2008-2009 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Santa Clara Valley Water District – Part 3

Conclusions 7

• CL1 Page 11
  The Alviso Slough Restoration Project is supported largely by the Alviso community and related government agencies, such as the City of San Jose and Santa Clara County, who will not be paying for it.
• CL2 Page 12
  Vegetation removal results in ~3200c.y. per acre
• CL3 Page 12
  Construction duration assumes 0.5 acre per day vegetation removal per Aquamog, and 230c.y. dredged material per Aquamog.
• CL4 Page 12
  Hauling duration assumes an average of 80 round-trips per day (80 for vegetation plus 80 for sediment), 5 days a week, using 12c.y. haul trucks. The hauling during for sediment also assumes that sediment cannot be hauled offsite until it has completed a 10 day drying period.
• CL5 Page 12
  Hauling of vegetation to Zanker Road Landfill will overlap with hauling of sediment to Newby Island Landfill.
• CL6 Page 12
  Staging areas for drying sediment are assumed to be 2 feet high and a maximum of 6 feet high for stockpiling of sediment. Vegetation stockpiling is assumed to be up to 9 feet high initially then less as it dries.
• CL7 Page 12
  Duration of Alternatives 4 and 5 require at minimum 2 years because all vegetation removal + dredging cannot be completed in a single allowable construction window to avoid species breeding seasons, etc., and could take as many as 3 or 4 years. 12 APPENDIX B Summary Description of Alternatives from DEIR Alt. 4 Alt. 3 Vegetation Vegetation and Root Alt. 5 and Root Mass Vegetation/ Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Mass Removal Root Mass Vegetation Vegetation Removal and Dredge Removal (15.3 and Root and Root and Dredge to 16-foot acres) and Mass Mass to 8foot Depth (6.2 Dredge to 10- Alt. 6 Project Removal (2.6 Removal (7.0 Depth (3.7 acres) foot Depth (9.7 No Elements acres) acres) acres) acres) Project3 Vegetation 8,320 22,400 11,840 19,840 80,000 0 removed, c.y. Sediment Removed (wet), 0 0 48,000 160,000 157,000 0 c.y. Length of slough affected by 1,400 3,400 2,300 2,200 3,300 0 project work (feet) Current average width of slough between Gold 50 50 50 50 50 50 Street and County Marina (feet)1 Resultant average width of slough between Gold 803 130 100 110 160 503 Street and County Marina (feet)2 Notes: 1 Average width of slough before and after implementation of alternatives was determined based on approximately 10 equi- distant transects between Gold Street and the County Marina. The current average width of open water between Gold Street and County Marina was field measured on February 1, 2007. 2 The resultant width of the slough after construction does not imply adequate depth for all boats at all tides. The widths do not include changes associated with the SBSP Phase 1 actions (see footnote 3) 3 The Alternative 1 and No Project values of 80 and 50, respectively, do not consider the SBSP Phase 1 actions. The SBSP Phase 1 notch at Pond A8 is predicted to increase the average width of slough between Gold Street and County Marina by 50 to 90 feet, or to an estimated slough width of 100-140 feet, and resultant average width of 120 feet. Such action could potentially increase the resultant widths of Alternatives 1 and 6 as shown in the table. The other alternatives are predicted to attain a channel width as shown in table with or without the SBSP Phase 1 action. 13 APPENDIX C Extracts from Public Comments Made in Response to Draft Environmental Impact Report Audubon Society • Sensitive Species: Breeding of salt marsh Common Yellow Throat & Alameda Song Sparrow if any construction work shifts outside of September 1st. to February 28th. construction window. Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge • Lowering the levee weirs allows flood waters to escape the slough channel onto the Refuge location known as Pond A-8, through it, onto Refuge Ponds A- 5, A- 7 and possibly A –6. • SCVWD cannot have the right to alter the weir at will. The Refuge acquired ponds … in 2003, and current weir was an existing easement and condition that had been negotiated by the District (SCVWD) with the prior landowner. The DEIR proposes to alter those conditions in all but the no project alternative. Thus, any alteration of the weir involving impact on the Refuge must reassess District rights to do so and US FWS responsibility under NWRSAA. • The project effects downstream topping of levees A-12 and A-11. A potential outcome mitigated by lowering the weir, would also introduce greater flow of flood waters onto Refuge Lands and increase the potential of harm to wildlife and habitats. Thus, with or without lowering the weir, Alternatives 1 through 5 involve the NWRSAA,( National Wildlife Refuge System Administrative Act. 1966) • Adverse biological impact introduced by the altered hydrological and pollutant (Hg) conditions to the Refuge. • The project also has adverse effects on the South Bay Salt pond Restoration Project (SBSPRP). • The South Bay Shoreline Study a project that will have a major impact on the Alviso Project has been omitted in the report. • “District staff has stated that this is not a flood control project. But such statements are contradicted by actions proposed by Alternatives 1-5. Each proposes action that creates new flood dangers that must be mitigated in new flood control actions. Making matters worse, the proposed flood control actions dramatically increase Project costs and divert funds that could be used otherwise e.g. for watershed projects that may be alternatives that reduce flood potential without aggravating existing flood conditions.” (Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge.) 14 APPENDIX C - continued California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region • ASRP Project is not a Restoration Project. The Saltwater Pond Restoration Project returns shoreline to its original condition before the salt ponds were installed and back to salt water marshes and tidal flats • Widening and deepening only one portion of the slough introduces unstable conditions in the current dimensions of the slough. • Alteration of channel needs follow up maintenance work yearly. The Water Board considers the impacts resulting from the project to be essentially permanent. • Threat to fish & wildlife. Steelhead cannot get out of Pond A-8, once the fish gets in. • There will be a marked increase in sediments due to disturbances. Increased turbidity which screens may not adequately control. Other concerns are, mercury Hg