarily to yield preliminary
project review information for the Palo AltO City Counc:i~ it will also serve as D
foundatioo for the EIR thai will be preparltd if the project proceedr. 10 the pre-de!.ign
stage. For thi6 reason, the analysis was structured to conform closely to the CEQA
review place,s, The products of this anQlysi~ wefe an r.nvironmental screening matrix,
designed to illustrate the overall results of ~hc rntire screening ~naly~is, Bnd s more
detailed review of selected iMues. The screening matrix and a discussion of the
general resolts. of the screening analysis are presented below.
TEC1INlCAL MEMOllANDUM
rage 22
August 31, 1993
Environmental Sereenlne M.trIx
In conducting the envirorunentallCJ'Ce1ling. the various environmc:ntal Issues
articulated by lb. CEOA Initial Study check1l.~ .. provi<led In !he State CEQA
Guidelines. were consolidated into general categoriee. For CX8mple, potential impacts
related to grot. aubttructures, loilfi, topo8l"aphy, unJque geologic fe9turcs. soU
erosion, beach erOSion, and geoJo&ic hazards were addl'eMed under the single heeding
"earth," In some case" the general categories used in the CEQA checkJist were
modified to better fit the proposed water reclamation program. This consolidation
was done to reflect the preUminary lind overview nature of the environmental
5crecning cffon.
The general environmerltal categories. provide a format to evalu8(c the various weter
reclamation program and Project A components. Figure" presents the relluJts of this
evaluation. The environmental categories arc arrayed along the horizontal axis of rhi~
matrix. 'The program Rnd Project A "project" e1ement5 evaluated are listed on the
vertical axis in c.hrono1ogice,l otder, For example, the reclaimed water 'Would be first
generated at the PARWQCPt dislrihuted along aIle of several pipeline route", !Itored
ftt One of 5everal res.ervoir siks, lind then used to irrigate a number of use sites.
Additiona1 water convqrance and water ust projects would then be added over time
to complete implementation of the entire program. Several of the project elements
nmed on the m~'rix, therefore, conespond to the larger program, Including the
treatment, general distribution and storage, and gencr:al irrigrl1ion elements, wbile tht!
remaining elements correspond fipecificalty to Project A. Because it was ultimL1tely
disqualified for not being a viable alternative. the Campus Drive West reservoir site is
not included on the screening matrix,
Using the screening criteria and methodology detailed in the above sections, the
project elements were evaluated to determine whefher they had the potential to result
in significant environmentsl impacu. A5 illustrated by icons on Figure 4, one of three
possible conclusions was reached for each environm.ental category luth a.s "earth" or
"air ," including:
Implementation of the project clement in question (including
oonstruction and/or operation) 'Would clearly have no potemial to relull
in a significant impac!
• Implementation of the project element could have the pQtcntial to
result in one or mare lignificant impacts. but those impacts. appear to
be mitigable
-....
PROJECT A J SmfllUfd AWl' ---
S"".~ .... ,""""
Us,,:
Sl4nford ItrigsltOfl
U:JB:
~~_Ct.!."~rk ""giJlion
CEQ,,-CHEC~t.lST CATEGOFn
OIO/O/O/OIO/O/O/O/OiO
~1()!()IO+()I()lctIOIOIO/()
() () Ie) 0 I ciTe) e) 0 010 let
()ict/e)!O/e)/ctict/OiOIOI()
()lct/()I()I()iOI()/OiO/Oi()
~~1-() I() !() 1
0 Ie) 191 0 _(0 I~ ~JO -f!_,~}2+~()jQJ~19~0
() t~)J~T~-! O_I .. ·~··~ .. g-t. ~L. QI 0
~t~l. ~J. ~-l .. '~~~.-<-i)i. ~919 __ C!
()IO!()!()iOIO!O!O!()LO 01
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
-,-------.,,-------,--
fAflTH TAAN5POfiTAT/()AI ~ N" _ppe'9'11 JIb,,,,," .. 1 to! (i.()lug~ S€IIk. S{I"UI'.M!y
PUOL/C SERVICES 4 utUTJES
AIR f'(k4, f'"., St::hooil. Pill"" s.",,'.
A,r Ovtt/JI~ Odols WJlM/. 1'1111."". (,;0'. ~lfrC
WATEJ~ POPVUUlON & HOUSIf.X~
Orlfln.~. kj'i1f~r (1rrr:lud'"9 G'oWfflI~rT'IMl'
(SuriaL'" II (i,ounliwd/Pr Q~If\<J
EiNfAGy" Nl',TURAL RfSOURCf,.';
PLANTS & ANIMALS
HUItAANl-lfA!..rH
LAND USE COfJPJI,f(Slt.ITY
Noi~II, /../f}h/ & GI~. iAl1d U~t'. CULTURAL RESOURCfS
P/lMt/!., AIt .. :l''IItllC''
FIGURE 4
~) ilorolllC:ant,,"""'OOI""nutl .. ~, ..
ct •
J'atton;q!i tOl &IQ .... 'lCIIfl!
eo'\",,~m\ptL\Ii
CIe,. j)(I1«II1.II1IQI IIgl'IIl.:"'"
lI/1o'1'\&1.gltbhl IInwonmorlUl"~
PALO ALTO REGIONAL WATEI~ OUALrT'Y CONTROL PLANT
RECLAIMED WA1'EA PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL SeRE-EKING IAATRIX
BF034711,EA.02
j +
TECHNICAL MEMOllANDUM
POll" 25
August 31, 1993
Imrlementation of Ih~ project clement would clearly have tbe potential
to result in one or more lignificant, unmitipble impiCU
If it IlPpeaU that \\ given project element would clc.aJly have \h~ rote-Dtml \0 tewlt in
one or more .ignificant, pnmitipble environmental irnpacm. aJ determined tJlI'Ough R
acrec:ningpJeveJ rMew. then that potential for impacu would be considered a fatal
flaw to the projt!Ct Il& proposed. An effort to rt:aJOD&bly 8IIeU and descn'bc th~
potential for significant impHd$ WlU made in order to provide fuU disclosuTC and
disc:uSJion both for Ihis environmeQtsllK'runjng and uttimately the full EIR.
Nonethclesi, because the principle purpose of this environmental screening matrix
W8! to identify fatal tlawt only. specific and detailed analyse«. of all of the impacts that
might fCiult from the entite project have been deferred to the EIR.
General Condu.lons
The kinds of impar:u thai are anticipated to rel\llt from the construction and
o~ration of the various clementi of the wllter red9rnation program can be divided
into three main group&' including. the (ollowing.
~l!...W!led to pipeline construc!io.n, These impacts would include
the compaction and/or disruption Ijf soils, dust generation, increased
erosion potential. land use distuption (including primanly Dedse). traffic
impflcts, impacu to underground utilities, and potential Impf\cts to as
yet unidentified cultural resources,
Impacts related to reservoir £1l.!lill.1&tiQu, ~ tunently envisioned, only
a single reselvoit proposed Wi part of Project A would be required (or
the entire program, In addition to the impacts noted for pipeline
construC1ion, the construction o( 81 reservoir could result in the
disruption of wildlife habitat, land usc: rompat;tilit) conflicts (primarily
visual impacts.), and mote generally llnpacts to recreational ll!le of \he
Stanford University foothills.
Impacts related to the use of reclairucd watg. Water use impiI(\s hen
been eva-lusted primarily in terms of u&c at Stanford Ul'!iveniry •• 5 the
largelt potential single water user, but \IJOuld be gcnltTB~ty simiiar at the
city parks also 1... csignatltd as potential we silt$. These types of impact!ii
would relate primarily to a potential for increased salts. metals. and
other reclaimed water con't~tuentl to entltr soils. ncarby surface waters.
and groundwaters underlying the user sitlts. The5C' constituents could in
T1!CIINICAL MEMORANDUM
p ... u
AUJlUl't 31, 199J
turn advenciy affect turf grail and other landscape vegetation and the
OYeraU quality of lurfaC(! and gl'oundwaters.
Based on the environmental screening anBlyrJs prrformed for this project, as
described above and as ilJUltrated by Figure 4, several general conclusions can be
drawn regarding potential environmen"l ifflpacts.
• 'lbere appear to be no large,. program or Iprcific: Project A oomponentll
that would clearly have thr. potential to result iu dgnifict'lnt, unmi\\gab1e
impacts Or, as defined above; no apparent fatal environmental flliWl.
All of the VArious proposed pipeline roules could potentially re~uh in
the SlIme kinds of impact!i tel roughly the lame degree. Similarly. the
impacts r~Jated to the proposed storage of water would be !'iimililt
lICro5S alternative reservoir ,itcs, and the imp(l"tl related to the
application of water would be roughly similar across the various use
sites. This similarity across alternatiVes 1& altiibutablc: to the fact that
the various atterna\ivel-were aU selected spedflall1y to minimize
c:nvironmcntal impacts 10 the extent possible, AJtknugn i.here is enough
variation to select preferred alternatives, as discussed in the alternatives
section above, these differenceJ are not latge enough to Ilppear on the
scuening mAtrix at this level of detail.
• EJ..=c.liu5e substantial modjfications would not be rc:quired for the'
"ARWQL"'1' 10 Intresle its reclaimed water treatment capaCity. this
element would not have ~he potential to tesult in !l!'ly significant
fnvironmental impacts.
Because of the relatively limited nature of the constroction prejects and
the relativelY hmited amount of energy requited to treat and pump the
water, the reclaimed water program as H whole would not have the
potential to re~ult in a significant increase in the usc of natura!
resources or energy.
Because of the high level of treatment thai the reclaimed watet must
receive before it can be applied io! I&ndscape irrigation, as discused in
more detail below, use Qf the rec1aimC(i water 81 proposed would not
have the potentiEtI to pole a ligniflC80t impact to human health.
I I
I
I-
'I1!CIINICAL MEMOIlANDUM
Page2?
Au,,,,, 31, 1993
KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Having coDli.idered the YBriOUI a.~pects of the proposed PARWQCP water reuse
program at an environmental-sauning level of review", five key envimnmen181 iss;;ll.":$
have been identified Etl warTanting particular attention. The&!! issues were identified
in considering the s.cttening analyst&. results and concerns regarding the project that
htlYe been expressed by the gt!l'lllral public. The key iuucs are identified and
discussed here in decreasing order of importance.
Us. or the Redalmed Water ror Irrigation
Members of the general public have exprciised a number of conet:'ms with the
percei .... ed potential for impacts to human health, soils, plants, and water quality in
gt"utrlli ali. a result of the use of reclairnt"-d water for land!i.Cspc irrigation. A Kparate
techniClli memorandum Rddressing these concerns provides mme detail than
pre~ented here, atld is included as Appendix C to this memorandum.
Hu""m Htoll" Concuns
]n general. publiC health concerns regurding the use of redaimed wat(':r r(':18t(': to t!le
potential for the preKnce of elevilted constituents such as sailS and heavy mt"tali, as
well 85 microbial pathogens, in the waler. Table 2 pteKnts the quality characteristics
of the reclaimed water from the PARWQCP and, fot comparative purposes, four
citi~s in the United States that operate urban r(UK: programs. Also !ihown are the
national drinking water standards (nr the constituents found in the reclaim~_d water.
Palhogms
With regard to the control of pathogens, the California Department of Health
Services (DHS) established the Wastewater Rl!damation Criteri& that are
promuJ8ated in eCR Title 22. The criteria establiliih le .... els of treatment reqUIred !"or
the reuse of redsimed water based on the intended end use. These DHS reculations
arc intended to address public health issues related to exposure to microbial
pathogens. The principal pathways of c:tpOsure considered by DHS were ingestion
and inh[,lation; skin contact is not consitJeted to he a significant p.llthway fot
patbogens to enter the body.
When the intended use of the rec1t1imed water is for irrigation of parD. school
grounds. golf COut&es with hOURS along the fBiIVfB)'S, and other ateal with similar
publiC exposure, the treatment :evel must be appropriate for 5uch unratricted
nonpotltble reUBe. This level of reclaimed WAter treatment is the most stringent in the
I
\
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Page 28
AU"'"t 31. 1993
United Stal ... and reqlliro. tIIat the wal.t he adequately axi<Wed, coaflUJated.
clarified, fDtered, and disinfected (0 achieve a medii'll total colifomt level not
exceedillB 2,2 MPN pe' 100 mlUili...... In addltion, DHS typically require. that the
t\U'bidity of "he wastewater following filtnfltion and prior to dilinfer.tion be oonsUtc:nlly
helow 2 Nn), The criterion of 2.2 MPN per 100 milliliter> of total coliform i5 .1>0
commonly used 8S an indicator for aU pathogens within the wastewater because
treating the "''8&tewBt.er to &.utb n high degree generally reduces other pathogens to
levels safe for the intended usc of the water. The reciaif11cd water deljvered by the
PARWQCP iT; treated 10 this level, and usc of the water for landscllpc: irrigation does
nOl pose a substantial thleat to human hoaIth.
