City of Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Water District (scwd2) Regional Seawater Desalination Project
community guide to the Draft Environmental Impact Report MAY 2013
Introductory quote here...
2
Current Section Title
Table of Contents 01 |
INTRODUCTION hat is the proposed project and the purpose of this W guide? Why has an environmental document been prepared?
02 |
PROJECT BACKGROUND What agencies are involved in the proposed project? What is the history of the City’s Integrated Water Plan (IWP) and the District’s Integrated Resources Plan (IRP)? Why is the proposed project needed?
05 |
COMPARISON OF COMPONENT ALTERNATIVES
06 |
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
How were the component alternatives for the proposed project identified and how do they compare?
What alternatives to the proposed project are considered in the Draft EIR and how do they compare?
07 |
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS How does the process work and what is involved?
03 | 04 |
ROJECT OBJECTIVES P AND DESCRIPTION What are the objectives of the proposed project? What are the components of the proposed project and how would it be operated?
PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUMMARY What are the key environmental effects of the proposed project and how are they being minimized?
08 |
COMMENTING ON THE DRAFT EIR What is the public review period? How can I submit comments?
09 |
NEXT STEPS What is the timeline for the proposed project? What approvals and permits are needed?
Current Section Title
3
01//Introduction
What is the proposed project and the purpose of this guide? Why has an environmental document been prepared? PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT: Both the City of Santa Cruz (City)
and Soquel Creek Water District (District) have conducted extensive evaluations of their water needs and available sources, and are pursuing integrated approaches to water supply planning that include conservation programs and curtailment (or cutbacks) of water during periods of drought. In addition to these conservation and curtailment programs, the City and District have also identified the need for a supplemental supply of water. The City and District independently analyzed several alternatives and decided to pursue seawater desalination as a source of supplemental supply. As such, the City and District are jointly evaluating the proposed project that includes the construction and operation of a seawater reverse osmosis desalination plant and related facilities that would remove salt and other minerals from seawater to provide up to 2.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water. PURPOSE OF THE COMMUNITY GUIDE: Over the next several months, the
communities served by the City and District will be participating in the public review process for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). The Draft EIR contains a large volume of information and complex analyses. This guide is intended to provide a summary and overview of the proposed project and key elements of the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR, including environmental design features, mitigation measures, and feasible alternatives. The guide also provides information about the environmental review process and how to provide comments on the Draft EIR (see SECTION 7 of this guide).
4
Current Section Title
While this guide summarizes the Draft EIR and environmental review process, it is not intended to be a part of the formal Draft EIR. Readers who would like to review all of the information contained within the Draft EIR should review a copy online at www.scwd2desal.org or at one of the locations listed on page 28. Public comments must address the contents of the Draft EIR and not the contents of this community guide. WHY HAS AN EIR BEEN PREPARED? The California Environmental Qual-
ity Act (CEQA) requires an EIR be prepared for this proposed project. Under CEQA, every development proposed project that requires a discretionary governmental approval requires some level of environmental review. The EIR is an informational tool used by governing bodies, permitting agencies, and the community to understand the environmental consequences of the proposed project. The first step in the EIR process is called scoping, which allows the public and interested parties to help define the issues and alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR. In November 2010, public release of the Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (NOP/ IS) launched the scoping period, and public scoping meetings were held to provide multiple ways for the public and other interested parties to participate. During the scoping period, the public provided input on the environmental topics, potential effects, mitigation measures, and alternatives to be analyzed in the EIR. Following scoping, technical and environmental studies were conducted to inform and complete the Draft EIR. The EIR identifies the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment and considers feasible alternatives or mitigation measures to substantially lessen or eliminate the significant
In addition to conservation and curtailment programs, the City and District have also identified the need for a supplemental supply of water. The City and District independently analyzed several alternatives and decided to pursue seawater desalination as a source of supplemental supply.
Caption describing Santa Cruz location in photo Current Section Title
5
02//Project Background What agencies are involved in the proposed project? What is the history of the City’s Integrated Water Plan (IWP) and the District’s Integrated Resources Plan (IRP)? Why is the proposed project needed? CITY OF SANTA CRUZ The Santa Cruz Water Department is a municipal utility that is owned and operated by the City. The City provides water service to an area of approximately 20 square miles in size, including the entire City of Santa Cruz, adjoining unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County, a small part of the City of Capitola, and coastal agricultural lands north of the City. The City’s water system relies entirely on rainfall, runoff, and groundwater within watersheds located in Santa Cruz County; and no water is imported from outside the Santa Cruz area (such as from the State Water project). As a result, the City’s system is vulnerable to shortage in dry years. Three primary factors create significant challenges for the City to provide adequate water supply now and in the future: DEMAND EXCEEDS SUPPLY IN DRY YEARS: While the City usually has
adequate supplies to meet demand in wet and normal years, water supplies fall short of demand levels in dry years. Low surface flows in North Coast streams and the San Lorenzo River coupled with depleted surface water storage in Loch Lomond Reservoir reduces the available supply to a level that cannot support existing demand, causing water shortages.
