January 2006

Long-Term WastewaterManagement Plan

Executive Summary

Sunnyslope Cov_ Ex Sum 123-01.7_1-06.indd 1 1/18/2006 9:50:47 AM

Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan Executive Summary

January 2006 i

Executive Summary The major findings, alternative analysis results, and recommendations of the Long-term Wastewater Management Plan are described below. Figure ES-1 shows the WWTP locations and major existing facilities.

Figure ES-1: Major Existing Facilities

Findings A water balance analysis indicated that disposal capacity will need to be increased in the future to meet needs and decreasing percolation rates. Annual disposal capacity will need to increase by approximately 264 AF to accommodate future development and disposal needs at buildout.

Immediate disposal capacity upgrades were needed as disposal capacity for Ridgemark (RM) I had diminished significantly. However, maintenance completed in August through October 2005 on disposal

RM I

RM II

Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan Executive Summary

January 2006 ii

Pond 4 and 3 at RM I increased disposal capacity in the interim. Therefore, an immediate-term (1-year timeframe) disposal project is not required.

Regulatory requirements for the SSCWD WWTPs are defined in the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) Order No. R3-2004-0065 (December 3, 2004). SSCWD’s new WDR permit includes more stringent waste quality requirements for nitrogen, TDS, chloride, sodium, and other constituents. A new treatment process will need to be implemented to address ammonia, nitrate, total suspended solids (TSS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), sodium, chloride, and total dissolved solids (TDS).

High salinity and high hardness potable water supply is the primary culprit for high salinity wastewater. Wastewater salinity is exacerbated by residential water softeners. A potable water supply improvement with water softener reduction would address the wastewater salinity regulations.

Alternative Development Five treatment alternatives were developed to a concept level and subsequently analyzed for costs and benefits. The five treatment alternatives are:

• Alternative T1 – Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) Treatment Plant

• Alternative T2 – Modify Existing Treatment Ponds to Operate as an SBR

• Alternative T3 – Membrane Bioreactor Treatment Plant

• Alternative T4 – Membrane Bioreactor with Disinfection

• Alternative T5 – Membrane Bioreactor with Reverse Osmosis

All treatment alternatives will meet the TSS, BOD, ammonia, and nitrate requirements. A new treatment facility would either be located at the RM I or RM II Facility. WDR salinity requirements for options T1, T2, T3, and T4 would be met through potable water quality improvements and source control measures. Alternative T5 includes demineralization of wastewater with reverse osmosis to meet the salinity goal. Alternative T4 includes UV disinfection which meets the Title 22, recycled water regulations, allowing for reuse.

Five disposal alternatives were developed to a concept level and subsequently analyzed for costs and benefits. Each of the disposal options assumes use of the existing percolation capacity for either year round (D1, D2, and D3) or season disposal (D4 and D5). The five disposal alternatives are:

• Alternative D1 – Disposal Pond Rehabilitation and Maintenance Program

• Alternative D2 – Use of Existing Storm Water Pond for Intermittent Disposal

• Alternative D3 – New Disposal Ponds

• Alternative D4 – Water Reclamation (Ridgemark Golf Course)

• Alternative D5 – Pasture Irrigation with Recycled Water

Alternative D1 is a recommended program to enhance the capacity of existing disposal ponds. The long-term sustainable percolation capacity is unknown. Completed maintenance work on Ponds 3 and 4 at RM I have resulted in a significant short-term increase in percolation capacity. Alternative D2 is an envisioned option for temporary disposal to facilitate maintenance activities (this alternative would not meet long-term disposal needs. Alternatives D3, D4, and D5 can all meet long-term disposal needs. Alternative D4 assumes recycled water use at the RMK golf course, which is the most cost effective reclamation project due to its proximity. Alternatives D3 and D5 would require purchase of additional land for disposal. Alternative D3, new disposal ponds, may be institutional difficult to implement due to water quality concerns due to the more direct linkage between disposal ponds and the groundwater basin.

Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan Executive Summary

January 2006 iii

The SSCWD also has the option to connect to a Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant that is currently in the process of being implemented by the City of Hollister. Two conceptual alternatives were developed to connect to the City of Hollister’s existing collection system. Buy-in treatment and disposal costs to connect are unknown at this time as the City is still in the process of identifying a recommended disposal alternative. Estimated buy-in costs were developed based on cost estimates for the treatment and disposal alternatives above.