Olher Con.sn·lUtnLf 0/ Concem
A .. nmed in the project overview above, a secondary benefit from the proposed water
reclamation program would be 10 reduce the amount of copper di~chflrged to the San
Francisco Bay. Copper restrictions have been developed because ~hellfil!h and other
aquatic life in the B~y are highly sensilive to copper. Even 'hough the PARWQCP
must reduce its discmuge of copper 10 the Bay to comply with these restrictions,
however, the conc~ntmtion of copper in its reclaimed water is still two orders of
magnitude smaller than the federal drinking water standard for copper, as noted on
Table 2. Similarly, the c.oncentrations: of other heavy metsls in the: Regional Plant's
reclaimed water are consJstently below the corresponding drinking waler standards,
often hy two or three otdl'-fIi. of magnitudf:,
Of all the constituents present, onJy nitrate at 20 mg/J is higher than the
cortespooding national drinking water standard of 10 mglt. This constituent, hO'Nt\ler,
jil> taken up by turf grail>scs and other landscaping plants and, thererore, doC"s not
generally pose a threat to human health or water quality when witter applications are
properly managed. h discul5scd in more detail below, Ihe anticipnted increase in
njtrale.N in groundwllter at water ure 11ces is anticipatrd to be very low.
Concentrations of toutl dissolved solids and chloride in the Regional Plant's reclaimed
water are higher thali the correJponding drinking wa-ter standards fot these
con&;tituents. but these standards are "secondary" standtlrds based on COnsumer
8cceptanct rather than health criteria. These two consthuents, therefore, I1lso do not
generally pose a threat to human health or water qua!ity. For these reasons, the
concentrations of heavy metals and other constituents present in the Regional Plant's
re:laimed water are not high enough to pose a threat to human health if the water is
used (or landscape irrigation.
TECBNlCAL MEMORANDUM
Page 29
AUSUlt 31. 1993
T ..... l
--QooIIIJ~ (~-.. -)
... s.. .. ..... ....
""lIIMhlr 11,,,_ ........... RoN ....... .....
EC.mmhofrm 0,8 0..1\ 10 l.4 0,'" 1.7 t,6
ms ~Ol 611-1,006 -450 1,370 1.000
C.tclul':'l ~2 60-72 .. ' 124 ..
Magnesium 7 12-23 10 3. . -
Sodium 98 104-1'37 .. 228 240
SAR. units 3,' 12-.4.9 l8 4.6 <6
Chloride 81 167-367 12O 331 @
B'~rboR.le 251 .. .. ., Il~
Soro. 0.' O.2,(),4 0.66 O,~ 0.5
~ ......-W.W
G ........ ..........
(1.7-2.(.1 ..
up 10 -1,$00 300'
-..
.-..
-..
6 ..
up to -100 2.''''
up 10 ·~300 . .
up 10 -1.0 ..
Ammonia·N 17 1,!j·9.5 0,4 .. .. .. -;-l NUralc-N ~ L6-2.8 17 7 2j) --
Ancnle 0005 .. O,OOS .. O.OOZ 0,\ (s.GS I
Cadmium 0.01 .. 0.001 .. 0,001 0.01 om
Chromium 0.02 0.GI0-0.020 0.004 .. 0,005 0.1 0.05
Cop~r 0,04 O,OO4-0.0t 1 0..014 .. 0.017 0.2 U C
""" O.tri 0.010-0.060 0,002 -0.011 ',0 oms 1-:
Metcury 0,001 .. 0.00\ .. nOOl2 .. 0.002
Nickel .. 0..010.0,0)0 0.004 .. 0,009 0.2 0,\
Selenium 0.01 .. O,QOS .. OJ~l 0.02 O.~H
Silver 0.02 0.010 .. .. O,OOZ .. 0.05
Zinc 00< 0,020-0,003 0,026 .. o.m 2.0 ,<
IBued on guidoUnelirt FAD IniJillion atld DrairNllC= Paper 29 rev I. W~ qlMlliry for tlJricklnw. 1989, ahd
university of california Cooperative EneMlon tune! Z99S,WA1ER QUALrtY Its Eff«IS on Or"","~II,aJ Piur.fs,
198.'i.
~ational PrimB')' Prinking W81et Standards baso.i on h6lllllh errec~ ClKCpt a5 Indial1ed.
~ndary drinking WBIClf standards b~ 01'1 wnliumrr IKnlplllnct, 001 health criteria.
dnala nol readily availabl.e 00:' nOl .pplk:able.
\1
III r; ,
I
I
t,:..
~.
il!',
'. \
.'" "j .
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Page 30
August 31, 19\13
P~nliIlll"'P«l8 '" &!Is IJIfd ,,~
With reprd to the potential fOf impac;1 to lOlls and vegetatiOl1, JOme degree of
coneem may be evident relative: to ulinity and chloride. AI noted on Table 2. the
roncenlltltiolU of lotal diuolved IIOlids (fDS) and chloride in tlte PARWOCP',
reclaimed water are both h;gher thad prefeITOd for iniga.ion purposes, 'ltho\lgh the
concentratjon ot sodium 81 measured by tbe lOdi\lm absorptiol'l ratio (SAR) jlf. below
the acceptable level. &cause of their very IO'W concentrations, the other ronstitut.ots
shOWl'l on Table 2. including trar..e metals, would I'!()t have any adverse short-term or
long-term. impacts on soils or vegetation.
In order to control salinity in the plant root ZOne, i'caching of accumulBted lalts must
be ensured. This could be accomplished during normal irrigations at Stanford
University and other water reuSe sites by regularly applylOg about 15 to 20 percent
more water than the evapotr8nltpiration requiremCIlt of the-turf and/or by blending
the reclaimed water with other, higher-quality wai:er. It can al:\;\) be 8ccompli~hed
with two or thru extra heavy irrigations during the ,year. Extended steady rainfall
perjod~ also contribute to the required leaching of accumulated salts from the root
zone. Because of these management techniques. usc of the PARWQCP's reclaimed
water for landscape ~(figation is not expected to result in the excess accumulation of
salts in soil over the long-term. TIle principal concern associated with the use of
reclaimed water, therefore, would be the potential for del~t('rious impacts from the
roliar application of chloride On any sensitive species that may be present in the
landscape. Nonetheless, chlorit1e concentration in th,e: PARWQCP reclaimed water is
marginally high and should not cause hi~hly notice&.ble damage, espeCially ir irrigation
i!i performed during the nighttime. Based on the revi(w perform~d for this
environmen1aJ screening. as detailed in Appendix C, tiler!.'! should be no ~ignificant,
unrnitigable impacts to lKJils or vegetation as a rrault of using reclaimed water 8S Illflg
as a.pplication of the water is properly managed.
PotentiDJ l"'fKU'ts tq GrtJundwo/rr
Total dissolved solids (TDS) are present Elt a concentration of approxim61cly 1,000
mg/l in the reclaimed wastewater gl!nerated by the PARWQCP. This high level of
TI>S is mostly the result of saline water infiltrating sewer lines located close ~o th~
Bay. Extensive effort' to remove TDS from the wastewattr have not been
undertaken to date because this constituent generally does not pose a threat to
human health and is relatively expenliive to treat. Moreover, heretOfore, t\1J or the
wastewater treated by the Pledt hall been dilChflrged hack to the Bay. which is already
saline.
TECHNICAL MEMORA'NDUM
P"ll< 31
August 31, 1993
The relevant drinking ...... quaUty ,taruIarda for TOS, promulgated by Ihe U.s. Ill' A
and adopted by tit. Slate of CAlifornia, include 500 III8iI u .... commended level,
1,000 tng/lu • recommended upper I .. el, and 1,.\00 mg/l81 a retu"""ended ,hort
term level. As noted, these are "aecondary" .tandard! baaed primarily on roJl&umer
acceptance f£tther than health criteria, .nd are not considered enforCC'..Iblc.
TDS concentl't:i.!ionl iq the reclaimcm wastewater are expected to drop oYICr time 8.5 8
result or ongOing City ~fforb to rehabilitate the exilting ~r system, which wilt help
to ted\lcc salt WAter infiltration into the wastewater as it is conveyed to the
PARWQCP. In the interim. TDS concentrations in the retlaimed water !lied for
ittigation a.t St8nford University and other use sitc. would be 81 approximately
1,000 mgll. As. discussed above, l11is level of 11)5 would likely not affect vegetittion
ady~rsely as long 81 the salts lire adequately leached through the root zone. Bec&.use_
dissolved solids: 8rt' not taken up by plann and y"Quld be leached through the root
zone, however, there j~ some potential for the movement of those constituents to
ground water.
A prehminary analysis, ',IIa~ performed to estimate the potential increase in IDS levels
\0 groundwater Bt Stanforrl University. This analysis also addressed the pot~ntial for
inw:<ised nitrate levels. Although site-specific hydrogeologic dahl weft not collec\ed
for this !I(:reening-lev~1 review, rea~onable and typical water application :ates.., leaching
rates, Qnd aquifer eharacteristics were used, including aquifer characteri~tjc:s derived
from a groundwater model rec~ntly prepared by CH2M HILL for ~he Santa. Oara
Valh~y WOlter District. The !Jnalysis focl..I1ed primarily on impaCts to gl'Oundwatrr at
Stanford Universiry bt:cause Stanford would be the largr::)t user ,ite during the imtiai
phases !,jof the project. Tht! potential for groundwater impact$ at other U10e 'it~s in
Palo Nro would be roughly comparable. The fun analysis, inc11.iding ass.umptioJls,
methodology. and rCiults. is pre$eJ1te(1 .n Appendix C.
The results of the groundwater analysis indicate th.;11 1I&e of the reclaimed water at
Stanrord Uni~nity for lamhc8~ irrigation could result in an increase'! in IDS levels
in groundwater by approximately 200 mgfl. given anticipated Initial water application
ralei, use of the w~ter at i15 c\!rrent quality, ellimat~(l1eachin8 rates, and assumed
hydrogeOlogic conditions. Similarly. ni1fogen levels (as nilratc-N) in groutldwater
would be expected to increase by approximately 0.5 mgll. The current quality of
groundwater at Stanford with regard to TDS is !'lot known, although the (once"tration
of IDS in Palo Alto grou7Idwatet. generally downgradient of Stanford, ~ C5timated to
range between approximately 430 and 530 mgt1. The drinking water limit for nitr8te~
N is 10 mg/l. The concenlre.tion of nitrate-N in groundwater st Stanford, based on
reported concentratiom. of NO]. is estimated ta be approximatr:ly 3 mg/l.
Tl!CBNJCAL MEMORANDUM
Pa,e 32
A ...... 3I,I993
nil:: licreening·level analysjs performed rot this pha!e of the project suggests ,hat
'While nitrate levels ViouJd not be problematic. use of reclaimed water for landscape
irrigation al Stanford Univenity could I'Csult in 8n incI"eaae in IDS COI'Iccntrations in
groWldwater downgrBdicnt of the reuse Brcu. However. because current IDS
concentrations in groQndwater at Stanford are not known end beca\l&e sittl-s~cjfic
hydrogeologic dB'ta were not coUccted for this ICr~eJ:ling-1eve1 analysis, the potential
for such aD incrcllSe in TDS to tonltitute a significant impact to groundwattlr catJ~ot
be fully asselSed .)t dctenninod,
Se'vera) ronsider81'ions suggest that anticipated incr:nses in TDS would not ff'present
• significant impat!t or, if significant. an unmitigabh: impact. Fint, drpending on
Current water qua::ity~ anticipated increase, in TOS. over time from US~ ot Ihe.
reClaimed water f(lf irrigation mayor may not re~tJ!t in lhe exceedance of one or
mOre of the secondary drinking water standards fflr TDS. However, bel'ause
secondary drinkinn water standards are only IU8iI;sted guidelines, it is not cleer
whether ~\Ic.h 8n el{~edance 'WOuld in fact constitute a signifia.nl impact. This
question would need to be addreS¥ed Bnd resolvc.d by the-Cit)' of Palo A1to and the
Regional Water Quality Control Roard.
Second, given the .current C(1ncentration of TDS in the reclaimed wastewater. it is
likely that ongoing monitoring and the careful management of watel' applications
would be necessary to minimize potential impacn 10 groundwater. If it W8$
determint!d that TDS concentrations mov1ng towlHd groundwfUer Were-unacceptably
high, water applications cDuld be modified, reduo~d, Or jf necessmy diKontinued
altogether to protet;t groundwater qURJity.
