Jump to main content.

Executive Summary

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
for the International Boundary and Water Commission
South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant
Long-Term Treatment Options

Purpose of the Document

The purpose of this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the International Boundary and Water Commission South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant Long-Term Treatment Options (Long-Term SEIS or SEIS) is to reevaluate long-term treatment options for the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant (SBIWTP). Additional information has become available and new circumstances have appeared that warrant a new consideration of the long-term treatment options for the SBIWTP. These new factors include increasing budgetary constraints, a need for consideration of environmental impacts of peak flows, an evaluation of additional technical information on the feasibility of secondary treatment pond systems, and the incorporation of new technical information on the Mexican wastewater discharges.

The federal lead agencies for the SEIS are the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States Section (USIBWC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The following treatment alternatives are evaluated in this SEIS: (1) Activated Sludge/No Action, (2) Activated Sludge with Flow Equalization Basin, (3) Activated Sludge with Expanded Capacity, (4) Completely Mixed Aerated System at Hofer Site, (5) Advanced Integrated Pond System at Spooner's Mesa Site, (6) Advanced Primary Only, and (7) Partial Secondary Treatment.

On the basis of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the International Boundary and Water Commission International Wastewater Treatment Plant and Outfall Facilities (RECON, 1994 Final EIS) and the Record of Decision (ROD) for the SBIWTP, the federal lead agencies decided to construct a secondary wastewater treatment plant with activated sludge and an ocean outfall. The first phase of the SBIWTP, the advanced primary phase, became operational in 1997 in order to provide treatment as quickly as possible. The South Bay Ocean Outfall (SBOO) is currently under construction and is expected to be completed in September 1998.

The purpose of the SBIWTP is to provide wastewater management facilities to safeguard the public health, environment, public beaches, water quality, and economy of south San Diego County, California, and Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico. In conjunction with actions taken by Mexico, this project will minimize dry-weather flow of untreated sewage from the Tijuana Municipality, Baja California, Mexico, into the United States. Untreated wastewater flows have caused chronic and substantial pollution in the Tijuana River valley, Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve, coastal areas used for agriculture and public recreation, and areas designated as critical habitat for federal- and state-listed endangered species. The SBIWTP would also improve marine water quality near Tijuana, Mexico by reducing the amount of untreated wastewater currently being discharged near Mexico's San Antonio de los Buenos Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Project Setting

The physical setting and the previous environmental review of the SBIWTP are summarized below and discussed in detail in Section 1.3 of this Draft SEIS.

Physical Setting

The SBIWTP occupies approximately 75 acres (30.4 hectares [ha])in San Diego County in the United States on the border between the United States and Mexico. The facility is located directly north of Tijuana, Mexico, with an intervening 300foot (91-meter [m]) buffer of land between the Mexican border and the SBIWTP facilities in the United States. The project setting is shown in Figure ES1.

As a result of Tijuana's rapid and continued population growth and the limitations of local wastewater collection, conveyance, and treatment capacity in Mexico, the Tijuana River valley and near-shore coastal waters of the United States and Mexico have been contaminated.

The Tijuana River basin, in which a significant portion of the Tijuana Municipality is located, drains to the northwest. Any release of unsewered wastewater follows this natural drainage. Treated and untreated wastewater is also discharged to near-shore ocean waters in Mexico, 5.6 miles (9 kilometers [km]) south of the international border. To address these conditions, the United States and Mexico have entered into binational agreements to construct and operate new facilities in both countries to collect, treat, and dispose of wastewater. One of these facilities is the SBIWTP.

The SBIWTP is located in the Tijuana River valley in the Tijuana River watershed. Both the Tijuana River estuary and the Pacific Ocean lie west and downstream of the project site. The closest major U.S. roadway is Interstate 5 (I-5), which is approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) from the SBIWTP located off Dairy Mart Road and Monument Road in the community of San Ysidro.

On the United States side of the border, the area is sparsely populated. Most of the major development is north of I-5 in the City of San Diego and west of I-5 in Imperial Beach. The areas south and southwest of I-5, where the SBIWTP and the Hofer Site are located, are largely undeveloped. Similarly, the area surrounding Spooner's Mesa is largely undeveloped and sparsely populated. The SBIWTP, Hofer site, and Spooner's Mesa site are the locations of the alternatives analyzed in this SEIS (see Figure ES1).

