mpwsp deir presentation (marina) 05-12-15

8/9/2019 MPWSP DEIR Presentation (Marina) 05-12-15

1/97

1

CalAm Monterey PeninsulaWater Supply Project

DEIR Review

SPECIAL JOINT MEETINGof the

MARINA CITY COUNCILand the

MARINA PLANNING COMMISSION

May 12, 2015


2/97

2

California Public UtilitiesCommission (CPUC)

• Led by 5 governor-appointed commissioners• Regulates privately-owned electric, natural gas,

telecommunications, water, railroad, rail transit,and passenger transportation companies

• Serves the public interest by ensuring theprovision of safe, reliable utility service andinfrastructure at reasonable rates, with acommitment to environmental enhancement anda healthy California economy

• CEQA Lead Agency for the Proposed Project


3/97

3

Project History

Application submittedfor the Coastal Water

Project(Application A.04-09-019)

CWP Draft EIRpublished

(Jan 2009)

CWP Final EIRpublished & certified

(Oct 2009)

Approval implementingthe Regional Project

Alternative andcorresponding WaterPurchase Agreement

(Decision D.10-12-016)(December 2010)

Application submitted for theMPWSP

(Application A.12-04-019)

(April 2012)

2004 2009 2011 20132005 20072006 20122008 2010

MPWSPEIR Scoping(Oct 2012)


4/97

4

MontereyPeninsula

WaterSupplyProject(A.12-04-019)


5/97

5

MPWSP Variant


6/97

6

CPUC Analysis ofNeed, Cost & Rates

CPUC StartsIndependent

EnvironmentalReview Process

Public Scoping

EnvironmentalStudies

Draft EIR

Final EIR

Administ rat ive LawJudge (ALJ) Hearings

CPUCDecision

DraftDecision

CPUC Process for Project Review

Cal-Am Application fora Certificate of Public

Convenience andNecessity (CPCN)


7/97

7

California Environmental Quality

Act (CEQA)• Requires that state and local agencies

identify the significant environmental

impacts of their actions and avoid ormitigate those impacts, if feasible

• Environmental Impact Report (EIR)identifies significant impacts, mitigation toavoid or reduce such impacts, and projectalternatives


8/97

8

Focus of Draft EIR Review• In reviewing draft EIRs . . . focus on the

sufficiency of the document in identifyingand analyzing the possible impacts on theenvironment and ways in which thesignificant effects of the proposed projectmight be avoided or mitigated.

(CEQA § 15204. Focus of Review)


9/97

9

Focus of Draft EIR Review• Comments are most helpful when they

suggest additional specific alternatives ormitigation measures that would providebetter ways to avoid or mitigate thesignificant environmental effects.


10/97

10

Executive Summary


11/97

11

Table ES-3

Summary of Impacts andMitigation Measures


12/97


13/97

13

Chapter 1Introduction


14/97

14

Project Purpose and Need

To replace existing water supplies that areconstrained by legal decisions affecting the CarmelRiver and Seaside Groundwater Basin:

• SWRCB Order 95-10 requires that CalAm reducesurface water diversions from the Carmel River inexcess of legal entitlement (3,376 AFY)

• Adjudication of Seaside Groundwater Basin effectively

reduces CalAm’s allocation of groundwater supplies to1,474 AFY

• SWRCB Order 2009-0060 requires that CalAm securereplacement supplies for the Monterey District byDecember 2016


15/97


16/97

16

Project Objectives• Reliable water supply for the CalAm’s

Monterey District service area, accountingfor the peak month demand of existingcustomers

• Reliable water supply that meets fire flowrequirements

• Provide supplies to serve existing legal lotsof record• Accommodate tourism demand under

recovered economic conditions


17/97

17

Project Objectives• Provide sufficient conveyance capacity to

accommodate supplemental watersupplies that may be developed at somepoint in the future to meet build outdemand, in accordance with adoptedGeneral Plans

• Minimize energy requirements andgreenhouse gas emissions per unit ofwater delivered


18/97

18

Chapter 2Demand and Supply


19/97

19

Demand and Supply

Demand (afy)

System Demand 13,291PB Entitlements 325

Tourism Rebound 500

Lots of Record 1,180

TOTAL 15,296

Carmel River Rights 3,376Seaside Basin GW 774

ASR 1,300

Sand City Desal 94

Remaining Need 9,752

Supply Portfolio (afy)


20/97

20

Chapter 3Project Description


21/97

21

ProposedProject• Seawater intake

system:• 8-slant wells at

CEMEX• 9.6 MGD desal plant• Brine discharged via

existing MRWPCAocean outfall anddiffuser

• Water conveyancefacilities

• Improvements toexisting SeasideGroundwater Basin

ASR system


22/97

22

Subsurface Intakes at CEMEX

EMEX

Dredging Por:1d

I

IIIIIIII

•

Sour ce Wat e rP ipe line (P r t >po se d )