Finally, the re-sults 4)£ the preliminary groundwater analysis indicate that estimated
increases in IDS l'(Incentratilons in groundwater could be substantially reduced by
reducing the TDS concentrarions in the treated wa~tewater used for irrigation. Given
anticipated reductic-Ds in reclaimed wastewater IDS concentrations over time ali 8
result of ongoing sewer system rehabilitation efforts, potential impacts to groundwater
could effectivtJy be minimized, especially in the iong-term. In addition, it i~ not
unreasonable to an1icipate thot irrigation I;:ollid continue into the ind(~finite future
without adverse sffeltts to groundwater a5 irrigation water qualify is impnwcd.
Siting the Reclaimed Water Reservoir
The principal impa(~ts that couJd result from the siting of a reservoir ta,nk would be
related to ",esthetic impact.!i (primEIlHy visual impact!) and the potential disruption of
biolugical resources.
-... --."
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Page 33
Augus' 31, 1!I93
Aesthetlcs/Visual ()wJlIJy
Stanford University has indkatcd that either the Stanford Avenue Site or the smaD
quarry site would be acceptable for the reservoir. If the rfOletVoir were constructed 8t
the Stanford Awnue ,ite, the University would request that the tatJk be ?8rtialJy or
completed buried 10 minimize visual impact5 given the high de~ of recreational use
the area supports. Because the quarry site is more iioIated Bnd does not support
recrc:ational UIO, however, a rescrvoir at this site could be placed on the ground. In
either case, potential viaual and other aesthetic impacts are not expected to be
s.ignificant enough to diliquaJify either location for siting the reservoir.
BioloKicnl /UsOUrers
Basell on the rec('nnainance-Jevei field survey performed for this. environmental
screening in mid-April 1993 (see Appendix B), there do-not appear to be any
biological rellource5 present at the Stanford Avenue ur quarry Jites that would
nece$~rily preclude the siting of a rc:claimed water reservoir. Additiona1 analysis and
con:\ideratioa will ncr.d to be given in finding a precise location for the re-scrvoir in
order to minimize disruption to the sile and ensure that sens.itive species are avoided
to the e:.1enl feasible. Based on the leyel of review perfol1l1ed. however, the quarry
site "ppears 10 be preferable io the Stanford Avenue site because of the greater
likelihOOd that both wetlands and the California tiger salamander are present ft1 the
Stanford A ... enuc :site, Because of the possible presence of the California tiger
salaolBnder. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish
and Game will need to be consulted if the project proceed... A permit for the
incidental taking of habitat and/or adult salamanden could lte requirt!d if the species
is listed all a threatened or endangered species under the federal Endangered Specie-s
Act prior to or during con§truction. Nonetheless, this i:.sue is not eApe'cted diSCjualify
either of the sites for placemem of the proposed reservoir.
Construcling the Nece_ry Pipelines
As notC"d, oonltruction of the neceMary pipelines would relult in impacts SIlch as the
compltction andlor disruption of lIoils. dUlt generation, increased erosion potential,
land use disruption (inCluding: primarily nOise), traffi.: impacts, impacu to
underground utilities., and potential impact' to 85 yet unidentified cultural reSources .
All of these impacu are common to construction activities and aU are typically
addre:ued by standard mitigation measures ~\lch as work.day time limits. noi~
suppR:Mion equipment, dust suppression practK-.es, and traffIC C(lntrol and &afery
meaSUr,e5. Because all of the propoicd pjpelines would be placed within city streets
.>< , .
,',i ..
TECHNICAL t.lEMOIlANDUM
Page 34
August 31. 199:1
so 8S to Clvoid large Itreet trees and other l'cnsltive resources, none of the5e impfu .. ts
are expected to be unmitigable.
Dlsrupllon of Utilities
One potential problem with p1acing t\ pipeline within a street is that other utilities
5uch as gas, electric, telephone. &ewer and drinking wilter lines mar be present. This
issue js typically 8ddres.~ed when a new utility distribution line flo developed during the
project desigri stage to enliitltc that existing utilities will not be disrupted. City of Palo
A)IO block milps showing most existing utilities huve been revjewe(i for this screening
analysiS, altho!.lgh the complete Iict of utilities maps. have not yet be~:.n coUeeted.
Nonetheless. the presence of existing utilitie~ is not anticipated to predvde the
routing of the pipeline, and pI8C~mel\t of the pipeline is not expected to resuh in
substantial disruptions to existing utilities.
Growth Inducement
The grOW!h inducing impacts of a pioject, 8.~ defined by CEQA. au~ consu..lereu to be
those thai foster economic or populAtion growth, or fosler the conslrucl.:Cm of new
housing unit!" either directly (Jor indirectly in the surrounding environment. Included
in Ihis definition are projects that would remove obstacles to pt.Jpulation grCWI1h, such
as. a majm c"l(pans.ion of it wastewater tlt8tmel1\ plant Of thf' construction £'.If a new
roadway t:) serve previously undeveloped areus.
T,le proposed water teclamation program includes the design lind irnplemen18tion of
a delivery and storage Ei}'!ltem to provide reclaimed water from the PARWQCP to
Sta.1fotd Ufllve.rsity and any city parks and greenbelt area'\. that are located ukmg the
pipeline rovte. The reclaimed water would be used for exi!lting and proposed
landscape iHigation, including roadway medians, parkl, and recreational turf areas.
Potable water is currently used for thi~ purpose.
The use of reclaimed water for ianWsclipe irrigation purposes would ''free up" the
potabl(": water cvrrent1y used for this purpose, and make the potable w)ter available
for use elsewhere in the city. The potable water that would become Rvailable through
the water reclamation program would be used to serve existing water us~rs along with
planned future growth in the PARWQCP'1i service arl:!:a, Much of this arCa is alrelldy
fully built out, however. Hnd future economic and population growth within the
setvite areas is already conttolled by the General Plans of the ItWertl\ fir-Met: area
jurisdictions. The increase in Bvailable potable water supply woukl nm remove any
obstacles to growth but, rather, woul<'1 be available to seIVe ~rowth that is already
planed, The proposed progT(:Im. therefore, would not have II growth indocing affect.
" ",
"
AppelUlIs ~ ,
Stanrol'd UnlVel.'llly lleserwoJr SItIq Study
May 5,1993
~', .
. ~~< ~y
~-.
,I
"
: "
<
RECLAIMED WATER RESERVOIR LOCATION OPTIONS
Sning p,nQlysis
Tl\('Te_ lire twO ,olllpor.etll~ to the siting analysis (or the reservoir: ttl", for the pipelin ...
from the witter quality conlrol plant, and that (or the rest:rvoir il~lf, Stanford has been
!lnOwn three conceplllall1liernalive flJl1les for the pipelln .... Two would (('liow alignmenl~
neM Or under c&mpus m~els (Serra Sn-tevCampus Drive East, and Quarry Road/Campus
Drivt-Wcsl) Since Ihest: are pnvule roads and in liOlIle places already crowded corridors
fur our O-,..n utilitie<;, Swnford prefers thallhis pmje-el follow an Ithgnment ncar Of und~t a
public right of way (Slonford Av~nue or even Page Mt~1 ROHd),
III applying the silc l>eleCtion criteria enumerated on page 52 illihe Foothills RegIOn Plan
-Phase J (Sl.'mford Pl,lIltllng Offi(;c, Augusl 1987), Ine 0perH(JVe crllerion fot selecting a
fOllthills site is 8.3. ".Ibsence of a suitable sile else""nt'r~ on c;o.mpus_" The primary
c(ll1!>ider;Hion that re'quire') <I FIXltnills ~ite is the heed for thre slOrage re!>crvoir 10 be
lO~'ittcd <loov(' 175 feel elcvmion. There Ute only two other locations north of Junipero
Serra BoulcviLnl OSD) that OlTC IhlS h1bh; Ihey >lrt' bolh in densely settled JXInions of the
'·,jclll~yIStaff Residential Subdivtsion'>, m(tking inlfial installation of the ripelinr nn.:j
rt'~,t'rvojt, u\ well itS ongoinl! m:linl{rtan~:r: '!I.:l..'ess. Jli~hly problematic for Stanford
After dc\~'rmining Ih;1( d FnOlhills ~ite was appropriatc. the General Silt: Seiecllon Crlietia
\wre applied, ,,-itll an addilt(lIlitJ (ntl'nOn added r..:~ardirlg archaeological sensitivily,
Slnl't' there.l(l.: known ita'its of sensitivity In the FOOlhllb, Cfilt!non 2, "rt:infon:e\
a~',llkn1I1,: i1fftnittc ... ," (iOt .. ~, 11m apply to (hi, (il-:I!tly sinn' II J\ it mility project. Crilerlllfl
P J clrtf{JR·{'~ illlKtJlHl,tl rl'i.tlllll)shIP~-' hJ' IWI) pMt~: Ollt': 1\ tn,tt the sile IS abiw(, 175 fetCt,
Ill\' (llhl.'r i" thai II I, clust' 10 Ihe t"i~ljn.t! 1{)'O n11ll-p(Jt;chlc pipeline. Ahf,ough thetr afe
\ Myl!lg: dc!!n:r.:~ "I ,udl;ll'ologicill ~cn~ill\';ly in (he hwthilb, II i~ likely Ihal 'With cilH-,ful
~tltll~ ,HId Ob\Cf\,;lItUrl dunng l:Onsmlr.:IiUlI. ll(lI1c (If the sitt;'" \I,,'OIlIJ be undevelop;lbk (In
Ih~' b,l,i~ 01' aKh;!('nl<l~Y aI11lll'. Ont' (lif\he( il",Ulllptiot! was made-for all ~")( the ,itt!.
'1IId;('I1: tlt.tt thl' rl'~r.:n'ljlr and ib iK~\JnlPilllyill~ ope-ration factllty ",('llld be tillirt.'ly
U!ldcfJ,'I(lUluJ (ltnl\'~~ Ihe \ttc l'I)I):.t'lI W(ltdd rcrnut it to be p,lftlally expo.\ed by virtut;' flr
the I,ld. Ilf \I~lhilll~ nr I Ill" ... Ill' their)
Tnl"jqll"lWln!! di~~'u_'!ltOIl Jue\e'tlh lh(' eV;lh~;ttif_lTh of Ihe "i\c\ Slu(b::c.
1) \\'t· ... 1 of l...al\l' l..tglllltt,L
Thi~ ~t!e J\ Ilw t'ne ~ho\q) ill Iht.' Bwwll :ind C:lldwcli "Waler RedamatiO!l Ma\lcr
Plan" nn t'igllTC (1-2 Layoul for ProjCl'1 D_ The site is helow 175 ffer elevation, and Il,r
Ihis n~a!ion alone ~hollid probilbly be dropped from further con~ldl'mlion_ It i~ closc
ILl the eXISIing l)ipcJillc, hOWl"VlT, AlTes~ IS excellcn:, ofr JSB. i1nd the ~ite IS of
adequ;He SIZe for th~ fill'illty, Given that the ~Ite is ,ei,Hively flat and ne,u-eXl'.qlng
pilv{'"d Wilds for m;lintenance ;lCcC~S, it wa~ ,Is"utlled that Iliere 'on/uld be minimal
development l'OSb. This site is no! in itl) ,lIeil of kf'own archaeQlogical sen~iti\'ity.
On Ihe down ;,Ide, tne !iile is very ~'lo5e to Ih~ exi.stin~ drivmg range, whICh use could
nOI tle djsJl)a{'~d or negatively impacted by the lIlStal!altOn or the ongoing
.;-~ ,
1"
i: " I , ,
<
I
: .. ,!
maintenance (If (he facility. It could pose a modesl C>PporlUnlly COSI for the
University since Ihat area i!\ desigmnoo for fmure l'llxJem housing in (,ur Land Ute
Plan. It is highly visible, .nd even an underground faCility would be "ery notketoble
from JSB and Carnpl.l5 Driye, both of which are eleva,eeI relative to tht~ sitc, This site
j~-also known habi111 for California tiger salamander, which breeds in 'lL.ake l.8gunita,
itnd for which n petition has been filed Ihat il be Ii!ifed as ende.nseretl On ,he basis of
Ihe pre!licnce of the salamander, plus ll1e high viliibilil), of the site. this site is
copsidered to be:-rehuively highly polilically sensi,ive. We n:commen,j stronrl~
aga~n!it thi~ slle.