6
Current Section Title
The City is being required to reduce surface water diversions: The City relies on local rivers and streams, important habitat for protected steelhead trout and coho salmon, for over 80 percent of its water supply. The City is in the process of developing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service (fisheries agencies) to obtain permits under the state and federal Endangered Species Acts. As part of this plan, the City needs to significantly reduce the amount of water it has historically diverted from North Coast streams and the San Lorenzo River to provide more water for steelhead trout and coho salmon. The HCP will require the City to reduce reliance on its flowing sources. This combined with its ongoing vulnerability to water supply shortages, is a primary factor driving the need for an additional water supply. Defining the impact of the reduced water diversions is complex, but on average, the HCP will result in approximately a 24% decrease in water system capacity. CURRENT LEVELS OF GROUNDWATER PUMPING ARE UNSUSTAINABLE:
Groundwater pumping from the City’s Live Oak wells, along with other groundwater pumping in the aquifer, is not sustainable. Groundwater pumping in the Soquel-Aptos area has resulted in a slow but continuous drop in groundwater levels. This unsustainable level of groundwater extraction threatens future supplies and increases the risk of seawater intrusion, which could cause an irreversible contamination of the groundwater supply. See further discussion about groundwater pumping for the District below. In addition to these main factors, climate change and pending water rights and entitlements could also result in a decrease in long-term water supply.
City and District Water Service Areas Current Section Title
7
Even with ongoing and new conservation programs, the City in the near term could experience shortages of 39% every two to three years. In the long term, which includes planned and projected growth in the service area, the City could experience shortages of 46% more frequently than every other year. Depending on the outcome of the HCP development process, shortages could be substantially higher than those reported above. Water shortages above 35% are considered by the City to be a Stage 5 Critical Emergency that could threaten the health, safety and security of the community, as well as lead to substantial economic impacts to the area.
of water supply alternatives were investigated during a lengthy public planning process and only one was determined to be viable: construction of a seawater desalination plant. The IWP specifically identified the need for a desalination plant with a capacity of 2.5mgd, with the ability to expand the plant to 4.5 mgd to meet future needs. Because the needs of the City and District are complimentary, the City elected to partner with the District to further investigate a seawater desalination plant as a supplemental water supply proposed project. This cooperative 2.5 mgd supplemental supply project constitutes the proposed project being evaluated in the EIR.
The City has been engaged in extensive planning over the past 25 years to address these water supply issues. The City’s adopted IWP calls for a diverse strategy that includes increased conservation and up to 15% curtailment (or cutbacks) of water in dry years. Even though the City’s per capita water usage rate is nearly half of the average rate for California and among the lowest reported, additional conservation measures were determined to be insufficient to prevent severe water shortages in dry years. As a result, a supplemental water supply has also been identified as a necessary element of the City’s water planning strategy. A number
SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT
Caption needed
8
Current Section Title
The Soquel Creek Water District is a local government agency that provides potable water service and groundwater resource management within its service area. The District’s service area encompasses seven miles of shoreline along Monterey Bay, and extends from one to three miles inland into the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains, essentially following the County Urban Services Line. The District serves portions of the City of Capitola and the unincorporated communities of Aptos, La Selva Beach, Rio Del Mar, Seascape, Seacliff Beach, and Soquel. The District relies entirely on groundwater from the Soquel-Aptos area, which is currently being pumped at an unsustainable rate and is in a state of overdraft. This means that more water is pumped out through wells than is replenished by rainfall seeping deep underground into the aquifers. If the total groundwater extraction from the District and other pumpers (including the City, the Central Water District, mutual water companies, and private well owners) continues at the current rate, the groundwater levels will be too low to protect against seawater intrusion. Seawater intrusion is the movement of seawater into freshwater aquifers which can lead to contamination of drinking water supplies. This condition could worsen with predicted effects from climate change and changing water quality requirements that may affect the use of a portion of the District’s groundwater sources.
The District, as the primary aquifer user, needs to reduce its groundwater pumping substantially and allow the basin to naturally recover to protect the aquifer from seawater intrusion. Similar to the City, water usage rates in the District already reflect substantial efforts in water conservation, and the District is continually advancing water conservation strategies. However, in addition to forecasted conservation savings, the District must reduce its groundwater pumping by approximately one-third (1,500 acre-feet or 489 million gallons) per year to recover the groundwater basin. Without a supplemental supply, this would require year-round cutbacks of approximately 35% for at least 20 years.
If the total groundwater extraction from the District and other pumpers continues at the current rate, the ground water levels will be too low to protect against seawater intrusion.
Given the groundwater overdraft conditions in the Soquel-Aptos area, the District has been actively pursuing a supplemental water supply, along with conservation and groundwater management measures. Over the last 20 years, a number of supply alternatives have been evaluated during public planning processes and were determined not to be viable. The District’s adopted 2012 IRP Update includes, but is not limited to, development of conservation and demand management programs, drought curtailment, and proactive groundwater management, as well as further evaluation of water exchanges and a cooperative 2.5 mgd supplemental water supply project identified as the proposed desalination project.