contamination, reduction in water quality, habitat disturbance and conversion of wetland/ marsh habitat to open water. • Proposed mitigation measures is currently inadequate to support issuance of permits for this Project by the Water Board. Department of Fish & Game • Vegetation and root removal shall result in only a one foot deepening of the slough bottom.” This assumption is false according to DF&G findings. This work will lower the existing grade of the slough bottom by 4feet. • Lowering the level of Pond A-8 involved too much collateral damages to the surrounding slough environment, to the downstream localities and other ponds. • Dredging could bring bio-accumulative effects, which could be transferred up the food chain to terrestrial species. • Many Special Status and Federal Threatened species are endangered. • Four federal and state threatened and protected species of fish are involved. o Chinook Salmon ( Species of Special concern CA.)) o Central CA Coast Steelhead ( Federally Threatened Species. ) o Green Sturgeon ( Federally Threatened Species. ) o Long fin Smelt ( State of CA.) • All alternatives 1 thru 5 impacted these 4 species of threatened aquatic wildlife. The threats will result due to elimination of food sources, increases in turbidity, disturbed habitat which are all permanent impacts from the proposed project. 15 APPENDIX C – continued • Some of the other wildlife threatened are: o Salt Marsh Wandering Shrew. o Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse ( Federal endangered Species.) o California Black Rails ( State threatened and protected species.) o California Clapper Rails ( State & Federal endangered and protected species.) • There is an omission in the DEIR regarding mercury. It did not discuss the potential for conveyance of mercury nor other pollutants including trash onto the Refuge during storm events. 'When acquiring Pond A8 and nearby former salt ponds, the Refuge recognized that there were know of, historical deposits of mercury within pond boundaries. That status became a factor of significant importance in restoration planning and implementation. Given that fact, Refuge planning must include avoidance of any increase in mercury deposition. The DEIR discussion of mercury pollution (p. 3.2-5) states that discharge of mercury into the watershed is episodic i.e. mostly occurring during high-flow storm events. It does not correlate such events \with a lowered weir nor the impact of altered input onto the Refuge. It is anticipated that implementation the Guadalupe River Watershed TMDL [Total Maximum Daily Load] will eventually reduce the watershed dispersion of mercury to insignificant levels. It is expected that that outcome is some years in the future, possibly decades. Thus the intervening years have the potential for significant mercury deposition onto the Refuge during high-water storm events. It is a concern that the DEIR, in discussing methyl mercury production and bioaccumulation (pp 3.221, 3.2- 22), can conclude as a summary of all Alternatives that the Project would have "Less than Significant" impacts on this pollutant issue. In the same section the DEIR acknowledges that bringing deeper sediments to the surface could increase the reactive mercury in those sediments and that "It is not known for certain that this increase in reactive mercury would result in an increase in the methylation rate." With such an unknown, a less than significant impact is fully inappropriate. We can only conclude that Alternatives 1-5 will increase the extent of mercury pollution possible on the Refuge, through a lowered weir, and possibly downstream of the Project site. Doing so would increase risks to the food web and impacted species above and beyond risk levels that already exist. This is an unacceptable change and must be addressed in the FEIR. 16 APPENDIX C - continued Shoreline Watch for San Jose • Suspension and Mobilization of Contaminated Sediment: The document acknowledges that dredging would expose potentially mercury-contaminated deep sediments, but the District would not expect those sediments to be transported out of the immediate Project area. DFG requests additional information as to how this conclusion was drawn. DFG respectfully points out that even if those exposed sediments do not get transported out of the immediate area, there may still be substantial impacts to aquatic species present in the area, the bioaccumulation effects of which could be transferred up the food chain to terrestrial species. • San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex • Habitat mitigation. We suggest coordinating with the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project for potential mitigation areas in the South Bay. • Impacts to Refuge Infrastructure and Ponds. We are concerned about the project's indirect impacts to refuge-managed ponds along Alviso Slough during flood events. Removal of marsh vegetation could result in levee erosion. The widening and deepening of the Slough by the project could have unanticipated consequences to lands and levees downstream of the Slough by forcing higher volumes of water down the remaining narrower portions of the Slough. Levees along the ponds could potentially overtop refuge levees causing flooding of the Alviso community. The combined effects of the planned A8 restoration project and this project should be thoroughly evaluated prior to construction. • Lowering of A8 Weir. We do not support the lowering of the weir on A8 as increased flood waters spilling into pond A8 will cause increased contaminants levels, particularly in regard to mercury. We are also not clear what property rights exist that allow the lowering of this weir and the increased flooding that would likely result. 17 APPENDIX D Short Chronology of Alviso Slough Restoration Project An apparent inequity in the LGRP plan is noted by the Director representing Alviso: The banks of the Guadalupe above the UPRR were being developed with 35 foot wide overflow banks that improved flow capacity and maintenance; whereas below Some time in 2002 the UPRR, the river banks did not have such improvements. In response, the District staff proposed removal under of 60% of the vegetation (4 out of 7 acres) at a cost of less than $1M using a similar approach to that of the upstream portions and would provide improved maintenance. As the LGRP was reaching the final stages of approval, the BOD requested staff to make recommendations for environmental November 2002 enhancements related to the LGRP. Among the