2) Soutn oflhe JSB/Campus Drive W('sl inters~('tlon'
A sife in a c1raw !>Qulh of the intersection of JSB witl1 Campus Drive Wesf was
stuc:hed, wt\ith ("o.lld theoretically be acccl\sed from e~th~t the Quarry RltadlCampus
Drive West alignmtnl or rhe SerT8 Street/Campus Dri ... e Ea1>t alignment. II is above
elevation 175 and fItlrly close 10 the 11)" pipeline, It IS relJtively acce~~ll)I{', probably
hc~1 served by Ihe' eJ<h~ling road up to the Ob!ierv3tOries. lhls areOl is alse not
e~·r<c:ially sensiu ... e arch:leologically.
ihC size of Ihe sjl~ i .. ('onstrained b)' Ihe e"-i~ting golf COUPil' nnd udjac~n; <t('ademk
USe'i. (obl'ervillorie~, ilrti~IS slUdio~), and the villibility fn,)rfl the golf cOUP" i~ also a
neg~t1 ... e (:onsidermion for thIS location. It would involve Iw·,eotial oppor",wnily nl!i>fS
since it falls at the edge of Ihe clusl~r development lOne in thl." recornmel'l·;jed plilll
from Ih~ Foolhlll!. Rc};ion Plan (see fig. 15, p. 43), Further, althl)u}!h th~ j:itc hilS not
been studied II is weil within the prubable range of Tiger sul,HllilnClers; Ihi!., COlllbin('d
wilh fht' visl bility of the site muk~s it potitic:llly lIl'l1\1liv(\ Wt· lill nOI rCL(JJllml'lld
funh~r (:onsidc:r;ukm of Ihi!>. site'
J I South of tile JSBIC:II11PltS Dtivc E:I.\I il1!cr",("l"tion:
A SHe in il shallow dri.l\\· 1I0ulh of the illlco.c(-tion of JoSH wilh Call1pI!lt Dr\I'C bst Wil~
,11,,0 ~!udied. It is ~tXI\'l' e1e\'.miLIl 175, dme to Ihe J:'I.\lill~ pipeline ilnd readiiy
'\~'l-\'\",ihll· fr.-ml JSB. It is of adequi.lt~ lIil.(", and il~ rell/lively flu slort' ilnd phix;milY
,,1 exj~IinJ.! road), would minimile development CO~t~.
Thh /Ocatiol1l.\ unrJm.irable for a variety Ofrl'a~o"",. II is highly vislhle fWfIl JSn and
Campus Drive' E.I",:' If j", in the .:enter of Ihe prime c1UlOfN 0ppoflunity arcH (~ee fig.
L\ p. 43), <1nd it ... prn\lmily tQ LOike Lnguniw rl1akc~ it hi!!hly pro!1;lblt" hat'wl! for
TIger Stll.lnlander. II I. .. ltlo.;o in itn area known 10 be archueolo!!io:<tll~ l!enSH·.\'e. Thai,
('oupled with the \'\!iibdity and s<llamander hahii31 eom;ideralion~. m,lh Ihi~ l(lC<1lion
hi~hly politlc.tll), .\cn"illve. We recommend 'Itrongly ngaillsl ~lIinJ1: the reli(lrvoir in
thi~ area.
.tj South of the JSB/Slanford Avenue inlersection:
A significam drflinage ~walC' SGuth of the Intersection of JSB with Stanford ,Avenue
wa~ studied. It il' above elevarion 175 but not close (0 the eXlslin~~ pipe!:. :. 11 is of
adequate 'Silt, and would probably incur relatively minimal developm{;i1t C0<i:tS.
"fllere is, howe-ver, no paved acce!'ill from JSB 10 Ihili site, which lies in an
environmentillly sensil1ve wooded 1twille thm i5 highly visible from JSB and tl1e head
of Stanford Avenue. The reservoir (ould !x screened by the trees, but placing the
pipelinc ~:olll(! be very disruptive to Il1e frees. Further, d',c !)itc is in t.n area of known
archaeologicul !\c=nsiti ... iIY, ohd within thc: range of pOssible Tiger siihul1ander habitat
(allhough nluch further removed rrom Lake Laguniw than rhe above menrioMd sites,.
Tht': Vil'U31. envitomnenml and nn;haeological sensilivities combine to make [his il
non-optimal slIe.
5) Page Mill Field:
A v~ry shit/low draw (In the ~as'.faclng slc1re allh(' comer of Page Mill ROld ami
JSB/Foothilllloulevard was slUdied .. It is above ele ... ation 175 but relaliyely fal from
Ihe existing pipeline ilUd has no paved access near it. II is o( adequate SIZC, and !he
gentle "lope should Ill.lke the development costs relatively low, e,.;c~pt for !he
pOSSible LOStS of providing paved ;l:cceio~. There-is no known archaeological
scnsiuviry in thi, im'a.
The Univer~ity wO\lld ~lIff~r signlfiL<1n1 oppor!unity costs if the rese-fVOlr were sited
here ~cause il is in the eil~terly dU'i.[CT OpportIJl1.tt)' area with strongest connection to
l:"mpllll (~ee-fq.~_ IS. p. 4~)_ T~-,e ~ile i~ hi!!hly vi~lble IlnC, quite undisturbtd; any
('on<,ll1lctiClfI ilild new roach WOliid he vcry vi~ually obnu~i .. e. Althou~h even funher
removed ftOm LIke L,lpmila thMI sitt' numher 4, il mil)' llC llpland (e~tivalionJ habitill
for Tiger s-;llanmnrler. Th(" opporwnily [osls and the vi'i.lbility .:tlone, nnwever, n-,akc
Ihi",.J highly pOlitically sensilive Site
hj /\b,md,·,lled minor llll;ITI)' ~dt':
A dntw 01, dlt:' \1)1I1h~ilq \Iore' of Ille Qlj,irr~' ~llb-rcgion of the Foothll;\ (",ee fIg. 11, p.
.1~) i", id\.'ntif"il'd llPI til!' l'Se,S nl.lfh ;1" illi ilballrlont'd quarry \i!c. It IS ;trove e\e\';uifl/\
175, btll f;lirj~ filf Irom ilw (,_'I\ling pjJl~·lif]l'. II ha~ "Xl.'dlern ;Io:(;e~~, ju,>~ off Old I'agt"
Mill RnaJ. 1·1\1'1''; ,In: 1l111lPfmi"lllnlt) l'("", ffll'lhi~: lit', j'.' il ha~ 110! been identified ,"
a POlt'flli>l1 \l!t' ill ;llly (If Cll;r p!annill)-! 11Dl..:(Jfllt.'!H-.. If i\ of adLquatc sizt", and tht"
lor.llion of ihl.' ~llc 1ll,lkn il I'dJuvdy it[\·t),ibk from P.tg( M·.I1 ROi..lJ, OJ \trollt-!
rtClommend;ltillll in ih f,IHlr 'fhe libl,I(\U:' and the l'hangc of IOfN.lgraphy m~J...e it
hj~hly unlikely that Ihl~ ";!l' ~I)uld he habitat fo:-Tig.er salam IOde-r. It I~ a\~umed Ihat
Ihis ~ite wnuld have tt'lillivdy minimal ~K)lillt'al ~en,itivity
There is lIome ~tl0\\·11 iln.:h;teolo~i,,:;jl \cno;ilivilY in thi .. area, ,"specially for the
alignment of Ihe pipeline into thi., Slit'. The more serious pole,)!;a.; prot"llcnlll art" wlIh
the rocky suhslrate, wl)l~'h il i~ il'isumed would !>ign~rk·anlly mCfease de ... e1(lpment
emt.'., a .. wclli1:1 pOlential grollndw,llt"r l'Ontam)nation_ S"-"llf~Jd Ulay be required 10
imlitll grol.ll1owalcl mUllilnrinr. ~~lls .11 thIS location, hut if the re~ervoir ill site.d
,"arefully (and flOI dOwnslream on [he !'.lOun(1w.tler gradient from 'he pmposed
mOf'litonnl~ well \ites) thiS I()~alion l~ still It viil~!e potential sile for Iht" re~ervo:r.
.~
7 J Abandoned major qLlilrry site'
The old abandoned quarry off Old Page M;U Road w .. ~ Ihe Iltst SHe studied, It is
above el('vlltion 175. but very far from rhe existing pipeline. If also hll!; excellent
aCt.:ess and, li!> for !lite number 6, there are no opponuniry COSL~ for Ihi!. sirt'o II is of
adequate size, and Ihe location of the site nlltkes it completely invisible from Page
Mill Road, a .... trong recommendation in it.s fa\'or, The di!it8nce and the change of
topogmphy make ir highly unlikely rhOlthis site would bc~ l"Ja.bitLlt for Tiger
s~\lamandr-r. There i!i no known archaeological sensitivity in thil; ,ltea dlher, but the
S,ltne pipe alignment issue holds for this location as for site numbl":r 6, ;,nd It is
"I.~"umed Ihiil ,hi!; site would have vinually no polillcal sensitivity,
A!i with !ilte number 6, the pol!:!nlial problems wilh this localion Me the aa'hariJlogical
!'cn1>itivlty (or the pipe/me alignment. Ihe rocky sub!ltralc, and Ihe r.olemia/
groundwater cOlllilminalion,
L'IK)ll ~"alu:&lioll (}f Ih\! •• bo\r~ siles and their respective :!nalYhe);, Ih~ ml)SI favored sires
;!rl' tlie-IW(I ah,lndollcd quarry Kites 0(( Old Puge Mill Road. Tt'le);e liiles arc further
nYOnlllle-Ildt"d hy the facllhm Stanford M"nagemenl Company has inclcate(llhat their
rrim;n), i!HerC".,11Il Ihe reclaimed waler pmject w(lu!d be for Irng'.I\jl)lI water for;..
pe'lt'noa! golf t'nul'~C ,lrt'IUld Felt Lake. There i.~ a pos~ihi/ily that ~(Jnw of Ihr Slanf(lrd
Re'<.':m:h l';lrlo. lellanl:-. .... oulJ IX imereSll':'d in the W:ller, us well (tholo\' I~Jt I\(en', trying to
dl\il(J~'" of fhclr 0\\-/1 rcd<lllned wilIer, Ihill is). If Ih\: Piuk !ook:.li;"c a potent),11 market
for Itll' V.all'r. illlJ Dill' of the quarry site!. 11> at:cepwblc, a pu.'~ihlr.: Page-MIJI Road
;tl'l~nn1l"n: for Ihe new pipdine might be more CO~I effective thallihe S(Jllford Avenue
:lltglllllr:nL if neither (,I' lhe qUillTy slles is acceptilble bt'r.'illi\c of In,lhdil), to r.:OIlM(UCllhe
rl'scrvoir Ihert' .. ~i!t' numher -4 would be Ihe n.:xt mosl deSirable if Ihe C()llstrut,;llon (and
in.,lilliation of Ihl.' ripl'lilll") (;(Juld occur \liith minim'll di1>ruptioll of tlw \le-getatioll ilnd
;li-'-'h<ll'l)lo~i!:ill rl'\OlirCl'~,
Foolhill, R.egion P1..,-Phll50 1
,,,,~, "I' J'J\"""~-;:;"'" ',','. -,," "" " ' )'--1''' .. I'-'-;-'l "c";'.' ~ 7 "'.~ .'" 1,"~~"'c'.~:".'\~[J, , .• ~;:'<'-J) "6 \-\~~ri(I)' ~.I "':''','-.... ' ..•. 111 ... ' '. &1,·,,.,,.., l.. iJ'Y'111 ."""~)')" "'" ( ...... :.-•. (' II " \\\,':.,,11~,~, l\\\.'''-~-':.~.. !, S"(\ ~_" ,_-:~ .. d • ..-., -' .... )/ Ij~" \. '.\.\'.-'~~0:~~
~~:
:'1: I
J, ,
---Unpa~e..:I 'olld~
-Pa~lt'd roads.
• ArlleMIl $lle
l-.. __
'" NORTH
"
,.
I
rlgure 5; ExlsUng clrculatron and academic laclllUes.
I
':i' ~:',,,.; .. ,
~ , .. ,
, --' -~.
fill
III
'J-
~ . .' :
DJU.FT TF.CHNICAL MEMORANDUM
PALO ALTO WATER REClAMATION
ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING
a&fHIIl
S1IBJECl': Biological Reconnaissance of SUlI'Iforo Utliven:ity Reclaimed
Water Reservoir Site
DATE: May 4, 1993
PREPARED BY: Kathy Freas, Ph.D., Wildlife Biologist
Richard Norton, Environmental Pia nne ~
PROJECT: SF034797.ER
Introduction
The purpose of this m~morandum is to document the results of two reconnais....ance.
level field survey. pert"ormed by Dr. Kathy F,.asICH2M Hill. on April JO and April
13, 1993 at Stanford University. A5 illustrated on Figure ], the areas surveyed include
the general 8r~a bordering the west side of Junipero Serra Boulevard roughly
benveen Stl'lnford Avenue Bnd Page: Mill Road, and the &JIlAl1er of two abandoned
quarry &i1es located off of Old Page Mill Road and nonh of Matadero Creek. The.se
areas are under consideration as possible sites for a proposed reclaimed water
re!iervoir to bt: constructed in conjunction with the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality
Control Plant (RWQCP) reclaimed wat~r reU5~ pwject. This survey was performed
to supplement the reservoir siting analysis perfonned by the Planning Office of
Stnnford University, the first draft of whkh was completed on April 13, 1993.