In the United States, the main feature of this area, other than the SBIWTP facilities, is natural open space including the Tijuana River Valley Regional Open Space Park. Agriculture, ranches, and quarries occupy private lands. To the west of the SBIWTP is a public coastal recreation area, Border Field State Park. The Imperial Beach Naval Air Station and the City of Imperial Beach are northwest of the SBIWTP. The western Tijuana River valley is federally designated as the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve.

ES1 Site Location Map and United States Facilities
[Not included in this online version.]

In contrast to the setting of the SBIWTP in the United States, Tijuana, Mexico, is a major urban area. The 1996 population was estimated at about 1.1 million. Tijuana has a growing industrial sector that includes about 2,500 industrial plants.

As agreed upon by Mexico and the United States in Treaty Minute 283 (see Section 1.2.3) of the binational International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), the SBIWTP facilities will treat an average of 25 mgd (1,095 liter per second [L/s]) of wastewater from Tijuana with disposal to the ocean via the SBOO.

In the 1994 Final EIS, these facilities were to include the following:

Dry-weather river flows are collected and diverted to the collection system in Tijuana. If any wastewater-contaminated flows from Mexico enter the United States through Goat Canyon, Smuggler Gulch, Silva Drain, Stewart's Drain, or Canyon del Sol, these flows will be captured by USIBWC facilities and routed to the SBIWTP for treatment. Discharge of treated effluent to the ocean will be through the SBOO. It is intended that the SBOO will convey effluent from the SBIWTP and from the City of San Diego's proposed Otay and South Bay treatment plants. The SBOO is jointly owned by the City of San Diego and the federal government.

Previous Environmental Review

The SBIWTP has been the subject of extensive environmental review. The Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements for the International Boundary and Water Commission International Wastewater Treatment Plant and Outfall Facilities (RECON, 1991 and 1994) were prepared for the construction of a secondary wastewater treatment plant at the Dairy Mart Road site with discharge to the ocean through the SBOO. The Draft EIS was released in May 1991 and, after subsequent review, the Final EIS was released in February 1994. The EIS identified a 25mgd ((1,095 L/s) secondary activated sludge treatment plant at the Dairy Mart Road site as the Preferred Alternative. The engineering design was prepared so that advanced primary treatment facilities could be constructed in advance of the activated sludge phase as a way to provide treatment to sewage flows as quickly as possible.

Prior to the operation of the advanced primary plant, the Draft and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statements for the International Boundary and Water Commission International Wastewater Treatment Plant Interim Operation (Interim Operation SEIS; RECON, September 1996 and November 1996) were prepared. The Interim Operation SEIS evaluated proposed changes to operate the SBIWTP as an advanced primary treatment facility on an interim basis prior to completing the alternative that is selected in this LongTerm SEIS. The Selected Alternative in the Interim Operation ROD was a phased approach to operate the SBIWTP as an advanced primary facility with discharge through the existing emergency connection to the City of San Diego's Point Loma treatment plant until the SBOO is completed in 1998. The Interim Operation SEIS covers the operation of the SBIWTP until 2001.

Project Alternatives

The project alternatives for this Long-Term SEIS are summarized below. The alternatives are discussed in more detail, including the proposed new facilities for each alternative, in Chapter 1, Sections 1.5.1 through 1.5.4.

Activated Sludge/No Action Alternative

For the Activated Sludge/No Action alternative (No Action alternative), the SBIWTP would have the same activated sludge secondary treatment as selected in the 1994 Final EIS. This alternative assumes that Mexico will manage the wastewater flows to provide a constant flow of 25 mgd (1,095 L/s) to the SBIWTP; thus, the constant flow through both primary and secondary treatment would be 25 mgd (1,095 L/s). Mexico would be responsible for peak flows above 25 mgd (1,095 L/s). Construction and operation of these facilities were approved in the 1994 Final EIS and ROD for the SBIWTP project.

The proposed new activated sludge and related facilities are sized to treat an average monthly organic loading of 370 milligrams per liter (mg/L) 5day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), 350 mg/L total suspended solids (TSS), and an average flow of 25 mgd (1,095 L/s). BOD5 and TSS would be reduced to 19 mg/L each in the effluent from this alternative.