SCWD2 DESALINATION PROGRAM The City and District have partnered to develop and implement the scwd2Desalination Program. The scwd² Desalination Program is overseen by a Joint Task Force formed by the City and District (comprised of two City Council Members and two District Board Members) to provide direction on the evaluation of the proposed project. The City and District have partnered to undertake the environmental review for the proposed scwd2 Desalination Program. The proposed program includes construction and operation of a seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination plant and related facilities to provide up to 2.5 mgd of water (with the ability to expand the plant to 4.5 mgd to meet future needs). The City and District propose to cooperatively operate the desalination plant to costeffectively share the resource and meet the different objectives and needs of the two agencies. The District would have priority use of the desalination plant during the wet months of the year to help supplement water demand needs while reducing groundwater pumping. The City would have priority use during the dry months. Current Section Title
9
03//Project Objectives and Description What are the objectives of the proposed project? What are the components of the proposed project and how would it be operated?
•
The overarching goal of the proposed project is to supply a safe and reliable source of water to the communities served by the City and District. The specific objectives of the proposed project are summarized below. The objectives address the need for a supplemental water supply as identified by the City IWP and the District IRP. The complete description of the project objectives can be found in SECTION 1.3 of the Draft EIR. •
Provide for a supplemental water supply in a timely manner that meets the agencies’ water supply program objectives for both near-term and long-term needs.
•
Allow the City to reduce its surface water withdrawals and provide operational flexibility as more water is required in local streams and rivers to protect threatened and endangered species.
•
•
•
Provide the District with a supplemental water supply to protect the groundwater basin and reduce the potential for seawater intrusion. Protect the local economy and community from the effects of an uncertain water supply due to the consequences of drought or contamination of the groundwater by seawater intrusion. Plan for climate change and be consistent with the City’s Climate Adaption Plan.
Provide a supplemental water supply that: •
Has regional benefits and promotes efficient use of resources
•
Is readily available, drought-proof, avoids risk and/or uncertainty
•
Effectively meets future changed conditions and ensures accommodation of planned growth
•
Avoids or minimizes significant environmental impacts
•
Does not increase greenhouse gas emissions
•
Is relatively cost-effective
DESALINATION PROJECT COMPONENTS AND ALTERANTIVES
ATER INTA KE AW SE
LE WAT TAB ER PO
consist of a new connection to the City distribution system near the plant and a new intertie system between the City and District service areas:
TION P LINA LA NT SA DE
2 segment alignment
options evaluated
BRINE
SEAWATER INTAKE
DESALINATION PLANT
The seawater intake and conveyance system would consist of an intake structure, intake pipeline, pump station, and transfer piping:
The seawater desalination plant would provide for pre-treatment processing, desalination treatment and energy recovery, post-treatment processing and distribution, residuals handling, chemical systems, and support facilities:
8 location alternatives evaluated 1 preferred alternative identified
3 location alternatives evaluated 1 preferred alternative identified
Desalination proposed project Components and Alternative
10
Current Section Title
POTABLE WATER The potable water distribution system improvements would
BRINE The brine disposal and conveyance system would
consist of brine storage at the desalination plant, a new pipeline to the City’s WWTF outfall, and outfall improvements: 2 pipeline alignment
and outfall connection options evaluated
The proposed project consists of many different components, all of which work together to meet the objectives of the proposed project. The components of the proposed project consist of:
•
Systems to store and deliver chemicals used in water conditioning
•
Brine storage and disposal – the byproduct of reverse osmosis filtration is concentrated seawater that is typically twice as salty as ambient seawater and requires appropriate dilution prior to disposal back to the ocean, as further described below. Storage of the brine in tanks on the plant site is needed to regulate the flow and dilution rate of the brine
•
Support facilities associated with the plant components
1. SEAWATER INTAKE SYSTEM: A seawater intake and conveyance system
consisting of an intake structure, intake pipeline, pump station, and transfer piping. The EIR evaluates eight location alternatives for the intake. Only one of these location alternatives would be implemented. 2. SEAWATER DESALINATION PLANT: The EIR evaluates three location
alternatives for the seawater desalination plant. Only one of these location alternatives would be implemented. A seawater desalination plant would include: •
Pretreatment of seawater to remove debris and solids
•
Residuals handling and disposal of the solids that are removed in pre-treatment
•
Reverse osmosis filtration to remove dissolved salts and minerals - achieved by forcing the pre-treated water through membrane filters at high pressure
•
Energy recovery devices to capture and reuse energy from the high pressure filtration process
•
Post-treatment conditioning prior to delivery to the domestic water distribution system to increase hardness and protect distribution systems against corrosion and to comply with public health regulations
3. BRINE DISPOSAL SYSTEM: The concentrated seawater, or brine, result-
ing from the reverse osmosis process would be mixed with the discharge from the City’s existing Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) so the combined effluent (discharged wastewater) would have the same salinity levels as ocean water to avoid any potential effects on the marine environment. To achieve this, new facilities would be needed to store and convey the brine to the WWTF outfall, which would be modified to appropriately dispose of the brine. 4. POTABLE WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: New facilities to pump and
convey the desalinated water to the existing water distribution system would be needed. These would consist of a new connection to the City distribution system and a new intertie system between the City and District service areas, including new pipelines and pump station improvements. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN FEATURES: Environmental design, construc-
tion, and operational features consisting of measures that would be implemented to avoid, reduce, or minimize potential environmental effects that might occur in the absence of such elements. Key environmental design features are identified in SECTION 4.