......C E M E X

IS a n dM i n i n g F a c i l it y l

I

NO TES :

0 I

MRWP CA Ou tf a ll P ipe line ( I:::Xisting )

Electrical ControlBuilo ing (Propesea )

· ~ r o j e < .t a rea b ou ndary refers o the area within which cons truction re la ted d is t u ~>a n c e would o ccu r.ro iu k ; r nt l h~ rittQ U ~ S I ~ I Io f l l l ~suWulfioiU:t ~ ~ ~ Iill W t t l l ~i II\J MPWSP e ~ l il ld l i J J IP ld l l l J U ~l b e d J i le l ll

sys te m, i n Janu a ry 2015 CatAm beoan construction of a test s la nt well a t t le CEMEXact ive m ining a reac 1 n l; ~ n sto :11 l P.r::JI P :thP.: 'P. =i t OI. nt A l l ~rt rt n :1 fl llnt \ f n ( Jr ~ l lpn n r:rm j"'IP.t inn n f lh P :ni lot p r oo r ~ and s ~ u mi n J th e res ults of the pi lot proora ll co nf im lhe viability ofsubsuf a ce s lan t we lls a l th is site . a sl" r t of he p r o p o S ~ > jproject the test slant W9ll WOIIId be o n v e ~ e dir to a pemane nt sEawat er n tat.e w e iand u ti Zed as part of he propcsed p-ojecrs Seawater Intake System _

Test S lant Well (EKstirg) .

S la nt Wells (Proposed)- Electrica l Conduit (Propese d)

- Source Water P ipe line (P roposed )- MRWPCA Ocea n Outfall a nd Diffuser (Existing)- Desa linate d Wate r Pipeline (Pr opose d)• • C ity Bo l.l 'dary

_ Pro,ect Area Boundary*


23/97

23

DesalinationPlant

• Source WaterPipelines

• Brine DischargePipeline

• Salinas ValleyReturn Pipeline


24/97

24

DesalinatedWater Pipeline

(north of Reservation Rd)

TransmissionMain

(south of Reservation Rd)


25/97

25

TransmissionMain

TransferPipeline

Terminal

ReservoirMontereyPipeline ASR


26/97

26

Monterey Pipeline


27/97

27

Chapter 4Environmental Setting, Impacts

and Mitigation


28/97

28

4.6 Terrestrial BiologicalResources


29/97

29

DesignatedCriticalHabitat


30/97

30

4.9: Traffic and Transportation


31/97

31

4.11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions

• The Project would have an incrementalcontribution to climate change from GHG

emissions – Construction emissions (vehicles and

equipment

– Net annual emissions from operations(energy use)

• Mitigation will not reduce GHGs to meetthe threshold SUM


32/97

32

4.12: Noise and Vibration

• The Project could cause an increase inambient noise levels during construction

– Most facilities would be LS

– Some facilities would be LSM

– Nighttime construction of the MontereyP ipeline, and ASR Wells 5 and 6, wouldexceed sleep thresholds. SUM


33/97

33

8: Growth Inducement

• The MPWSP would not directly contribute to thecreation of additional housing or jobs

• However, the proposed project would indirectlysupport growth by removing, to some extent,water supply limitations as an obstacle to growth

• That would enable a degree of growth under the

approved general plans within the area servedby the MPWSP.


34/97

34

Subsurface Intakes and

Groundwater Resources


35/97

35

Slant Wells at CEMEX


36/97

36

Typical Slant Well


37/97

37

Exploratory

Boreholes


38/97

38

Geologic Cross Section 1-1’

C P ti f C S ti


39/97

39

Cemex Portion of Cross SectionInterpreted Before Test Well

C P ti f C S ti


40/97

40

Cemex Portion of Cross SectionInterpreted After Test Well


41/97

41

Conceptual Model


42/97

42

ModelBoundaries

Hydrologic Base Period


43/97

43

This 63 year period represents a hydrologic

period consisting of long and short periods ofdry and wet conditions as well as periods ofaverage precipitation representing a range ofpotential future hydrologic conditions for theevaluation of impacts from the MPWSP.

Hydrologic Base Period

432012

2075

2074

2137

Model

Time

S l d P i d f A l i


44/97

44

This 63 year period represents a hydrologic

period consisting of long and short periods ofdry and wet conditions as well as periods ofaverage precipitation representing a range ofpotential future hydrologic conditions for theevaluation of impacts from the MPWSP.