Field Survey Results
Dr. Kathy Freas/CH2M HILL performed a reconnaissa.nce-Icvc-I field visit rtl Slanford
Avenue on April ]0, 1993, focussing on the area bordering Junipcro Serra Boulevard
to the west between Stanford Avenue and Page Mill Road (the ''Stanford Aveliue
!iite," sec Figure 1). nr. Freas performed a second reconnaissano:e-Ievel field s'Jrvey
on April 13, 1993, focussing on the quarry sitcc located nea.r the corner or Old ])age
Mill Road and Junipero Serra Boulevard (the "quarry site," see Figure 1). Ve~:etati{Jn
across the larger area encompassing both sites is dominated by herbaceom ipecies
typical of nonnative gntwand with a scattering of nlltive herbaceous 'pecies, primarily
common fiddleneck (Amsi,rclda intermediu) and lotus (Lotus ,p.). Th~ exception to
dominant cover by nOMative species is patchy coyer of purple needle grass (Sfipu
pulchta) on the nonheast-facing slope near the southwest boundary of the S1anford
Avenue-site and along the upper edges of the quarry sile.
)
f
~ ,
l :
The central ponlon or th. Stanford A""nue lite is occupied by rnlilQrc oak woodland
dominated by Califo:rnia buokeye (A-..b.tr Ctll/fonrU'o), valley oak (Qu.",us IobOIil),
and coast live oak (C.'ue<ut agrlfolill), Several small vaDey oak and "" .. I live oak are
alIo present at the ql,lBny lite.
Severa) drainasea dlsai,ct tbe Stanford Avenue site 1'unninl from higher t'JevaUOIll
loward the soulh .... 1 border of the .ile in Ihe direction of Junipero Serra. 0.. of
these drainaici is best desc.:nbed as a shallow swale drainjng the corner of the site
toward the intersection of J'9.ge MilJ Road and Junipero Serra. Shallow standing
water oc('upied short Itretchq of swales on 10 Aprj:. AnOlhcr swale is located at the
nonhwrst end of the site, near th'! chtrance gate dil:ectly across Junipero Serra from
the end of S18nford Avenue. Thill ~aJe Ihowed no signs of recent surfate water
movement and still boro ligru of I:l, fire that burned most of the site in 1992. A third
drainage that supparu scattered riptUian trees. and is incised to approximately 2 to 7
feet, is located approximately 250 feet southeast from the entrsmCC gate at the end of
Stanford Avenue. This drainage had no Mlee flowing at the time of the liite visit. bllt
the channel bottom was muddy and showed ligns of flow earlier during the rainy
season (e.g., debris and sediment in the channel near the end a1 Junipero Serra).
The "mouth" of this drainage is marked by a shrubby individual of California buckeye
growing alohg Junipero Serra. No hydrophytic vegetation was observed in these
drainages during tht field visit, but 8 more comprehensive search may reveal such
vegetation.
The quarry site is best characterized as a bowl created by the surfaet'. mining of a
former hill The bowl, conSisting of steep slopes to the nonh Bnd easl, is open to the
south Bnd south ..... est Illong Matadero Creek. An abandoned asphalt entrllr'lCe rand
runs from Old P.uge Mill Road on the east side of the creek into tlte south/southwest
comer of the bowJ. A1though this entrarnr road abuts thl! creek corridor for a
di~tance of approximately '0 to 20 feet, it does not crOli~ the creek. 'Int base of the
quarry js at or Slightly 1t00ve grade relative to the base of the hill. find no standing
water was observed within the bowl on 13 April. Portions of the quarry site within
the bowl have been paved and se,me amount of fill is still present in the center of the
site. An abandoned concrete block and ruetal storage shed is located in the
nonhwestern comer of the bowl. The quarry site appears to drain to the south
toward Matadero Creek and to the west toward a larger plain area that may have
been ~uarried in the past also. This plain area drains in tum toward Matudero
Creek. Patchy coverage of purpEe needle grass (S/;pa pulchta) was observed on the
upper edges of the bow~ but not down within the quarried areas.
Wildlife use of the E:eneral area encompassing both sites, based on direct observa.tion
or sign, includes deer (Odocoiieus hemiomu), coyote (Callis Jatrr:l1fs). and bam swallow
(llifundo fliSIica). AdditionaUy, the site IUpports an abundance of California ground
squirrels (Spermophllus beechcl'i/) and other rodents, Ihe bunows of which provide
estivation sites for the California tiger salamander (Ambysloma trigrlnum ('ali/ornico).
The possible present::e of this species eculd affect tbe placement of the reseJVOir, as
discussed in greater detail below. In addition. the Calirornia rc:':d-legged frog (Rana
2
----------................ ~~~----~~----_,~ . 1111 .... ... .. '
aura", droytonH) is koown 10 Ottur within Maladeto Creek near Ibe loeatior, of the
q..,ny .ite boIe<I on Burve,. being conducted for StaDCord Univenity by the Coyote
Creek Riparian Station (CCRS). The red·legged frog is • cateROI)' 2 Cmndidate
species of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and fl California Departmont of Fish ard
Game Species of Special Conc:em, This froS&hould not be affected by placement of
the reservoir sit", however, 81 long u the creek ootrldor is not disturbed ~d eroaion
of sediments into tbe creek during construction is tOnttolled.
CtlHfomia TIatt SalamaDder
The california tiger salamander is a Category 2 Candidatt, of the US Fish and
Wildlife Service and a California Depanment of Fish and Game Species of Special
Concern. The salamander btu been petitioned for lilting a'5 threatened or
endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act.
A population of the salamander is known to occur at Lake Lagunitu on lane! ownt<d
by Stanford University. les!!! than 1 mile to the nonb of Stanford Avenue. The
distnbution lind movements of individuals of this population have been studied by
Mike W~stfeU lind Mike Rigney of CCRS. Kathy Ft~as spoke with Mike R.igney on
12 April about the potential for indtviduals of the Lake Lagunita population to
estivate in ground squirrel burrows present on the ,ite. He noted thai their data sho'"
that mosl individuals do cross .Iunipero Serra 10 occopy ground squirrel burrows. in
the uplund areas, and could easily use ground squirrel burrows located witllin tlle
areas under consideratioJl for the proposed reservoir. However, burrows at gr .... ater
distances ftOll1 Lake Lagunita are less likely to be occupied by the species.
CCRS biologists do not coosider Ma.tadero c.'reek. which Oaws neat the souill border
of the site, to represent good habitat for the salamander. The salamander is more
likely to become established in seasonal water bodies than perennial ones like
Matadero Creek, possibly beCHuse of reduced competition from oroer amphibian
species in seflsonal water.
With regard to the potential for impacts to salamander habitat, therefore, the south
end of the site wotrld be preferable for the location of the reservoir, based on 1h~
current understanding of the local distribution of the spede~ and the: decreasing
likelihood of encountering 3alamanders with increasing distance from Lake LAgunita.
ConclusioBS
Based on a rer.-Onnais:sance-~Jevel field survey performed in mid·April ] 993, thr.fe do
not appear to be any biological resources pre!!!ent at the Stanford Avenue Ot quaff')'
sites that would necC'15Itnly preclude the siting or a reclaimed water reservoir.
AdditionaJ analysis and consideration will need to be given in finding 8 preci5r.
location for the n::scrvoir in order to minimi2.c:: fJisruption to the site and ensure thut
sensitive species arc avoided to the extent feftSible. Based on the level of revi~
3
f' ~ ,;
.rjf"i
~"
",
4 :-'
, ,
l
)"'
"
1~4
f?~ I·;
1 .
I!:
\1i:
performed, b_. the ~uany 'lte appean to be preferable 10 tbe Stanford Avenue
'lte beQuse of the areat .. likelihood that bolh wetland, and the California tiger
.. Iamander nre present at the Stanford Avenue site. Beca .. e "f the poo,ible
presence of'iIIe California tiger salamander. the U.s. FISh and Wildlife Service and
the California Departmenl of Fisb and aame wiIJ nned to he consulled If the project
proceedl. A permit for Ibe Ineldental taldna of habilat and/or adult .. Iamandets
could be reclu.ired if' the lpecles is lilted U Q threatened or endangered species urtder
the f~C'raJ &d.ngered Species Act prior to or during COnstIUCtiOn. NOdetheless, this
issue is not "expected disquality ejther or the aites for placement of the proposed
reservoir.
4
~~' ... i : ·······.Y.;...,;· ..... '~~_t1'u"""'~;_'_' . ··.DJl~maltb,SeII .. V~ .. GrbubcI ......
. JII~e 1, 1993
:",
".' "':
'I ,
t
~'I
"
'~.:
i,
(~
LS
"
"
. ,.,
". .. --'.
DRAFJ' TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
PALO ALTO W .... 'lWlIlECLAMA.TION
ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING
CItltIHILL
SU!lJECT, General Conr.trns Regarding the Use of Reclaimed Water frOIn
the Palo Alto Regional W.ter Quality Control Plant
D .... m June I, 1993
PREPARED BY, Don Foxt Agricultural Scientist
John Gaston, Water Quality Engineer
Dave Richardson, Environmental Engineer
Fritz Carlson, Hydtogeologist
Richard Nonon, Environmental Planner
PROJECT: SF034797.ER
Introduction
Concern has been ~xpres~t:d by various members of the public about the suitability of
long-term irrigation with reclaimed municipal wastewater in the Palo A1to Rnd
Stonford communities. The~e concerns ha .... e ~en principally in two areas--safety of
use from a public health s.tandpoint and suitability of the reclaimed water for
irrigation from the standpoint of quality reqUirements, including potential long-term
impacts of salinity nnd (nctals in the reclaimed water on the soils and groundwater at
wutet use ."iites. The purpose of this technical memorandum is 10 address th.r:
aDpropriatenes~ of using re-c1aimed WElter for irrigation of l~ndsC'ape areas.
Reclaimed water has been ust"d successfuHy for urban irrigation in many places
throughout the United States. Since potentia! public health effects ilre a principal
consideration in these projects, the required level of treatment for such unrestric!ed
nonpotable reuse will br: discussed. The additional consideration of the irrigation
water quality requireme~ts and the impacts on the soils and vegetation will also be
discussed and compared to the Palo Alto Regional Plant recls(med water. To
indicate the extent that reclaimed waler is being used for urban irrigation, four
projects that have been using municipa.l reclaimed water to irrigate parks. school
grounds, golf courses, and oHler public area!, inCluding two projects in California, will
be briefly di!SclIssed .
,; ,
,.
;("
h
,i
I
'I! ;,
>
!~
I,
I
I;'
Public Health Conslderatlons
This section addrcwles concerns regarding th~ potentilli for impacts to human hea1th
resulting from the use of reclaimed water fot landscape irrigation. Thes( concerns
include primarily the potential for the presence of pathogen!! and elevated ICY(IIs of
constituents such as beavy mela). in the rcclaitncd water.
Pathogens
The California Depantnent of Health Servkes (OHS) established the Wastewater
Reclafl1ation CriteJia that are promulgated in CCR Title 22. The criteria establish
le\els of treatment required for the reuse of reclaimed water hued On the intended
end ute. These DHS regulatioll$ are intended to address public health issues related
to e~osure to microbial pathogens. The principal pathways of exposure considero:l
by DHS were ingestion and inhalation; skin COntact is nOt considered to be a
significant pathway (Clr pathogens to enter the body (Gaston, 19(3).