Caption needed
Current Section Title
11
04//Project Environmental Analysis Summary What are the key environmental effects of the proposed project and how are they being minimized?
1. Identifying the significant environmental effects of their proposed actions; 2. Avoiding or mitigating those significant environmental effects, where feasible; and/or 3. Presenting feasible alternatives that lessen the significant effects while still achieving most of the primary objectives of the proposed project. The Draft EIR addresses the three topics above starting with the identification and management of the potential significant effects of the proposed project on the environment. Based on the CEQA Guidelines, the IWP Program EIR, and the outcome of the scoping process performed in 2010-2011 (see the Environmental Review Process below), the Draft EIR addresses the following environmental resource topics in detail. CEQA focuses primarily on physical effects on the environment and excludes social or economic effects.
Solar panels will help reduce the energy impact of the desalination plant.
The basic intent of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is to develop, maintain and enhance a high-quality environment for California residents and visitors, and to avoid environmental damage; while providing for a decent living environment. Through its formal and structured public review process, CEQA gives agencies and community members an opportunity to consider and provide comment on the environmental consequences of the proposed project. When a project is subject to CEQA and requires preparation of an EIR, agencies responsible for implementing CEQA (Lead Agencies), such as the City and District, are required to evaluate the project by:
12
Current Section Title
•
Hydrology and Water Quality
•
Cultural Resources
•
Marine Biological Resources
•
•
Terrestrial Biological Resources
Utilities and Service Systems (includes Energy)
•
Aesthetics
•
Land Use, Planning, and Recreation
•
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
•
Air Quality and Climate (includes Greenhouse Gases)
•
Traffic and Transportation
•
Growth Impacts
•
Cumulative Impacts
•
Noise and Vibration
•
Geology and Soils
For each topic, the Draft EIR describes the existing environmental setting and regulatory framework, evaluates potential proposed project impacts based on the proposed project description and its incorporation of environmental design features, and recommends mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts. The environmental analysis also describes any distinctions between the three (3) alternative desalination plant sites and eight (8) alternative seawater intake sites being considered for the proposed project. During public scoping, the community voiced concerns over a number of environmental topics and raised questions on how the City and District intended to resolve these concerns. The Community Guide summarizes key conclusions of the environmental analysis for these areas of community interest, including impacts related to: marine water quality, marine biological resources, terrestrial biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, energy, water supply quality, and growth. The following provides a summary of the environmental impacts associated with these topics and the recommended approach for reducing or avoiding these impacts.
MARINE WATER QUALITY OVERVIEW: The analysis of marine water quality impacts focuses on
whether the brine discharge could meet regulatory requirements for water quality and not exceed existing salinity of the ocean. The proposed project would dilute the brine from the desalination process with the City’s WWTF effluent prior to discharge through the existing WWTF outfall to avoid adverse effects of elevated salinity on the marine environment. In addition, the analysis examines the effects on marine water quality during construction of offshore components. IMPACTS: With the implementation of environmental design features, the
brine discharge from operation of the proposed project via the existing WWTF ocean outfall would not violate water quality standards, and the
Testing is done to determine the salinity of discharge.
salinity of the discharge would match existing ocean conditions. Temporary marine water quality effects during construction are minimized through mitigation measures. See below for environmental design features and mitigation measures. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN FEATURES • Brine would be blended with less salty water coming from the
existing WWTF to dilute the brine to match existing ocean salinity •
Storage of brine at the desalination plant would control the rate of discharge to account for fluctuations in flows from the WWTF
•
New valves on the existing discharge ports of the WWTF outfall would help spread the combined effluent along the entire diffuser length providing for improved mixing and better control of flow rates Current Section Title
13
•
Automatic control devices and monitoring would ensure proper blending of the brine
•
Underground tunneling for the installation of the seawater intake pipelines would avoid beach and bluff construction and minimize sediment and turbidity in the marine environment
MITIGATION MEASURES • A construction drilling-
fluids management plan for seawater intake pipeline tunneling would minimize water quality effects from potential release of fluids during tunneling (Mitigation Measure 5.1-2a)
•
Marine construction best management practices would minimize turbidity (Mitigation Measure 5.1-2b)
WHERE EVALUATED IN EIR
Section 5.1, Hydrology and Water Quality Appendix J, Dilution Analysis for Brine Disposal Via Ocean Outfall
MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW: To deliver seawater to
the desalination plant for treatment, a new intake system and piping would be developed. Piping would be drilled below ground from a location onshore to the intake location offshore. A screen would be attached to the offshore
end of the pipe. At the onshore end, a pump station would be constructed to draw the water through the screened opening, and to deliver the water to the desalination plant. The analysis of marine biological resources focuses on what happens when marine organisms are drawn along with the ocean water through the screen and through the filtration process – an effect known as “entrainment”. Also, the Draft EIR analyzes the potential for organisms to get trapped or pinned on the outside of the screens – an effect known as “impingement”. The Draft EIR also examines potential the effects of the brine discharge and temporary construction-related marine life and environments. IMPACT: With the implementation
Intake structures reduce impacts to Marine biological resources.