SBIWTP with Activated Sludge Secondary Treatment

This alternative comprises activated sludge secondary treatment at the SBIWTP to accommodate an average flow of 25 mgd (1,095 L/s) with options for treating peak flows. The first option involves the construction of a flow equalization basin to accommodate peak flows up to 50 mgd (2,190 L/s). The second option under this alternative involves an increase in the capacity of the secondary facility at the SBIWTP to treat peak flows up to 50 mgd (2,190 L/s).

Activated Sludge with Flow Equalization Basin

This option would result in an average flow of 25 mgd (1,095 L/s) into the SBIWTP with a flow equalization basin to accommodate peak flow storage and subsequent off-peak discharge to the secondary activated sludge facility. A flow equalization basin capable of storing advanced-primary-treated peak flows greater than 25 mgd (1,095 L/s) would be constructed for this alternative. A storage volume of 7 million gallons (MG) would be required. Accordingly, the average flow through both the advanced primary and secondary portions of the plant would be 25 mgd (1,095 L/s). Flow through the advanced primary portion of the plant is projected to follow the identified daily flow variations with a low flow from 3.5 mgd (153 L/s) to a peak flow of 50 mgd (2,190 L/s). Before this variable flow enters the secondary facility, it will be equalized by the basin to a steady rate of 25 mgd (1,095 L/s). The flow equalization basin would be located within the existing footprint of the SBIWTP.

Other than the flow equalization basin, construction and operation of these facilities were addressed in the 1994 Final EIS and ROD. (A smaller flow equalization basin sized at 5.5 mg, however, was considered as part of the 1997 Final Interim Operation SEIS.) These proposed new activated sludge and related facilities are sized to treat a monthly average organic loading of 370 mg/L BOD5 and 350 mg/L TSS, and an average flow of 25 mgd (1,095 L/s). The equalization basin facilities are designed to equalize flows to a constant 25 mgd (1,095 L/s). The activated sludge facilities are designed to provide an effluent quality of 19 mg/L BOD5 and 19 mg/L TSS.

Top of page

 

Activated Sludge with Expanded Capacity

For this alternative, the secondary facility would be sized to treat peak flows up to 50 mgd (2,190 L/s). The number of secondary clarifiers would be doubled from 8 to 16 to accommodate these peaks. Thus, an average flow of 25 mgd (1,095 L/s) with peak flows up to 50 mgd (2,190 L/s) will be treated by both the advanced primary and secondary facilities. The proposed new facilities would be located on the existing footprint of the SBIWTP and on a portion of the Hofer site.

Construction and operation of these facilities were addressed in the 1994 Final EIS and ROD. These proposed new activated sludge and related facilities are sized to treat an average monthly organic loading of 370 mg/L BOD5 , 350 mg/L TSS, and an average flow of 25 mgd (1,095 L/s). These facilities are designed to treat peak flows of 50 mgd (2,190 L/s). The activated sludge facilities would be designed to provide an effluent quality of 19 mg/L BOD5 and 19 mg/L TSS.

SBIWTP with Ponds Secondary or Secondary-Equivalent Treatment

This alternative includes two treatment pond options capable of treating a 25-mgd (1,095 L/s) average flow with peaks up to 50 mgd (2,190 L/s). In this alternative, conventional primary treatment, as opposed to advanced primary treatment, would be provided at the SBIWTP to optimize the pond processes. In conventional primary treatment, settling would occur without chemicals to assist that process. The primary effluent would be the influent to the pond systems. The wastewater would be treated in the pond systems to a secondary or secondary-equivalent level. One option under this alternative is a Completely Mixed Aerated (CMA) system at the Hofer site. The second pond treatment option is the Advanced Integrated Pond System (AIPS) at the Spooner's Mesa site.

Completely Mixed Aerated System at Hofer Site

This option would use a CMA process with fully mixed ponds preceded by anaerobic digester pits with surface aeration. The purpose of the digester pits is to remove the solids from the wastewater, including heavy metals and toxic organic compounds.
These proposed new facilities are sized to treat an average monthly organic loading of 370 mg/L BOD5, 350 mg/L TSS, and an average flow of 25 mgd (1,095 L/s) with a 50-mgd (2,190 L/s) peak. The CMA system is designed to provide secondary effluent quality of 20 mg/L BOD5 and 20 mg/L TSS.