Alternative Analysis For the alternative analysis, treatment alternatives were paired with applicable disposal alternatives. Table ES-1 summarizes the costs and benefits of each of the paired alternatives. For alternatives requiring potable water quality improvements, an estimated costs of $37 per household is shown in the “Estimate Water Rate for Potable WQ Improvement” row. This cost is based on groundwater demineralization with RO and evaporation ponds for salinity management.

From a cost perspective, modification of the existing pond system to an SBR process and new disposal ponds appears to be most cost effective alternative. However, this alternative does not meet the regional objectives to minimize impacts to groundwater. Therefore, it is envisioned that regional stakeholders would prefer a water reclamation alternative, which is thought to minimize groundwater impacts in relation to nitrogen, personal care products, and other organics. The estimated cost of $82 per month per household for the modification of the existing pond system to an SBR process and new disposal ponds does provide a baseline for evaluation of other alternatives.

Serving recycled water to the RMK golf course is the most cost effective recycled water alternative due to the close proximity. Treatment costs to produce recycled water were estimated assuming an MBR and UV disinfection process. This is a slightly higher cost than an SBR process with filtration and disinfection. However, an MBR process would likely facilitate more advance treatment processes that may be required in the future.

The Regional Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Alternative is a cost competitive alternative based on preliminary estimates. However, additional collaboration with the City of Hollister is needed to confirm buy-in costs.

In regard to meeting WDR salinity regulations, potable water quality improvements are recommended versus’ effluent salinity managements. Although estimated costs of potable water quality improvements are higher, the benefits of high quality supply are significantly greater. The cost of residential water softening was estimated to be between $20 to $30 per month (family of four) (Bookman-Edmonston, June 1999). Water quality improvements would potentially eliminate this cost for a household.

Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan Executive Summary

January 2006 iv

Table ES-1: Alternative Comparison Matrix

Treatment Alternative Hollister Regional

MBR with UV

MBR with UV MBR

Modification of Ex. Pond Sys. to SBR

SBR Package Plant

MBR with RO and UV

MBR with RO and UV

Disposal Alternative Hollister Regional RW at G.C. RW Pasture

New Disposal Ponds

New Disposal Ponds

New Disposal Ponds RW at G.C. RW Pasture

Capital Cost Treatment $6,158,000 $7,200,000 $7,200,000 $6,780,000 $3,528,000 $5,260,000 $12,750,000 $12,750,000 Capital Cost Disposal $4,889,000 $2,615,000 $6,208,000 $2,306,000 $2,306,000 $2,306,000 $2,615,000 $6,208,000 Capital Cost Conveyance $1,059,000 - - - - - - -

Total Capital Cost $12,106,000 $9,815,000 $13,408,000 $9,086,000 $5,834,000 $7,566,000 $15,365,000 $18,958,000 Annualized Capital Cost $788,000 $638,000 $872,000 $591,000 $380,000 $492,000 $1,000,000 $1,233,000 Annual Treatment O&M $360,750 $248,000 $248,000 $234,000 $117,000 $141,000 $319,000 $319,000 Annual Disposal O&M $120,250 $36,000 $26,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $36,000 $26,000

Total Annualized Cost $1,269,000 $922,000 $1,146,000 $840,000 $512,000 $648,000 $1,355,000 $1,578,000 WW Monthly Rate to Fund Projecta $88 $64 $80 $58 $36 $45 $94 $110 Est. Water Rate for Potable WQ Imp. $37 $37 $37 $37 $37 $37 $0 $0

Total Est. Monthly Rate Impacta $125 $101 $116 $95 $72 $82 $94 $110 Alternative Benefits

Meets Drinking Water Regional Objective X X X X X X Potential assisting in meeting future wastewater disposal regulations X X X X X X Reduced Impact to Groundwater (No Benefit for Disposal Ponds) X X X X X Meets regional goal of maximizing recycled water use X X X X X

Preliminary Ratingb 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 Notes:

1. Regional Alternative: Buy-in costs to connect to Hollister were estimated based on the City’s Long-Term Wastewater Management Program dated December 2005. The estimated conveyance cost upgrades are for the connection to the existing Hollister system. There is an additional cost risk for existing infrastructure upgrades that may be required.