14
Current Section Title
of environmental design features, the operation of the proposed seawater intake system and brine discharge via the existing WWTF ocean outfall would not have a substantial adverse effect on special-status or other marine species; would not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels; or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. Construction-phase impacts on marine life and habitat due to temporary water quality effects, underwater construction noise, and the placement of the intake structure are minimized through mitigation measures. These effects are further described below. Entrainment and Impingement Impacts: To put the potential for
entrainment of marine life from operation of the seawater intake in perspective, a year-long study was conducted for the proposed project to understand the impact to marine life of entrainment. This study is the Open Ocean Intake Effects Study, which is Appendix G of the Draft EIR. The study concluded that white croaker (the most abundant species collected) would have the potential for losing up to the lifetime reproductive capacity of a single female fish annually as a result of the proposed project. This would be an extremely small fraction of the reproductive output of the overall source water population, and represents far less mortality than that resulting from other natural sources and human
activities, such as commercial or recreational fishing. The intake screens attached to the intake pipeline would further reduce the entrainment by excluding organisms greater than the screen slot size, including adult and juvenile fish, and some of the larger larvae of fish and invertebrate species. Additionally, because the flow rate through the screens would be relatively low, the risk of organisms getting trapped or pinned on the outside of the screen is extremely low, as confirmed by extensive monitoring of a test screen. Discharge Impacts: As described above for marine water quality, the discharge of brine would not increase salinity of the ocean above existing conditions and would not exceed other water quality standards and objectives. Therefore, no adverse effects on marine life would result from the brine discharge. Brine
The intake would be placed far enough offshore to be beyond the kelp forests offshore of Santa Cruz. The pipeline to the intake would be tunneled underground to avoid construction in kelp forests, tidal beach, and bluff areas. Construction-phase impacts on marine life and habitat due to temporary water quality effects, underwater construction noise, and the placement of the intake structure are minimized through mitigation measures. Construction Impacts:
•
New valves on the existing discharge ports of the WWTF outfall would help spread the combined effluent along the entire diffuser length providing for improved Pretreatment allows for removal of particles. mixing and better control of flow rates 5.1-2b).
•
Automatic control devices and monitoring would ensure proper blending of the brine
•
Underground tunneling for the installation of the seawater intake pipelines would avoid beach, bluff, and intertidal construction and minimize sediment and turbidity in the marine environment
See below for environmental design features and mitigation measures. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN FEATURES • Provide intake screens slot
size and low through-screen velocity, per regulatory guidelines •
•
Brine would be blended with less salty water coming from the existing WWTF to dilute the brine to existing ocean salinity. Storage of brine at the desalination plant would control the rate of discharge to account for fluctuations in flows from the WWTF
MITIGATION MEASURES • Construction-phase mitiga-
•
The effects of underwater construction noise on special-status and other marine life due to particular construction activities would be controlled through the preparation and implementation of a hydroacoustic (underwater noise) monitoring plan (Mitigation Measure 5.2-4). This measure would apply only to certain seawater intake sites (SI-4, SI-5, SI-7, SI-14, SI-16, and SI-17).
tion measures include the same measures noted above for marine water quality impacts (Mitigation Measures 5.1-2a and Current Section Title
15
•
A pre-construction survey of the selected intake location will identify the precise site for the intake structure and areas to avoid during construction. The placement of the seawater intake structure would avoid kelp forest habitat through the use of such a survey. (Mitigation Measure 5.2-5). This measure would apply only to certain seawater intake sites (SI-4, SI-5, SI-7, SI-14, and SI-16).