When the intended use of the reclaimed water is for irrigation of parks, !lchool
grounds, golf COUfiles with houses along the fairways. and other ar~s with similar
publiC ~posure, the treatment level must be appropriate for such unrestricted
nonpotnble reust'!, This level of reclaimed water tteatment is the most stringent ill the
United Stales, and requires that the water be adequately t'lXidized, coagulatl!d,
clarified. filtered, nnd disinfected to achieve a median lOlal coliform level not
exceeding 2.2 MPN per 100 milliliters. In eddition, DHS typically requires that the
turbidity of the WE(Slewater fOllowing filtration and prior to disinfection be consistently
below 2 NTV. TIle reclaimed water delivered by the Palo Alto Regional Plant iii
treated to this level. For further comparison, the National Primary Drinking Water
Standards require th~t there must be nondeteetion of coJiforms in 9S percent of
samples analy.o:cd. Also, California ocean bathing standards require that total
cohforms must b(~ <:: 1,000 MPN/IOO milliliters (CCR Title 17, Section 7958). Even
though the reclaimed watrr is treated to suC'h a high levelna level that Allows it to be
used for full body contact sports such as sWimrning·-it is important to emphasize that
it is still ntlnpotable. For this reason, regulations reqUire that there must he
assurance that CJOSs connectinns between a reclaimed water pipc:line and a potable
water pipeline do not OCCUI".
In effect, the criterion of 2.2 MPN per 100 milliliters of total colifotm is treated os an
indicator for alJ pathogens within the wastewater. II is generally considered that whe.n
the wastewater ,is treated to this very high level, the other pathogens hav~ also been
reduced to leve,'.s safe for the-stated uses. This aspect of reclaimed 'Water reuse Wa!l
addressed in a .'i-year study in Monterey County (EngineerillB-Science, 1987) in which
the safety of using highly treated reclaimed water for irrigation of vegetables eaten
faw was investigatec!. In this study, twa levels of treatment were used-,the full Title
22 Jevel involving coagulation, clarification, filtration, and disinfection and a sec::ond
level omitting darification, Viruses jn the influent to the treatment processes
averaged 22 plaque Comling unils (PFU) per liler (ranging from I 10 734 PFUIL).
2
l1li "J "J "I 1111 _I _I
During the 5-yeaf period, no viruses were recovered from the disinfeC1~.d emuent of
either process. FuI1her, no viruses were rerovered from .I1Y of the crops (.IT soik thllt
had been irrigated with the two waters. In fact, to achieve one of the: planned atully
goa1s, which was to detenninc the survival lime of virusea on the crops and will. a
virus had to seeded in the irrigation willer.
Other Constituents of Concern
In addition to conl!Cms relBrding the potential fot pathogens in reclaimed
wastewater, health C,lnCerns have been raised regarding the elevated salts. nitrates,
rnt'tals, end other such comitituents commonly found in rt:claimed watt:1 relative to
potable water. Table 1 presents the qUality characteristics of the reclaimed water
from the PAlo AJto Regional Plant and. fur comparat~e purposes.., four cities in the
United States that operate urban remit programs. Also shown &re the natiunal
drinking water standard$ for the constituents found in the r«l,umcd water.
The Palo AJto Regional Plant, along with other \\·aslcwat.er treatment plants
discharging to the South Bay, is under orders Iror:J the San Francisco Bay Region of
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to 5ubstantially
reduce its discharge of copper to the Bay. Based on the RWQCB', March 19, 1993
proposed Bnsin Plan Amendl11(':llt addressing wa~teloa() allocations for copper, PaJn
Alto will be required to reduce its mass discharge of copper to the Bay (measured il1
pounds per year) approx.imately 25 percent by the year 2001, froon a 1991 discharge
level of 1054 Iblyr to on .Ilowable limit of 800 Ib,yr (CRWQCB, 1993). Thi5
reduction in copper loading to the Bay is needed to reduce the am.bient conc.entration
of copper throughout the Bay. lkcause coppet is highly toxic to shellfish. the federal
And slate regulation for copper concentrations in marine and estuary waters, such as
Ihe San Francisco Bay, is 2.9 ~gi1iter or 0.0029 mgi1 (FR, 1991; CRWOCB, 1991).
This stand.ud, approximately 'hree orders of magnitude smaller than the drinking
water standard of 1.3 mg/l for copper (see Table 1), is ba~ed on copper's toXlcity to
the blue mussel, (l shellfish species commonly found C~ bay piers and dock pilmgs.
The RWQCB has detefmined that 'he mass copper limit for Palo A1tt) noted above,
as w~1l as maSs limits for other treatml!Dt plant~ and murees of copper Jischal'ging 10
the South Bay, Ene necessary in order to ensure that al.(uatic life in the Bay is
adequately protected.
Although the amount of copper being dischargt"!d by Palo Alto to the South Bay
necdli to be reduced for the protfction of aquatic life, the cCilcentratior'l of copper in
the Regional Plant's reclaimed watet is still two orders of magnitude smal'.cr than the
drinking water standa.rd for copper, as indicated on Ta.bJe 1. Similarly, the
concentrations of other heavy metals in the Regional Plant's reclaimed wEltet <ire
consistently below the corresponding drinkirlg water standards. often by two at three
orders of magnitude. Of oil the constitut:nts ptesr.nt, only nitfate at 20 mg/l ill higher
than the corresponding national drinking watel' standard of 10 mg/!. This constItuent,
however, is taken up by turf grasses and othet Jsndl(:9.ping plants and thereJorc does
not Benerally pose a threat to human he<h or wilter quality when wat~r applications
3
\
'.'
\!
w
TlIble I
Reclaimed Water QUlII17 CoJt,.rlitonl
(.a&'1. Mn!tp1 .. IICriedI •
Ori .....
SL ..... ..... PaIv Jnipd .. ...-p. ... metn' T_ .. -... R ... -... "'to Guideline-........... ~' ,
EC.mmho/'ml 0.8 0.810 1.4 0.'" 1.7 L6 0.7-2.0 " -11)S 503 611'[,006 -450 1.370 1,000 up 10 -[,soo 5O(f
calciulR 52 6().n .. ' 12. .. .. ..
MIIgnCllum 7 12·23 [0 39 .. .. ..
Sodium !IS J04-187 89 W! 240 .. ..
SAR. URlu 3.4 3.2-4.9 2.8 ".f. ~. • .. f
Chloride 8[ 167·367 120 33'L 400 up co-300 250' _ ..
Bicarbonate 2:\1 .. '. .. 115 vp to-3OO ..
Boron 0.3 Q.2.().4 0.66 0.5 0.5 u.p tn -1.0
Ammonia·N 17 1.~-9.S 0.4 .. .. .. ..
Nilrale·N 5 1.6·2.8 17 7 20 --10
ANlnic 0.005 .. 0.005 .. 0.002 0.1 0.05
C..,dmium O.oJ .. 0,001 .. 0.001 om 0.01
Chromium 0.02 0.:)10-0,020 0.004 .. 0,005 0.1 O.os
Copper 0.04 0.OO4-O.0Jl 0.0[4 .. 0,017 0.2 1.3'
!.e •• 0.0.'1 o.ot 0-0.060 0.002 .. O.01t 5.0 0,015
Mercury OJXH .. 0.001 .. O.o:xtZ .. 0.002
Nickel .. 0.010-0.0)0 0.004 .. o.lm 0.1 0.1
Selenium O.QI .. 0.005 .. OJJJI 0.02 0.01
Sliver om 0.010 .. .. 0.002 . . O.OS
Zinc 0.04 O.02O-O.00J 0.016 .. 0,07 2.0 5'
18a§ed on guiddines in F'A() IlTfgalion lind Drilinage Paper 29 rev 1, WtltW f{UQlity for agriBltIltt. 1989, and
Unh'tl'Sity of C1difornia Cooperative Elterll;lon t.eanet 299!'l,WATF.R QUAU1Y fu EJ!fits mt Offl{n"~nlQl Plonu.
198.\.
bNalion.ll"rimary Drinldng Water Standard!i blllCld on health Iflffacts, exQC!pl as IndlQlteG.
~Secondal}' drinking waler IIandards basad on consumer acceptance. not health criteria,
dOa1 • not readily available Or not applkable,
4
are property managed. Concentra.tion .. of total diJsolYcd JOlida and chloride in the
Regional Plant', reclaimed water are higher then the correapondiDi ltandardi for
these constiments, but these standards EUe "secondary" ataQdardt bNcd on co .... umer
acceptance rather than health criteria. TheM: two constituents, therefore, 1llIo do not
generally pose B threat to human health or water quality. For these reuons, the
toncentratioOl of hettY}'" metals and other constituent. present in the Regional Plant',
reclaimed water are not high enough to pose a threat to human health if the .... ter ..
used for landscape irrigation, even in the unlikely event that the water is at.cidently
consumed, despite that fact that discharges of the treated w8Itewater to the &y need
to be reduced in order to protect aquatic life .
Finally, in the conteXl of publiC health considerations, it is Significant to nott-that
reclaimed water bas been used for irrigation for more than 50 yeats in Califomill
(more than 200,()(X) acre·feet in 1987). much of it having received less treatnlt:nt thEln
provided at the PaJo Alto Regional Plant, and there have been nO instancc::s of a
public health problem attributed its proper use.
Reclaimed Water Quality Consideration.:
Potential Impads to Soils and Vexetallon
This !'iection addresses concerns reglirding the potential f\Jr adverse impacts to soils
and vegetation resulting from the use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation, As
noted, Table 1 presents Ihe quality chara~teristiC5 of the reclaimed water from the
Palo Alto Regional Plant and four c;ties in the United States 1hat operate urban
reuse programs. Also shown are the genen~lIy atcepted irrigation water quality
guidelines in addition to national drinking water standards. The quality of th~
reclaimed water when U!icd for landscape irrigation can potentially affect tht: soils
and/or the vegetation grown on the sites.
Soils
From the standpoint of the suib, the principal reclaimed water constituents to
consider are total salinity and sodium. Because of their very low concentrations, the
other constituents shown in Table 1, including the tracc metals, will blllvt' no shon
term or Jong~term negath'e impacts on the soils.
Salinity
The salts applied with the inigation Wlltcr cnn IIcc .... mulate in the soil if they Afe not
adequately leached below the root zone. This Ufn occur with any irrigation water, blJt
can occur sooner with a water of higher totlll salts. To avoid exccssive salt
,u.'Cumulation, more irrigation water than is actually neede~ by the vegetat~on for
evapotranspiration must be applied. This added amount, or leaching flaction, will
leach the salts before they accumulate. A leaching fraction of approximately 20
percent can typically ensure adequate leaching. Wintertime rainfall will also
5
!. r
I'
~ ,.
contnbute to le.ching. With ibis leaching. the aoll will reach equilibrium with Ibe
winity of the irrigation water. The relot;'" toloT/IDce. of .. cetation 10 degree. of
Wllinityt which win be discussed IBler in this memorandum. relate to this equilibrium
.. tinity.
Sodium
The efftlct of high amOunts of 80diUln on soils is to disperse the soil purticJc5,
resultilig in a lowering of the infiltration rate sOli. beca.use of the lower infiltration
fate, causing excessive runoff. The degree of sooium hazard exhibited by an irrigation
watet is measured by the sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)t which represents the
amount of sodium in relation to the amount of cakillm-plus-magnc,ium in t'he water.
The sodium hazard is also affected by the salini ty of the irrigation water; the higher
the salinity. the higher the SAR can be -..vithout adverse affect on the soil. With the
indjcated electrical conductivity of 1.6 millimhm and SAR of <6 shown in Table 1,
there should be )juk or no impact on the: soils by the reclaimed water from the Palo
Alto Regional Plant.
Vegetation
The principal water quality constituents to consider in detcrmining the quality
requirements for irrigation of the vegetation on a reusc site ere se.linity (AS measured
by elec'ficul conductivity), chloride, sodium, boron, and bicarbonate. A5 can be seen,
the other cDnstituents shown in Table 1 Bre typically not limiting at the indicated
concentrations.
Due to the divcoity of plant sptcies and soil types and the varied physical
environments, it is not practical to predict the response of all the landscape s~des in
the study area to irriga1ion with the Regional Plant reclaimed water, Therefore,
discussions lire limited to informa1ion pertinent to general landscape plantings.
Salinity
With long-term use, the salinity of the irrigation water ('Hn affect the: soil salinity and
thereby possibly affect plant growth, Plants exhibit varying degrees of Tolerance to
increased salinity in th~ root zone. Since the electrical conductivity of the irrigation
wElter (ECw) and the soil saturation extract (ECe), both expressed in rnillimhors per
centimeter (mmhos!cm), are an accepted measure of the salinity, they will be used for
indicating tolerances and quality requirements. Generally, at equilibrium between tho
irrigation water and the soil, assuming a 15 to 20 percent leaching fraction, the EC
II will be approximately 1.5 limes Ihe Ec,..