2. If potable water supply improvements are the strategy to address salinity, there will be an increase in water rates to support a project. Assuming groundwater demineralization, it is estimated the cost impact of about $37 per household (2025 level of development).

3. Brine disposal is assumed to be achieved through evaporation ponds and land filling of salts. 4. For new treatment plant alternatives, additional facilities such as headworks, pump stations, and solids management facilities will also be required.

Footnotes: a. Capital and O&M cost for the project were developed for buildout conditions assuming 1,657 households. Monthly rates were developed assuming the existing 1,200 households paying a

uniform rate. This is the monthly rate to fund the project and does not represent the actual utility rate. b. The alternatives were ranked from 1 to 8 with 1 representing the most favorable alternative and 8 representing the least favorable. This ranking will be revised in the next phase to identify a

recommended alternative.

Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan Executive Summary

January 2006 v

Recommended Approach There are a number of outstanding information and data needs that are dependent on completion of ongoing work (by others) prior to selecting a recommended long-term wastewater management plan. Key ongoing work that factors into the SSCWD decision process includes the City of Hollister Phase 1 Interim Effluent Management Project and the Hollister Urban Area Water and Wastewater Master Plan.

The major outstanding decision is whether the SSCWD should connect to the Hollister Regional WWTP or implement a New SSCWD Treatment and Disposal Alternative?

Therefore, a recommended approach was developed to come to a final decision on a recommended alternative while initiating parallel steps toward implementation of a Hollister Regional WWTP or a New SSCWD Treatment and Disposal Alternative. Implementation of one of these alternatives will address regulatory requirements of ammonia, nitrate, TSS, and BOD.

It is envisioned that the SSCWD Board will collaborate and provide guidance on the final ranking of alternatives and selection of a recommendation. Table ES-2 summarizes the key decisions to be made in the selection of a recommended alternative or approach for proceeding. The table also summarizes considerations for each decision points.

Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan Executive Summary

January 2006 vi

Table ES-2: Key Decisions and Considerations for Selection of Recommended Alternative

Key Decisions Considerations Decision Discussion

1. Stay on own or Connection to Hollister? If connect to Hollister, then done (skip 3 through 5).

Relative costs, regional objectives.

Based on estimated buy-in costs it appears that the Regional Alternative may be a more costly alternative. It is recommended that SSCWD enter negotiations with the City to further define costs before making a final recommendation. SSCWD should pursue a local alternative in parallel.

2. Select salinity management strategy. Effluent management or potable water improvement?

Relative costs, water benefits, regional objectives, groundwater basin stewardship.

The benefits associated with potable water quality improvements are significant. Effluent demineralization would be a backup option. To be consistent with ongoing regional water planning efforts, the SSCWD should request an extension on salinity regulations from the RWQCB. In parallel, SSCWD should work with the SBCWD and the regional Governance Committee on a strategy to improve potable water quality. The Hollister Water and Wastewater Master Plan is planned to be completed by the end of 2006.

3. If staying on own, select treatment option.

Regulatory requirements, salinity management alternative, regional objectives, disposal options, future regulations.

Additional analysis of biological nutrient removal alternatives are planned for the Preliminary Design Phase to determine the process configuration that provides the best combination of reliability and cost effectiveness for the Ridgemark application. Based on the current envisioned horizon (15+ years) for future regulations, an MBR process (MBR is a higher cost alternative) does not appear to be justifiable at this time.

4. Select disposal alternative. RW at Golf Course, RW for Pasture Irrigation, or Percolation Ponds?

Relative costs, water quality, regional objectives, groundwater protection, institutional pressure, public perception.

Regional objectives such as reducing the impacts to the groundwater basin make recycled water use the preferred disposal option alternative. SSCWD plans to pursue recycled water use with the Ridgemark golf course for season use. SSCWD plans to maintain existing disposal ponds to dispose of wet weather flows when recycled water demand is low. Alternatively, seasonal storage would be required to maximize reuse. Pasture irrigation would be a backup to recycled water use at the Golf Course. Customer opposition, public perception, and other factors outside SSCWD control may be road blocks for recycled water use.

Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan Executive Summary

January 2006 vii

To address salinity requirements, it is recommended that SSCWD initiate discussions with the SBCWD on either a CVP surface water treatment plant or groundwater demineralization project. This is a recommended project for both long-term alternatives. The higher quality potable water supply in conjunction with water softener reduction will facilitate reuse.

A CEQA evaluation should also be initiated during the first quarter of 2006 to assess environmental impacts. It is recommended that the CEQA process commence prior to selecting a recommended alternative due to the length of time typically required to complete an evaluation. Therefore, the CEQA document will assess the impacts of connecting to a Regional Hollister WWTP and the SSCWD Treatment and Disposal Alternative.

Cost Estimates and Benefits

Table ES-3 summarizes the estimated cost of connection to the Hollister Regional WWTP which includes estimated buy-in costs to the Hollister WWTP. Costs are a major unknown for this alternative. Therefore, additional collaboration with the City of Hollister is necessary prior to selection of an alternative.

Table ES-3: Hollister Regional WWTP Connection Estimated Costs

Element Estimated Cost Conveyance $303,000 Pumping $195,000

Subtotal $498,000 Construction Contingency $100,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit $100,000 Pipeline Right of Way $11,000 Engineering, Legal, Admin & Const. Mgmt $200,000 Environmental $150,000

Total Conveyance Capital Cost $1,059,000 Hollister Treatment “Buy-In” $6,158,100 Hollister Disposal “Buy-In” $4,888,650

Total Capital Cost $12,105,750 Annualized Capital Cost $787,000 Annual O&M Costs $481,000

Total Annual Cost $1,268,000

Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan Executive Summary

January 2006 viii

Table ES-4 summarizes the estimated cost of the SSCWD Treatment and Disposal Alternative which includes MBR and UV disinfection with recycled water use at the RMK golf course. It is envisioned that recycled water could be sold to the golf course which would help offset the cost of the project. The price of the recycled water would need to be negotiated with the golf course. This alternative provides the benefit of using recycled water to irrigate the golf course reducing the quantity of water supplies that could be used for other M&I purposes.

Table ES-4: SSCWD MBR and Recycled Water Alternative Estimated Cost

Element Estimated Cost Influent Pump Station $164,000 Headworks $350,000 Equalization $146,000 MBR Facility $2,460,000 Sludge Pond $161,000 UV Disinfection $227,000 Effluent Pump Station $64,000 General Site Development $280,000 Conveyance $446,000 Pumping $759,000 On-Site Retrofit of Irrigation System $200,000

Subtotal $5,257,000 Construction Contingency $1,620,000 Contractor Overhead and Profit $680,000 Right of Way $10,000 Engineering, Legal, Admin & Const. Mgmt $2,050,000 Environmental $200,000

Total Capital Cost $9,820,000 Annualized Capital Cost $639,000 Annual O&M Costs $284,000

Total Annual Cost $923,000

Both of the alternatives will require potable water quality improvements and water softener reduction programs to reduce salinity to meet regulatory requirements. Implementation of potable water supply improvements will facilitate the reduction of water softeners further reducing salt into the region. Current residences with water softeners will benefit by reducing the need for residential softening. Cost savings for residence using water softeners is estimated to be $20 to $30 per month (Bookman-Edmonston, June 1999) for reduced costs of maintaining softeners and purchase of salt for softener regeneration. Higher quality water supply will also increase the longevity of appliances like dishwashers, washing machines, water heaters, etc.

Long-Term Wastewater Management Plan Executive Summary

January 2006 ix

Next Steps and Schedule

The proposed next steps focus on collection of information to finalize the recommended alternative. The collection of information such as buy-in costs to a regional alternative, determination of potable water supply improvement options, and determination of viable disposal options will require collaboration with the City of Hollister and SBCWD. Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and public outreach will be key next steps to assess environmental impacts, garner support for the project, and secure funding. Figure ES-2 summarizes the tasks and schedule to proceed with implementation of a treatment and disposal project.

Figure ES-2: Implementation Schedule

2290 N First St. • Suite 212 • San Jose CA 95131 • Phone: 408-240-8160 • Fax: 408-240-8161

Sunnyslope Cov_ Ex Sum 123-01.7_1-06.indd 2 1/18/2006 9:50:54 AM