WHERE EVALUATED IN EIR
Section 5.2, Resources
Marine
Biological
Appendix G, Open Ocean Intake Effects Study
TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The new on-shore structures and buildings for the proposed project would be located on parcels within the City of Santa Cruz that are either already developed or are within and surrounded by existing developed areas. New on-shore underground piping would be located primarily OVERVIEW:
16
Current Section Title
in existing paved public roads in the City, County, and Capitola alongside other existing utilities such as water, wastewater, power, and telecommunication lines. The approach to the analysis of terrestrial biological resource impacts from the construction of the proposed project involved performing vegetation and habitat surveys of the proposed project area, conducting literature reviews, and evaluating whether the construction of the proposed facilities would have a substantial adverse effect on: special-status terrestrial or freshwater aquatic species; sensitive habitat; protected wetlands; wildlife movement; and/or resources protected by local policies, such as heritage trees. The proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects to protected wetlands. With the implementation of identified mitigation measures, construction of the proposed onshore facilities would not have substantial adverse effects on: state and federal special-status species (including Central California Coast steelhead, California redlegged frog, foothill yellow-legged IMPACT:
1.Existing View of site from Delaware Ave. trees in the
project area.
frog, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat); migratory birds; riparian habitat; or heritage trees. If Plant Site A-2 is selected, the removal of on-site trees could result in a substantial adverse effect to monarch butterfly overwintering habitat in Natural Bridges State Beach, if these trees provide a secondary 3. View north of site from Delaware Ave. wind break to that habitat. The implementation of environmental design features would provide for the use of butterfly nectar species in the landscaping plans for the desalination plant.
foraging resources for butterflies and other beneficial insect species MITIGATION MEASURES • Pre-construction surveys
would be conducted and protection measures implemented for special-status 4. View west of site from Delaware Ave. species, including Central California Coast steelhead, California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, and specialstatus and migratory birds (Mitigation Measures 5.3-1a through 5.3-1d and 5.3-5).
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN FEATURES • The landscaping at the
desalination plant site butterfly 5. Viewwould of existinginclude trees nectar plants to provide
•
Riparian setback and protec6. View of existing riparian corridor tion from measures would be Natural Bridges Dr.
City of Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Water District scwd2 Regional Seawater Desalination Project
intentional blank line
implemented at Plant Site A-2 and the City-District intertie crossing of Arana Creek at Brookwood Drive (Mitigation Measures 5.3-2a and 5.3-2b). •
•
A tree replacement plan would be prepared and implemented to address the removal of trees on Plant Site A-2 that are potentially providing secondary windbreak to monarch butterfly roosts. An arborist report would be prepared and implemented to ensure that trees to be retained on Plant Site A-2 are not damaged during construction (Mitigation Measure 5.3-6).
WHERE EVALUATED IN EIR
Section 5.3, Terrestrial Biological Resources Appendix R, Biotic Resources Survey Report Appendix S, Monarch Butterfly Habitat Assessment
ENERGY, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, & CLIMATE CHANGE OVERVIEW: The energy require-
ment of seawater desalination and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are among the key community issues in the evaluation of the proposed project. The approach to the analysis of energy impacts from the proposed project involves evaluating whether the proposed project would require new or expanded energy generation or transmission facilities or conflict with existing energy standards. The approach to the analysis of GHG impacts from the proposed project involves evaluating whether the GHG emissions would have an adverse effect on the environment or conflict with an applicable plan or regulation intended to reduce GHG emissions. IMPACT: With the implementation
of environmental design features, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects related to energy use or GHG emissions, as the proposed project would not result in the need for new or expanded energy supplies or distribution facilities, would not
conflict with applicable energy standards, and would not result in a net increase in GHG emissions. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN FEATURES • High-efficiency energy
recovery devices would allow for reuse of energy at the desalination plant •
High-efficiency pumps and motors would reduce energy requirements
•
SWRO membrane configuration would meet water quality goals while minimizing system energy requirements
neutral operations would result in no net increase in GHG emissions. This would be achieved through the above features and the pursuit of one of two options for offsetting the net increase in GHG emissions, including a portfolio of energy and GHG reducing proposed projects and actions, or the purchase of certified GHG offsets.
Compliance with the City’s Green Building Program, Reverse osmosis units improve water quality. which includes concepts common to the Leadership in Energy • Energy Minimization and and Environmental Design Greenhouse Gas Reduction (LEED) program, would Plan would be implemented allow the proposed project to ensure that the net to meet established energy carbon neutral objective sustainability goals. of the proposed project is achieved on a long-term • Commitment to net carbon basis. •
Current Section Title
17
MITIGATION MEASURES
None required WHERE EVALUATED IN EIR
Section 5.5, Air Quality and Climate (for discussion of GHGs and climate change) Section 5.9, Utilities and Service Systems (for discussion of energy) Appendix O, Summary of Energy and GHG Reduction Approach Appendix T, Air Quality and Climate Calculations
Desalinated water is less saline than tap water.