Selected Period for Analysis

442012

2075

2074

2137

Model

Time

l d l


45/97

45

Simulated GW ElevationChange Between Baseline and

Proposed Project

Active Wells Within Radius of


46/97

46

Active Wells Within Radius ofInfluence


47/97

47

Particle Tracking/Flow Paths atCEMEX


48/97

48

Particle Tracking/Flow Paths atNorth County


49/97

49

SimulatedGW

ElevationChange atFort OrdPlumes


50/97

50

DISCHARGE


51/97

51


52/97

52

Existing Outfall


53/97

53

Brine Modeling Considerations

• Near-field – How much dilution will occur in the Zone of Initial

Dilution (ZID)?

– Modeling indicates plume exceeds ambientsalinity by less than 2 ppt at the edge of the ZID

O Pl C i d


54/97

54

Ocean Plan Constituents andPotential Exceedences

MPWSP• Brine-only

– PCBs (Monterey Bayalready exceeds OP WQObjectives)

• Brine and Wastewater – PCBs – Ammonia

MPWSP Variant• GWR-only

– No exceedences

• Brine-only – PCBs• Brine, WW and GWR-effluent

– PCBs – Ammonia – Toxaphene – Chlordane – DDT – TCDD Equivalents


55/97

55

Mitigation for Exceedences ofOcean Plan WQ Objectives

• If CalAm cannot demonstrate to RWQCBand MRWPCA that the water at the edge

of the ZID will meet the Ocean Plan waterquality objectives, CalAm will implement,individually or in combination:

– Additional pre-treatment of source water – Additional treatment of discharge – Temporary storage and release of brine(LSM)


56/97

56

Brine Modeling Considerations

• Far-field – Where will the plume go and does it continue to

dilute?

Bill Curtsinger, NGS


57/97

57

Ambient Conditions inMonterey Bay

Three oceanicseasons

– Davidson: approxNov - March

– Upwelling: approxMarch - Sept

– Oceanic: approxSept - Nov


58/97

58

Salinity Above Ambient(Acute Condition)


59/97

59

Salinity Above Ambient(Chronic Condition)


60/97

60

Chapter 5Cumulative Impacts


61/97

61

Ch 5: CumulativeImpacts

Cumulative impacts referto two or more individualeffects that, when takentogether, are“considerable” or thatcompound or increaseother environmentalimpacts.

CEQA Section 15355


62/97

62

Cumulative Projects(not an all-inclusive list)

• Monterey County – Salinas Valley Water Project Phase II

– East Garrison Specific Plan – Omni Enterprises, LLC (aka Corral de Tierra) – Ferrini Ranch Subdivision – Interlake Tunnel

• City of Pacific Grove – Stormwater Recycling Project – Recycled Water Project (PBCSD)


63/97

63


• City of Marina – The Dunes on Monterey Bay – Cypress Knolls Senior Residential Project – Marina Heights – Marina Downtown Vitalization Specific Plan – Marina Airport Economic Development Area

– Marina Station – CSUMB North Campus Housing Master Plan – Monterey Bay Shores Resort – CalAm Slant Test Well at CEMEX


64/97

64


• MPWMD – ASR Phase 1 and 2

• Other – CalAm San Clemente Dam Removal Project – Deep Water Desal and Peoples’ Moss

Landing Desalination Projects – MCWD’s RUWAP

• Recycling Element• Desalination Element


65/97

65

Chapter 6Project Variant


66/97

66

Project Variant


67/97

67

Project Variant

• CalAm would build a 6.4 MGDdesalination plant at Marina

– 5 slant wells at Cemex – Brine discharged through existing outfall – Conveyance – ASR


68/97

68

Project Variant

• MRWPCA would collect and treat a varietyof new source waters

– CalAm would purchase 3,500 afy from PureWater Monterey GWR Project and extract itfrom the Seaside Groundwater Basin

– GWR Project would provide 4,750 afy ofrecycled supplies to CSIP for agriculturalirrigation in the northern Salinas Valley

C l I j i /E i


69/97

69

Conceptual Injection/Extractionof GWR Water

I ld b


70/97

70

Impacts would be more severewith the project variant

• Amount of soil that would be disturbed, andtherefore, the potential to result in soil

erosion and loss of topsoil (LSM)• Temporary, construction-related trips on

local roadways (LSM)

• Construction-related emissions of PM10(SUM )

I ld b l


71/97

71

Impacts would be less severewith the project variant

• Drawdown of the DSA and 180-FTE Aquifer in the SVGB (LS)

– less water is extracted from the slant wells – more water is provided to CSIP for agricultural

users

• Interference with the remediation of acontaminated groundwater plume isavoided (NI)

I t ld b l


72/97

72


• Energy use: 4,700 MWh /year less35,800 MWh/year net increase in energy vs.