Advanced Integrated Pond System at Spooner's Mesa Site

The proposed new facilities for the AIPS option at Spooner's Mesa would require ponds with submerged digester pits aerated by both algae and mechanical aerators. As with the CMA ponds, the purpose of the digester pits is to remove the solids from the wastewater, including heavy metals and toxic organic compounds.

These proposed new facilities are sized to treat an average monthly organic loading of 370 mg/L BOD5, 350 mg/L TSS, and an average flow of 25 mgd (1,095 L/s) with a 50-mgd (2,190L/s) peak. The AIPS system would be designed to provide secondary-equivalent effluent quality of 30 to 45 mg/L BOD5 and 65 mg/L TSS. This option would require new construction and grading for road access and for new facilities at the Spooner's Mesa site, which is outside of the existing facilities' footprint considered in the 1994 Final EIS.

SBIWTP with Less than Full Secondary Effluent

This alternative involves two options for operating the SBIWTP with varying levels of treatment of the wastewater that comes from Tijuana. The first option involves the use of advanced primary treatment only. The second option provides advanced primary treatment of the total flow, followed by activated sludge secondary treatment for only a part of the primary effluent. This second process creates a blend of secondary and advanced primary effluent that would be discharged through the SBOO. Both options under this alternative would treat average flows of 25 mgd (1,095 L/s) and peaks above this amount up to 50 mgd (2,190 L/s). These alternatives assume that the United States would treat and dispose of these peak flows. These options would require a waiver of secondary treatment standards in the Clean Water Act.

Advanced Primary Only

Under this option, the SBIWTP would operate using advanced primary treatment for average flows of 25 mgd (1,095 L/s) and peaks up to 50 mgd (2,190 L/s) with no secondary treatment.

This option would not require any new facilities at the SBIWTP. The existing advanced primary facilities would treat an average monthly organic loading of 370 mg/L BOD5, 350 mg/L TSS, and an average flow of 25 mgd (1,095 L/s) with a 50-mgd (2,190L/s) peak. The advanced primary treatment is designed to provide an effluent quality of 204 mg/L BOD5 and 88 mg/L TSS.

Partial Secondary Treatment

This alternative would use the SBIWTP with activated sludge facilities sized to treat a 25mgd (1,095 L/s) maximum flow. Peaks over 25 mgd (1,059 L/s) and up to 50 mgd (2,190 L/s) would receive advanced primary treatment only. The average flow to the SBIWTP would be 25 mgd (1,095 L/s), but the average flow through the secondary process would be only 18 mgd (788 L/s) because the capacity of the secondary treatment facilities cannot handle flows greater than 25 mgd (1,095 L/s) at any given instant.

The proposed facilities would be the same as for the No Action alternative. Construction and operation of these facilities were addressed in the 1994 Final EIS and ROD. For an average month, these proposed activated-sludge and related facilities are sized to treat an organic loading of 370 mg/L BOD5, 350 mg/L TSS, and an average flow of 25 mgd (1,095 L/s). These facilities are not designed to treat peak flows above 25 mgd (1,095 L/s). Peak flows of 50 mgd (1,290 L/s) would enter the SBIWTP under this option but the activated-sludge facilities would not treat more than 25 mgd (1,095 L/s) of flow. Thus, all flows above 25 mgd (1,095 L/s) would be bypassed around the activated-sludge facilities, resulting in an average flow through the activated-sludge facilities of 18 mgd (788 L/s). As a result, the final effluent quality would represent a blend of advanced primary effluent and activated-sludge treated effluent, yielding a BOD5 of about 71 mg/L and TSS of about 39 mg/L.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Consideration

The alternatives considered but eliminated from further consideration are: (1) Water Reclamation, (2) Tertiary Treatment, and (3) Long-term Use of the Parallel Conveyance and Pump Station. These alternatives were rejected because they do not meet the objectives of providing a long-term treatment option or because they are not technologically feasible for the site conditions at the SBIWTP. These eliminated alternatives are discussed in detail in Section 1.6 of this Draft SEIS.