WATER SUPPLY QUALITY OVERVIEW: Seawater from Monterey Bay would be pretreated, desalted
using seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) treatment, and conditioned for the existing drinking water system at the proposed desalination plant producing up to 2.5 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable drinking water. A desalination pilot program was implemented to test and
18
Current Section Title
evaluate alternative treatment systems. The results of the pilot program were used to determine whether drinking water standards could be reliably met. In addition, the pilot program determined whether a new source of desalinated potable water would adversely affect the water quality of the existing treated water supply. IMPACT: The City of Santa Cruz undertook a comprehensive pilot plant
test program from 2008 to 2009 to evaluate alternative treatment systems for a seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination plant and to analyze the water quality of potable water produced from the seawater offshore of Santa Cruz. Based on the Pilot Study Report (Appendix D of the Draft EIR) and subsequent evaluation conducted for the Preliminary Design Report (Appendix L of the Draft EIR), the pre-treatment process chosen would consist of rapid mixing, dissolved air flotation (DAF) units and pressurized microfiltration/ultrafiltration (MF/UF) membranes. This pretreatment process was selected because it is the most reliable under all anticipated water quality conditions. The DAF process causes organic and inorganic material in raw seawater, such as algae, to coagulate and float to the surface for easy removal. After pre-treatment, reverse osmosis filtration would be used to remove dissolved salts and other impurities. Reverse osmosis involves forcing water at very high pressures through a series of membranes with pore sizes small enough to exclude salts and other minerals, resulting in highly purified product water. The addition of potable water from the proposed project to the water supply distribution system would not have adverse effects on water supply quality, as the pilot study demonstrated that potable water from the desalination plant would meet all regulatory drinking water standards. Compliance monitoring required of all public water systems would ensure this.
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN FEATURES • SWRO membrane configuration would provide for adequate
water quality while minimizing system energy requirements. MITIGATION MEASURES
None required WHERE EVALUATED IN EIR
Section 5.1, Hydrology and Water Quality
adopted general plans of the City, County, and Capitola or the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) Long Range Development Plan (LRDP); remove an obstacle to growth; change the service area boundaries of the City; or provide water to an area that is not currently served. The proposed project would supply water only to meet existing and proposed projected shortfalls due to growth already planned and approved and due to changed water conditions (requirements for increased stream flows for fish, seawater intrusion into groundwater supplies, global warming, etc).
Appendix D, Final Seawater Reverse Osmosis Desalination Pilot Test Program Report & Appendices
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN FEATURES
GROWTH
MITIGATION MEASURES
OVERVIEW: Typically, a proposed project is considered growth-inducing
if it encourages growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed and planned for in appropriate land use plans, or in proposed projections made by regional planning agencies such as the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). Significant growth impacts could also occur if the proposed project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently planned by local or regional plans and policies. The approach to the analysis of growth-related impacts from the proposed project involved assessing existing conditions, planned growth and growth/ population proposed projections, as well as water supply and demand conditions for both the City and the District and determining whether the proposed project would directly or indirectly induce growth above and beyond that which is already planned.
None required None required WHERE EVALUATED IN EIR
Section 6, Growth
IMPACT: The proposed project would not directly induce growth, because
it would not result in the construction of new residential development or the creation of substantial new long-term employment in the City or District service areas. The proposed project also would not indirectly induce growth because it would not result in excess capacity to serve additional growth beyond what has already been planned for in the Current Section Title
19
05//Comparison of Proposed Project Component Alternatives How were the component alternatives for the proposed project identified and how do they compare?
As previously described, the proposed project would consist of: (1) seawater intake and conveyance; (2) seawater desalination plant; system; (3) brine storage, disposal, and conveyance system; (4) City-District intertie for distribution of potable water; and (5) environmental design, operation, and construction features. A wide range of desalination-related alternatives were considered during the development of the proposed project or were raised during the scoping process for this EIR. These included site locations for the desalination plant and seawater intake, the type of pre-treatment and desalination processes, brine handling methods, City-District intertie alignment alternatives, etc. Ultimately, three (3) alternative desalination plant sites and eight (8) alternative seawater intake sites were identified and evaluated at an equal level of detail in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR provides a comparison of the environmental impacts and the ability of each component location alternative to meet the proposed project objectives. The City Council and District Board will weigh all the information on these site alternatives to ultimately pick one final intake site and one final desalination plant site. A brief paragraph will be provided here that summarizes the conclusions regarding component alternatives. Please leave space for that. Tia sentendum morest vilictatum ina, viverim mortam. M. Maescre nos ium mendest ratat, quampli ussigna tilicit, nost efactalis bonotiam me pris fausqui pos, cutus virit vestrus opubliciena, nonsupiestod dit. clemquis Martus, merra pecur. At con iptilicae publici partill arenatuit
20
Current Section Title
A wide range of desalinationrelated alternatives were considered during the development of the proposed project or were raised during the scoping process for this EIR.
Current Section Title
21
06//Alternatives to the Proposed Project What alternatives to the proposed project are considered in the Draft EIR and how do they compare?