The principal plants grown on the landscape sites are turf grasses, ornamental trees.
shrubs. and ground covets. The tolerance of the turf grasses to irrigation woter
salinity is normally quite gOQd. Thtse grasses are generally tolerant of a.n E~ up to
about 2.7 (ECc of about 4.0) (Lunt, et aJ., 19(1). Cenain graslles, such AS 81ta fescue,
6
perennial ryegrass, seaside bentgrau. Zoysiilil, St. Auguatine, Bnd the bermudagJ'llssel
ere tolerant to an even higher ECw-
Studies were conducted by Ibe US. Departmenl of Asriculrure (USDA) in which the
salt tolerance of 41 shrub and ground rover 1pedes W8I observed (BcflJltein, et ai.,
1971" ond FfBncois, et Rl. 1978). The results of these studict ate pusetJted in
Table 2. In the e~riments,. the wrioU$ specie! were lubjected to lOil salinitie5'
(EC.) ov .... ging from 1.0 to 11.6 mmhos/cm. Top growth woo •• principal effect used
to rate the salinity tolenmce or the individual plant $pecics. No indications of srowth
reduction wefe observed in any of the species ot an ECc of less than about
1.9 mmhOS/cm. Only the most seTl$itive species showed significant growth reduction
(decre&.se in 'op growth of 30 percent) at an EC" of 3.0 mmbos/cm.
The a.verage Ee .... of the Rt'gionlli Plant reclaimed water is. approltirnalely
1.6 mmhos/cm. Assuming the irriglltion water and soil are al equilibrium, Bnd Ii. IS to
20 pt":fcent leaching fraction is achieved, all ECe of approximately 2.4 mmhos/cm
could reasonably be eJCpecled ftom long~term use of the Regional Plant reclaimed
water. With water of this qU8.lity, minimal reduction in top growth may occur on a
few very sensitive landscape species. However, this is not necessarily undo::sirabl(
sincl~ it was observed by the researchers that as much as a S()..percent reduction in top
growth did not impair the appearance of most ornamentals. Unlike trop plants.
mainfenanc~~ and appearance, not maxim\lm production or growth, art'! usually the
in.ended goa! in landscape plantings.
It should be emphasized that salinity or toxicity will be minimized if the plant is
irrigated to the degree that it does not suffer from lack of moistwe. Frequent
irrigations and providing effoctr/e drainage will help minimize salinity problems.
Chloride and Sodium
A high content of chloride and sodillm in irrigation water can have a toxic etIect on
some sem.itive plants. An excess umOtlDt of these materials taken up by the roots, or,
in ~ome cases, by the leaves, can caUSe a decrease: ir. growth or an undesirable
appearance from leaf damage. Principally, only a c.cr1ain few woody ornl\mer.taJ~ On
the landscape sites might be affected by the toxicity of higher concentratioru. of the&!:
materials. Turf grasses .. hould not exhibit adverse effects from thei1 col'lctlnmtionlii in
the Regional Plant reclaimed w&.ter.
The average chloride coacentrntion in the Regional Plam reclaimed water is about
400 mgIJ, and the sodium content is represented by the sodium adsorption ratio
(SAR) of <6. Recent drought conditions may have resulted in an increase of both
..odium and chloride concentrations. Based on :he IIvaillible data, only nry sensitive
Inndscane-speCies are Hkely to be affected. If lueh an effect is realized to so
unacceptable point, these specicli can be replaced with more tolenmt 5pccit~ which
hss been shown to be an acceptable mitigation measure.
7
f4
jJ:
I ~,
T .... l
_" SaIl 801""'7'" 'lGp G ........ -.
~ ........ -
8po<Ia
Sial Jwnme
Orqon O"P" Holly
Pho1lnia
}JyrenNi Co~OneutCl
Burford Holly
PineappJe. Ouava
Ro ..
Shrubby JapallC5C "iCI'IN
OlOlly Abelt.
Algerian Ivy
PiU<lsporum
Hlbik"us
Heavenly Batnboo
Vibumum
Compact Sirawbeny
T, ..
TeD.." Prlvt!l
Lantana
""'"""'" Xylosma
Doclonia
Atborvilae
Jllpanese Black Pine
li1dia Hl:I~b(.Jme
Silverberry
Juniper
Jueppo Pine
European Fan Palin
Brush Cherry
'Texas Sage
Iceplan,1
IJottlebruah
Oleander
]~canlhll
'Dr.cacna
EU<l"Yh'us
Rosem6.ry
Salll Plum
80ugainvillea
EC •• l"~ -2.'
2.~
2.1
2.8
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.~
3.5
3.'
4.1
'.2
4.5
'.9
5.0
5.2
'5
B
6.!i
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.6
6.6
>7.0
>7,0
>7.0
:>7.0
>7.0
7.t
7.5
7.2
&0
8.0
>8.0
>&0
>&0
jjPour lpecie& of ic.eplant were 1WId.
:Source: Bomstein L., L E. FraJla)is, and R, A. Oarlc,
Journal of American Society for HorriaJltunJi Scinltirt,
'n(4); .550-556. 1972; .nd L W. FraficOO And R. A.
Clark, Joumtll of "'me~dll SDdny lor Hot1iaJltIlml
~)c~lIlim 103(3): zao.283. 1978,
8
BtNtJII
Boron i& an eS50en\i~\ ~le.ment for plan1 growth. It iI required in relati\llely al'l1BU
amounts; howev~r, jf preseJlt. in amounu appreciably peater than needed, il beooJl)t:l
toxic, AI. an eDIIIpl., if 0.2 mill boron in warer is essential for • pIan~ 2 ms/I=y
be toxic. The boron concetJtration in tIM; RegiorW PlaPt rec:IIIIm..cd WIlier of
apptmdmately 0.5 mgt. is considered low. No significant effoct on the turf grasses or
landscape plantings is expeCled.
Bicar/JqlOfll.
The principal effect of high bicsrbonate is (rom deposition on leaves under high
cVl\porative conditions., which may caUki buminl on .eruitive specie'. The bicarbon~
ate concenttatiorHi in the Regional PIllnt reclaimed WJ.ter .hould cause no problem5
with the turf grasses or the landscape plantings. If slight damage were to occur to lhe
mOlc sensitive plantings., it could be corrected by irrigll!.ing at night when lower
evaporation occurs.
Summary or POfential Impacts 10 Solis and V.cetatlon
Based on the Regional Plam reclaimC"d water quality shown tn Table] a.nd
observations made in the previously refercna-4 lit~rature and in WaIn' QutJlity. ll:f
Effect on Omam~nlal Plants. Universi1Y of california, Division of Agricuhuce BJld
Natural Resources Leaflet No. 2995, some deg;-ee of com:ern may be evident relative
10 salinity Etnd chloride. For salinity con1l'ol in the plant TOO. zone, it is impottBr.t that
leaching of nc(umulated salts be ensured. This can be accomplished during nonnal
irrigations by regularly applying about 15 to 20 percent more water thltll the ET
requirement of the turf. It can also be 3.ccompJished with two or three extra hea"l)'
irrigations during the year. Extended steady rainfall periods will contribute to 'the
r~quired drainage of accumulated salts in the root zone. Also. in addition to good
subsurfHce drainage, it is important to provide oood surface drainage to minimize
poni.ling find. therefore, the accumulation of salts in smaD areas.
The principnl conrern associated with the reclaimed water will be the foliar
application of chlorjde on any sensitive species thEtt may be present in tbe lanciK.a~.
Chlotidl! concentration in Iht': Regional Plant reclairued water is marginally high and
should not Cause highly noticeable damage. especialJy if irrigation is per$ormed durin,g
tbe nighttime. Bas.ed on the ob5ervH.tion~ of the previously diSCussed USDA studies.
there should be no appreciable problem with the salinity of the Regional Plant
reclaimed water.
9
:i
I!_
Reclaimed Water Quality Con_lIIerallGnA:
Potential Impac,," to Grodndwater
This section addl'esatlJ concerN lcgarding the potential for advene impact5 to water
quality reslliting from tho use of ,'eclalmed water for land","!", irrigation. Ile<:ause
the application of reclaimed wattr would be Inanaged 80 85 not to result in eXCCR
sutface rurloff that could reach creeks, this analysis focuses on the potential for
impacts to the quality of groundwater underlying water use sites as a result of
Itliching, The analysis is based On the general subsurface conditions and anticipated
reclaimed ~N8ter we at Stanford Un.iversity, which would be the principle water we
fiile, but can be generally extrapolated tv incJudl~ city parks and other potential
reclaimed ~.vater use sites in Palo Alto. The potential impacts to groundwater
presented here are very a.pproximate bel;ause they are based on regJonal estimates of
the hydrQg~ology and groundwater hydrology of t~ area. Site spe~iflC evaluation
would be needed to better evaluate the Ilctual impacts of wastewater irrigation. and
would be \lsed for the analysis of potePtiul impacts to groundwater jf a full ErR is
prepared for the project.
Analytical Approach
The approach to calculating the impacts of W8.stewoter irrigation is bosed on a simple
mixing cell assumption. All salts and other chemicals that leach below the root zone
are assume~d to enter the groundwater beneath the inigated area. The impacts to
downgradient groundwater quality are calcula.ted by mixing those chemicals ( salts and
nitrogen) in the groundwater flawing beneath the site. The resultant increase in
concentration is calcula.ted by dividing the mas, of chemicEtI added per year by the
volume of groundwater moving beneath the slte in a )'car.
Estimates (,r Mass Loading
Salt/To/al Dissolv.d Solids (TDS)
The estimated concentration of TDS in the applied reclaimed water would be 1,000
mgll, whi~h is the current quality of the water generated by the PARWQCP. The
estimated amount of reclaimed water applied would be 600 acre-feet per year (AFY),
which is the anticipated quantity of water to be used at Stanford during the initial
phases of the proposed water reuse program. Thi!» concentration of IDS and
quantity of applied water equates to 8 mass salt 10llding of 816 tons per year, based
on the reasonable but conservative assumption that all applied IDS re~ches the
groundwc(teJ.
Although it has been Bssunled IDS of the wastewater would be about lOOO mg/J. this
watt!r supply would replace an existing supply from San Francisquifo Creek that has
an estim"ted TDS of approximately 300 mg/l (CH2M HILL, 1990). Therefore, the
nt'l increa.se in salt loading would be about 571 tons per year.
10
Using this same approach, if additional WBllewat('r at its cunent quality were applied
up to 8 maximum of 1,800 AFYI which reptcsep(S the antidpated limn of ru:~
water that could feasibly be applied BI Stanford for irrigation purpose&" thett tbe nei
.nlt loading would increase to approximately 1.713 ton per year. eon.e .... ly. if the
wastewater quality were lmproved to approximately 400 mg/l TDS and 1,800 AFY
were applied as a tepJ~cement for the 300 mgl1 TDS creek water, wen ,he net salt
loading would be appruximately 245 tons per YCal".
Nitrogtll
Alrhough much of the appJied nilrogen would be taken up by the plants.. lome
nitrogen would leach through the root zone to the grollndwater. For the purpose of
thi8 calculation. it was assumed that the concentration of N in the wliter moving
below the root zone would be 15 mgll. The volume of water leaching through is
assumed to be 10% of the applied, or 60 AFY. Based all these assumpTions, the
mass of nitrogen leaching below the ruot zone would be approlrimately 1.22 tons per
year.
&timate of Groundwaler Vnderflow
Because nO site-speCifiC hydrogeologic data have been collecte.d for thi~ Kreening
level analysis, the calculated flow of groundwater used for the analysis is only
approximate. The transmissivity estimAte used here is based on the regional
groundwater model constructed by o-J2M HILL for the Son!a Clara Vall~y Water
District (cibltioQ to hr: added).
The underflow is given by Darcy's L'!w:
Q -TIL
Where:
Q .. Underflow beneath the area of reclaimed water usc
T -Aquifer trangmi!lSivity (equal to permeabiliry times Ihickneu)
I .. Hydraulic Gradient
L ... Width of the groundwater flow field across the are8 of reclaimed
water use.
T -The estimated aqllifer tr8nsmilSivity beneath the StanlonJ Campus" bai.rd
on the groundwater model con<truCI<d by CH2M Hill. for the Sanl. CIa",
Valley Woter Distriet.;' 34.000 gpd/II (4.S45 ft2/d),
I -The hydraulic JrIIdient is appr~mately 4 J: 10"3 based on regional
groundwater (.ontour maps.
11
L • The width of tho flow field I, approximalely 13,000 feet, b.sed on reu""
extending from Sand Hill road to Page Mill ''Dad.
Using the above parameters. the und~ow beneath the area of recmimed water use
(Q) is oakuloted to be 236,000 ft3/d or 1,980 AFY,
Although 60 AFY of water would leaeh below the mot zone, it I •• "umed IhIIl thi.
would irepresent no net increase in ground'water ~, ~use these areas nre already
under irrigation. If additional water were applied. ahcn additional dilutjon of the
chcmiculs would occur &0 that the grounrJwBter quality impacts would not be as great
as calculated here.