40,500 MWh/year net increase – the energy would not be used in a wasteful or

inefficient manner (LS)


73/97

73

Historic Energy Use (MWh/yr)

Seaside Basin(2,470)

Carmel River(5,224)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Total = 7,694 MWh/yr

MPWSP E D d


74/97

74

MPWSP Energy Demand(MWh/yr)

Seaside Basin(497)

Carmel River(1,559)

ASR(2,132)

Desal(44,021)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Total = 48,200 MWh/yrNet = 40,500 MWh/yr

MPWSP V i E D d


75/97

75

MPWSP Variant Energy Demand(MWh/yr)

Seaside Basin(497)

Carmel River(1,559)

ASR(2,132)

GWR - RiverReplacement

(4,361)

GWR - CropIrrigation

(6,591)

Desal(28,346)

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

Total = 43,486 MWh/yrNet = 35,800 MWh/yr

I t ld b l


76/97

76


• GHGs: 253 metric tons/year less5,928 metric tons/year versus

6,181 metric tons/year


77/97

77

Chapter 7 Alternatives


78/97

78

Alternatives

• An EIR must describe and evaluate areasonable range of alternatives to the

project, or to the location of a project, thatwould:

– feasibly attain most of the basic projectobjectives

– but would avoid or substantially lessen anyidentified significant effects of the project.

Section 15126.6(a)

Overarching Goals for CEQA


79/97

79

Overarching Goals for CEQA Alternatives Analysis

• Be responsive to EIR scoping commentsrequesting detailed analysis of desalinationalternatives

• Facilitate/streamline NEPA compliance (ifneeded) by providing comprehensive review ofintake and outfall options

• Identify the Environmentally Superior Alternative

• Provide flexibility during project approval andimplementation

Alternatives Considered and


80/97

80

Alternatives Considered andDismissed

• New Los Padres Dam and Reservoir• Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project• CPUC Water Supply Contingency Plan

(“Plan B”)

• Coastal Water Project and RegionalProject• MCWRA-Proposed Interlake Tunnel


81/97

Evaluation of Desalination


82/97

82

Evaluation of Desalination Alternatives – 3 Tiered Approach• Tier 1: Screening• Tier 2: Evaluation

• Tier 3: Whole Alternatives


83/97

83

Desalination Options

• Individual Options Considered – 13 intakes – 3 desalination plant sites – 7 outfalls

• Information Sources – CalAm Contingency Plan – Input from resource agencies – Project Scoping – Other commercial desalination proposals

Desalination Component


84/97

84

Desalination ComponentOptions: Marina and Seaside

Desalination Component


85/97

85

Desalination ComponentOptions: Moss Landing


86/97

86

AlternativePipelinesNorth of

Reservation

Road


87/97

87

AlternativeTransmission

Main

Alternative Transfer and Monterey


88/97

88

Alternative Transfer and MontereyPipelines


89/97

89

No Project Alternatives

• No Build• No Build + Interim SWRCB Agreement

– the timeline established in the CDO would beextended for another five years, consistentwith the draft proposal by the MPRWA andother Parties to amend the CDO

• Environmentally Superior but do not meetthe basic Project Objectives


90/97


91/97

91

Alternative 2:Open Water

Intake at MossLanding(with Alternative pipelines)

Alternative 3: Project Variant with


92/97

92

Alternative 3: Project Variant withSlant Wells at Potrero Road

(with Alternative pipelines)

Alternative 4: Project Variant with


93/97

93

Open Water Intake at Moss

Landing (with Alternative pipelines)

Environmentally Superior:


94/97

94

Environmentally Superior:Proposed Project

• The proposed project would result in theleast amount of construction and operation

impacts compared with either Alternative 1or Alternative 2

• The Proposed Project is the

environmentally superior alternative of theproposed project alternatives (as opposedto project variant options)

Environmentally Superior:


95/97

95

Environmentally Superior:Project Variant

• The MPWSP Variant would result in theleast amount of construction and operation

impacts compared with either Alternative 3or Alternative 4

• The MPWSP Variant is the

environmentally superior alternative of theMPWSP Variant alternatives

Environmentally Superior


96/97

96

Environmentally Superior Alternative

• The MPWSP Variant is deemed to be theenvironmentally superior alternative

– less energy – lower GHG emissions – diversified portfolio of water supplies – reduced pumping from the SVGB – increased Seaside Basin groundwater

supplies, and – improved groundwater levels and quality in

the SVGB


97/97

mpwsp deir presentation (marina) 05-12-15

Documents