Summary of Impacts and Mitigation

This SEIS has been prepared to evaluate the long-term operations of the SBIWTP by analyzing the direct, indirect, adverse, and beneficial impacts to the environment from the project alternatives in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This SEIS also identifies mitigation measures that would reduce any significant adverse impacts and summarizes any potential impacts after mitigation. The design average capacity of all the alternatives is based on Treaty Minute 283, which is discussed in Section 1.2.3.2 of this SEIS. All identified impacts to Mexico are mitigable. This section summarizes for the United States: (1) areas of no significant impact, (2) areas of no significant impact after mitigation, and (3) impacts that cannot be mitigated. All impacts and mitigation measures are outlined in Table ES-1 at the end of this Executive Summary, and a detailed discussion is provided in Chapter 3 of this Draft SEIS. After the implementation of mitigation measures, no cumulative impacts are anticipated to be significant.

[Note: Table ES-1 is not included in this online version.]

Areas of No Significant Impact

Detailed analyses conducted for this SEIS have identified no significant environmental impacts in the following environmental resource areas (the location of the detailed discussion of each area in this SEIS is noted in parentheses).

Areas of No Significant Impact after Mitigation

After implementation of specific recommended mitigation measures, no significant environmental impacts are expected in the resource areas listed below (the location of the detailed discussion of these areas in this SEIS is noted in parentheses). The inclusion of a resource area in this section does not indicate that impacts are associated with all alternatives.

Areas of Significant Impact that Cannot be Mitigated

Impacts that cannot be mitigated to below significance are marine water quality, marine biological resources, land use, traffic and transportation, public health and safety, and air quality. (The location of the detailed discussion of each resource area in this SEIS is noted in parentheses.) The inclusion of a resource area in this section does not indicate that impacts are associated with all alternatives.

Top of page

Other Criteria Considered

In addition to evaluating the alternatives using the significance standards in Chapter 3, the lead agencies considered additional criteria that were gathered as part of a 3-year public outreach effort. (See Appendix G6 for a detailed discussion.) In addition to the environmental criteria already considered in the SEIS, the public cited technical feasibility, nuisance odors, acreage, timeliness, expandability, and cost as important criteria for consideration. After reviewing the criteria, the lead agencies found cost, expandability, acreage, and timeliness to be the most distinguishing factors when analyzing the treatment options. A comparison of the SEIS alternatives using these additional criteria is given in Table ES-2 at the end of this Executive Summary. [Note: Table ES-2 is not included in this online version.]

Cost

The cost of the alternatives is summarized below in Table ES-3 from least to most costly.

Table ES-3
Capital, Operating, and Present Worth Cost for SEIS Alternatives
Alternative Capital Cost ($ millions) Operating Cost ($ millions) 40-year Present Worth Cost ($ millions)
Advanced Primary Only 0 2.1 48.0
CMA at Hofer Site 21.6 2.9 93.8
Partial Secondary 47.7 4.4 157.8
AIPS at Spooner's Mesa 56.7 5.5 199.6
No Action 66.0 5.3 200.7
Activated Sludge with FEB 70.1 5.3 206.2
Activated Sludge with Expanded Capacity 75.7 5.3 214.1

Expandability

Expandability was defined as the ability of an alternative to expand its capacity beyond an average 25-mgd (1,095-L/s) dry-weather flow to an average 50-mgd (2,190-L/s) dry-weather flow within the footprint of the SBIWTP and Hofer site. This criterion is different from the acreage criterion in that it assumes the purchase of the Hofer property. The Hofer property is being considered for purchase to allow for long-term expansion of the SBIWTP.

The advanced primary, activated sludge, and AIPS alternatives could all expand beyond an average flow of 25 mgd (1,095 L/s) within the footprint of the existing site (including the Hofer property). The CMA alternative could not be expanded to 50 mgd dry-weather average flow. If expansion were necessary, however, the CMA ponds could be reduced somewhat in size and an activated sludge facility could be constructed within the footprint of the existing SBIWTP and Hofer site. This approach would provide treatment capacity for a 50-mgd (2,190 L/s) dry-weather average flow.