Groundwater Quality Impacts
The increase: in downgradie:nt concentration is estimat\~d by dividing [he net mass
loading by the underflow, as follows.
Total Dissolv.d Solids
Three estimates of the increase in TDS were calculated usiJIS different water
application ond IDS concentration estimates.
1. ApplicBtioU_W ... 600 AFY @t a IDS of 1.000 miL?: Based on the mass loading of S71
tonslyear and 1he estimated unde:rflow of 1,980 AFY, the resultant increase: in IDS
downgradient ·of the reuse site would be about 210 mg;1.
2. Application pf ],800 APY at a IDS of 1.000 m&'1: Based on the mass loading of
1713 tonslyear ond the estimated underflow of 1,980 AFY, the resultant increase in
IDS downgradil~nl of the reuse site: would be about 635 mgll.
3. APplication of 600 AFY at a TDS of 400 mga: Based on the mll!;S loading of 244
tonslyear and the estima1ed underflow of 1,980 AFY, the resultant increase in TDS
downgradient of the reuse site would be about 90 mgll.
The current quality of groundwater Ilt Stanford with regard to IDS is not known,
altho .. 6h the conCI!ntrnlion of IDS in groundwetcr in the general viCinity of Palo Alto
downgradient of Stanford is estimated 10 range between approximately 430 and
530 mgll (Estrada, 1993).
Nitrogen
Base:d on the mass 10liding and the underflow estimated for this analysis, the resu1tant
increase in nitrogen downgradient of the reuse site would be about 0.5 mg/l. The
drinking water limil: for nitrate·N iii 10 mgll. The concentr8tioQ o'f nitrate~N in
groundwater at Stanford, based on reported concentrations of NO]I is estimatod to be
approximately 3 mg~ (Andrews, 1993).
12
I '
I I
j. j
I .
It should be noted tha.t the above e:ltimatts are based em the auumption that all the
sa1t and nitrogen leached from the reuse site! would fully mk with the groundwater
flowing ben.8th tho sllel. In foct, there would be areas where oDly incomplete mmng
would talte plac~. resulting ill local are~. whe~ the coacentrationt would be higher
than estimated herein.
Conclusions Regarding the Potential tor Impacts to Gtoundwater
The calculations presented herein ir\dicat.! that use of reclaimed water generated by
tbe PARWQCP for landscape irrigation at Stanford Univenity, givr-n the current
quality of that water, would result in an increase in TOS conCClltrations in
groundwater downgradient of the reuse lites. However, because current IDS
concentrations in groundwater al Stanford Rt~ not known end beClluse sitll':..spcr.:ific
hydrolgeologic data were not collected for this SCIUning-lcvel anQlysis, the potentil"J
for such an increase in TOS to constitute 8 significant impact to groundwater cannot
be fully assessed or determined. Even liD! several considerations suggest that
anticipated incre&ses in IDS would not represent B. lignificant impact or, if significant,
an unm!tigable impact.
Relevant drinlting water quality s1andards for IDS (including 500 mgll as
a recoromenderl level, 1,000 mgll 85 8 recomme:nded upper level, and
I,SOO mgllas a recommended short-term level) (U.s. EPA, 1993;
CRWQCB, 1991), are secondary standards based primarily on consumer
a,cceptnnl:e: rllther than health crite~ Ilnd are not considered
enforceable standards. Df!pending on the C\lrrf!:nt groundwater qua~jty at
Stanford in particuhu and in the vidnity of Palo Alto more generally~
anticipatf!d incI~ases in IDS over lime mayor may not rt'!!iult in the
cxceedance of one or more of thuse standards. III Bddition, becaust
secondary !}tandard$ are suggested guideline" only tlnd given the rehttivdy
limited increase in IDS anticipated during the: initial phases of 1he
proposed reuse program, it is not clear whether an aceedance of one or
more of the standards would in fact constitute a significant impact. This
question would need to be 8ddreMicd and resolved by (he City of Palo
Altu and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Given the cLlrrent concentration of IDS in the reclaimed wauewater. it
is likely that ongoing monituring and the canful managernc=nt of water
applications would be nec:euary to minil1tite pocencial impatts to
grollndwater. If it was determined that IDS concenuations moving
toward groundwater wel'(~ ~nncccptabty high. WIIl~r applications !,;Quid be
modified, reduced, or if neceuary discontinued altogetJ:1er to protect
groundwater quality.
Breause t:le currently high IDS concenmnions in the ne8ted wastewater
are 8 reiult ptimalily or the infiltration of saline watet into ~ewer lines
running near the: Bay, the PARWQCP iJ, plannil18 future measures to
13
reduce .. lin. water lnliltrallon, and IhUi TDS ""n""nlations, Ihrough a
sewer rehabilitation program, The 'IDS Ioadins calculations presented
above $uggeat that estimated iDcreaac$ in 1'OS <:onccntrations in
groundwater, given reduced TDS conccntratiol1l in tho treated
_t"""'ler, WO\Ild be .ubslanll.11y reduced, Thil 1,,",,"11 further that
irrigation CQuid continue into the indefinite future without adverse affectJ
to groundwater as irrigation water quality is improved.
Example Urban Irrigation Reus;, Projects
The purpose! of discussing eumplc urban irrigation reusc projects is to demonstrute
the extent of rt:claimed water reuse thflt is occurring through OOlt the United States.
The use of redaimed water for uses that do not require potable weter is common ••
even expected and/or required··in many citir..'5 and states. The California Water Code
actually requires reclaimed water use where it is available and feasible; also, water
purveyors in California must show that conservation, which may illclude reclaimed
water reuse, has been considered before their water rights can be renewed.
The reuse projects in the cities of Tucson, St. Petersburg, Santa Rosa, and Santa.
Barbara were selected for presentation for two reasons. First, they represent H. wide
geographic-area, and secondly, reclaimed water quality information from these
projects was readily available, which was useful in the previous section discussions.
Examples of other California projects are listed in TaNe 3 at the end of this section.
Tucson, Arizona
The City of Tucson initiated their reclaimed water reuse program in the 1984. The
initial phase of the program included an S-msd filtration plant, disinfection faCilities, II
3.mlllion-gallon storage reservoir, a pump station, anJ about 10 miles of pipeline.
The initial cu(:tomer was an 8oo-acre residential devdopment that included a 27.hole
golf course. Since then, the City is has added more than 170 acres of parks, more
than 700 acres of goU courses. several schools, and n cemetery to the system. Their
.otal reclaimed water usc in 1990 was in excess of 3,000 aCl'e-feet (about 2.7 mad
annual average; about 6.0 mgd peak month). The ''::ity has an ordinance requiring
the use of reclaimed water where it is available and suitable: for the use.
St. Petersburg, Florida
The City of St. Petersburg began delivering reclainlcd water to customers in 1977.
Currently, approximately 20 mgd of reclaimed WB.';er is used to irrlgatc about 5,100
acres of landscape areas. The treatment of the rc!claimed water follOwing 5econdary
treatment inclUdes alum addition prior to filtratio.~1 and disinfection by chlorination.
Temporary storage is achieved with 2) million ganO"' (four tanks) of covered storage.
The reclaimed water is used on golf courses. school grounds, parks, and individual
14
.v 1liii '", _"~I:,' ... ... front-and bacllyard lawns. This is the Ia:-gest urban reuse program in the United
StRtes.
Santa Rosa, Callrornla
The City of Santa Ross has been providing recmimed water for apicuJtural irription
for over 15 y •• rs (currenlly about 5,000 acre.), Three IS-hole SOlf coune. were
added to the nystem within the last S years. The recJamation program will he
expanded loon to include urba.n greenbelto, p&rits, school grounds, Bnd Sonoma State
College in Rohnert Park. The tree.tment provided the rrc1aimed water it serondary
fonowed by coagulation, filtration, and disinfection, which is the treatment requited in
CCR Title 22 for unrestricted nonpotable reuse.
S.nta Barbara, Callrornla
The City of Santa. Barba.ra began delivering reclaimed water to urban users in 1989.
The fint phase of the program provided reclaimed water 10 about 255 8Crei of park.,
('I)mmercial developments, school grounds, ar.d a private golf Cf)urse. The second
pha~e included an extension of the distriblltion system to serve an additional 248
acres. The facilities indud~ 8 5-mgd-capacity mono-media filter, disinfection facilities,.
a 600,000--and a 1.6 million-gallon storage lank, 2 pump st6tions, and about 8 miles
of distribution pipeline. The treatment level provided meets the requirc:mt!ntli in
CCR Title 22 for onrestricted nonpotBble reuse. It may be 5igoifica.nt to point out
that the I'eticence tu use the reclaimed water because of perceived public health
ptoblem~ exhibited hy one of the school districts during the: first phase. which was
assuaged at least panially by direct inp\ll (rom the California Department of Health
Services. was completely absent when the second phase was initiated. Santa Barbara
also has an ordinance requiring the usc of reclaimed w;:Itc.r whe.n it is available and
suitable for tht use,
IS
.'.
t"
",;
TMIo3
Ed .. pIe CoII-. _l'rvj.u
,.,.. 01 IrrIp_
..... Jo<t LInd ..... Apicallure
Bakcn.ftdd X
c.marillo X
Central Badn (L.A) X
FOntana X
" _.0 X
Gr!ffith Park (LA.) X
l!'\Iinc. X X
Uvermorc X X
Las Vjr,enes X
Madera X
Oxnard X
PleasanUln X
Pomona x=l X
San Luis Ob'~po X
I:
t
1
Santa Clara :-=1 Vj~lia X
West Basin (LA.) I
\'
I
I I '
,
1
I
,
I
-I
I .
I I
ReftnDCtI
Andrews. Larry. Stanford UnMom., Grounds M.mle .... "". 1m. Pe.."na!
communl""tio. with Richard Norton, OUM HILL, Mly 28.
Bern&tein, 1... 1.. E, Fnmool •• lind R, A. <.'\ark, 19711, Salt Tolerance of OrnamentAl
Shrubs and Ground Coven. Journal 0' A...ncan S~ fur JI_1IIIrJI ScimliJu.
97(4). pp, SSO-SS6,
Boyle Engineering Corporfltion. 1981, Eyuluation o[ Agricuhllrallf'rixation Ptojet..·rs
using Reclaimed Wa(~r. California State Office of Water Recycling.
California State Watet Resources Control Board, IRRIGATION Wl77i RECLAIMED
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER A grlit/ance ManUDI. July 1984. Ed, G, Stuart
Pottygrove,
California Regional Water Quality Cootrol Bctlr~ CenttaJ Valley R~gion. A
Compllatloll of Water Qualil)' Coals. September 1991,
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region,
Propos~ Basin Plan AmendmtnlJ: Rnisiol1S f(j the Proposm WlurelOlld AnocDt'()II f:x
Copper. March 19. 1993,
CH2M HILL, 1990, R~co,,"aissance Investigation of R~c1QmatiOlJ Oppotflllliries in
Northern Santa Clara Cowu>" prepared for the City of San Jose, March 1990,
Estrada, Marc, City of Palo Alto, 1993, Communication to Nick Johnson, CH2M
HIL~ Groundwater quality data for City of Palo Allo groundwater wells, Junt: 2
Engineering SCience, 1987, Monterey Wastewater R~clamarion Srudy for Agriculture,
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency.
FAO Irrigation and Drainage, 1989, Ptlper 29 rev I, Wa/~r Quality for Agriculnue.
Federal Registt.r, June 7, 1991. National Drinking Water Standards.
Francois, L E., and R. A. Clark, 1978, Salt Tolerance of Ornamental Shrubs. Trea.,
and (<<plonts. loumal of American Society for HorticullWt1/ Sciendsll. 103(1). pp,28(),
283.
Gaiton, John, ]993, Pt:f!ional communication. Mr. Gaston was Chief of the DHS
Sanitary Engineering Branch when the California Title 22 Wastewatel Reclamstioh
Criteria were promulgated.
\
r
~
"
Lunt, O. R., and V. B. Younger. 1961, A.vonnmy Journal, \loj ... ;::'"! 33, pp. 247~249,
July-August.
University of California Cooperative Enension Leallet 299S, WA7ER QUALITY lIS
effects 011 Ornamental PliJnls, 1985.
U.S. Environmental Pro_ion Agency, Region 9 Public Water Supply Section,
Drinking Water S'andarr/s and Heall' AdviscJri"" Table, May 1993.
18
'.
),: .
. ,
, ~ -
., ,
,:"
'~":;{;~:'}~~}?'r <t/y;. >,
t·'-' .,
" -~ -j
.,
"
-".