Acreage

Acreage is defined by the amount of land required to construct and operate the long-term treatment options considered in the SEIS. All of the alternatives can be accommodated on the footprint of the SBIWTP site except for the Activated Sludge with Expanded Capacity alternative and the SBIWTP with Ponds Secondary or Secondary-Equivalent Treatment alternatives. The Activated Sludge with Expanded Capacity and CMA at Hofer Site alternatives would require the purchase of the Hofer property located adjacent to the SBIWTP. The Spooner's Mesa site would have to be purchased for the AIPS at Spooner's Mesa alternative.

Timeliness

Timeliness is defined as the overall time needed to obtain funds, design the facility, purchase the property, perform remediation of the site (if necessary), and construct the project. The Advanced Primary Only alternative could be completed in 3 years, the shortest amount of time required compared to the other alternatives. This time estimate is based on the time that was required to prepare a Clean Water Act (CWA) waiver from secondary treatment for the City of San Diego's Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant, which provides advanced primary treatment. The 3year period includes the time required for collecting ocean monitoring data, preparing the CWA waiver application, and obtaining approval for the waiver. The CMA at Hofer Site alternative would require 3.5 years to complete, including remediation of the Hofer property, if required. The Activated Sludge with Flow Equalization Basin and the Activated Sludge with Expanded Capacity alternatives would each require 4.5 years for additional construction. The AIPS at Spooner's Mesa alternative would take 5.5 years to construct, including land acquisition. At 7.5 years, the Partial Secondary Treatment alternative would take the longest to implement, since the discharge from this alternative would not meet secondary treatment standards. The activated sludge facilities would have to be constructed before the CWA waiver procedures could be initiated through ocean monitoring and preparation of the wavier application.

Preferred Alternative

A Preferred Alternative is not identified in this Draft SEIS. A Preferred Alternative will be selected after the lead agencies have had the opportunity to review the comments on the Draft SEIS. During the 45-day comment period following the release of the Draft SEIS, the lead agencies will make presentations to the Focus Group, local city councils, and other interested parties on the treatment alternatives and their impacts. The Preferred Alternative will be identified in the Final SEIS and a 30-day comment period will be provided.

Agency and Public Participation in Decision-Making

The SEIS has been prepared to evaluate the long-term treatment options for the SBIWTP. The environmental analysis and the other criteria discussed above will be used in decision making by the lead agencies. This SEIS also will be used as an informational document by other federal, state, and local agencies including, but not limited to, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State Water Resources Control Board, California Coastal Commission, and City of San Diego, in fulfilling their jurisdictional responsibilities, permitting activities, or other cooperation in implementing any future actions taken. The lead agencies prepared and circulated a Notice of Intent (NOI) and a Notice of Availability (NOA). The NOA was published in the Federal Register on January 23, 1998. The NOI, the NOA, and other documentation of public outreach during this SEIS process is included in Appendix G.

Contact Information

Elizabeth Borowiec (borowiec.elizabeth@epa.gov)
EPA Region 9 Water Division
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-2059

Mr. Charles Fischer
USIBWC San Ysidro Office
2225 Dairy Mart Road
San Diego, CA 92173
619/662-7600.

Copies of the SEIS and supporting documents also have been made available at the following local library branches in the vicinity of the SBIWTP:

San Diego Central Library
Reference Section
820 East Street
San Diego, CA 92101		 National City Public Library
Reference Section
200 East 12th Street
National City, CA 91950		 San Ysidro Library
Reference Section
101 West San Ysidro Boulevard
San Ysidro, CA 92173
Otay Mesa Branch Library
Reference Section
3003 Coronado Avenue
San Diego, CA 92154		 Coronado Library
Reference Section
640 Orange Avenue
Coronado, CA 92118		 Chula Vista Library
Reference Section
365 F Street
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Imperial Beach Library
Reference Section
810 Imperial Beach Boulevard
Imperial Beach, CA 91932		    

During the public and agency review period, the USIBWC and EPA will review written comments to the Draft SEIS and oral comments made during a public hearing. A Final SEIS will then be prepared, including any revisions to the Draft SEIS and responses to comments on the Draft SEIS. The Final SEIS will be circulated for a 30-day public review period.

The USIBWC and EPA then will prepare a ROD that will identify the selected alternative. This will include consideration of environmental factors and other factors that were important in arriving at a decision.

Top of page

 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.