In addition to the environmental analysis of the proposed project, an EIR is required to describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that meet most of the proposed project’s objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant environmental impacts from the project. A number of alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated in detail in the Draft EIR, some of which qualify as feasible alternatives under CEQA, and many of which were considered because of community comments received during scoping. Alternatives not considered in the Draft EIR: Several alternatives were considered for the proposed project or were reviewed as a result of scoping comments received, but were eliminated from further analysis. In general these alternatives include: groundwater, reservoir, off-stream diversion, reclamation/recycled water, and District-only desalination within the District’s service area. These alternatives were eliminated because they did not meet most of the proposed project objectives, were found to be infeasible, and/or did not substantially lessen or avoid the significant environmental effects of the proposed project. Under CEQA, “feasible” means “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” Many of these alternatives were considered by the City during preparation of the IWP and District during preparation of the IRP. A discussion of the eliminated alternatives and the reasons for eliminating them from further consideration is included in the Draft EIR (see SECTION 8.2).
22
Current Section Title
<<Images representing CEQA alternatives to be determined>>
To quosanis dessincius des debisquia si re reptaepedia corpos
<<Images representing CEQA alternatives to be determined>>
To quosanis dessincius des debisquia si re reptaepedia corpos
Alternatives considered in detail in the Draft EIR: Eight alternatives to the proposed project are evaluated in detail in the Draft EIR, including the required “No Project Alternative.” The alternatives include: •
City No Project Alternative: Under the No Project Alternative, the City would continue its current water supply practices with its current facilities and the proposed project would not be constructed. The City’s existing Water Shortage Contingency Plan would be implemented to meet water supply shortages.
•
District No Project Alternative: Under the No Project Alternative, the District would continue to rely solely on groundwater from the Purisima and Aromas Red Sands aquifers in the SoquelAptos area and the proposed project would not be constructed. The District’s existing Water Shortage Contingency Plan would be implemented to meet water supply shortages as needed.
•
City-only Desalination Alternative: Under this alternative, a desalination plant and related facilities would be constructed and operated for use only by the City.
•
District-only Desalination Alternative: Under this alternative, a desalination plant and related facilities would be constructed and operated for use only by the District.
•
Desalination plus Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) Pilot Alternative: This alternative includes the proposed project along with a small direct potable reuse (DPR) pilot system at the proposed desalination plant site. An opportunity exists to study the feasibility of incorporating DPR into the long-term water supply portfolios of the City and District. Should regulations change in the future to allow for DPR, the seawater desalination plant could potentially be transitioned to a DPR facility.
•
Regional Recycled Water for Irrigation Alternative: This alternative considers the regional use of recycled water for landscape irrigation to reduce the demand on the City and District potable water supply systems.
•
City Package Alternative: Under the City Package Alternative, a variety of actions and programs are considered that could potentially reduce the City’s demand for water or have other beneficial effects on the water supply system. The actions and programs proposed under this alternative include: additional conservation and demand management; water-neutral development; new reservoir operations policy; and water exchanges with neighboring districts.
•
District Package Alternative: Under the District Package Alternative a number of measures and programs are considered that would potentially reduce the District’s water supply shortfall allowing the District to achieve its recovery pumping goal so that the basin can recover. The actions and programs under this alternative include: mandatory water rationing programs and water exchanges with the City.
The following table highlights the attributes of each alternative including the cost, ability to meet the proposed project objectives, amount of potable water produced, and ability to reduce the significant impacts of the proposed project (see SECTION 8.3 for further information).
Current Section Title
23
COMPARISON ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
TABL
24
Current Section Title
LE
Current Section Title
25
07//Environmental Review Process How does the process work and what is involved?
The Draft EIR document has been published and is available for public review before any decisions are made about the proposed project. The public has the opportunity to provide formal comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period and at public hearings as noted below. Following the close of the public comment period, the project team will respond to comments submitted, make any necessary revisions to the EIR and then publish a Final EIR. The Final EIR will also be available in advance of consideration of EIR certification at the locations identified above and on the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and Districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s websites. Upon completion of the Final EIR, the City Council and District Board of Directors (the Lead Agencies under CEQA) may consider certification of the EIR and approval of a proposed project. Certification of the EIR is the process by which the decision-making bodies officially
26
Current Section Title
find and formally acknowledge that the EIR has been prepared in full compliance with CEQA and adequately addresses the environmental effects of a proposed project. Certification of the EIR is not the same as project approval. Approval of a proposed project would involve additional considerations beyond the environmental analysis. Project approval would also be subject to a vote of the City of Santa Cruz electorate as mandated by Measure P. The City Council and the District Board of Directors are required to consider the information in the Final EIR, along with any other relevant information, in making their
decisions about the proposed project, and, if they choose to approve a proposed project, to make findings regarding each significant effect identified in the EIR. CEQA also requires that all feasible measures be considered to mitigate any identified significant effects. If no feasible mitigation measures are available, then the lead agencies must also consider feasible alternatives to the proposed project that would lessen any identified significant effects that cannot be mitigated. If no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives exist to avoid significant environmental effects, then that must be explained in the findings.
The lead agencies are also responsible for preparing and implementing a program to monitor and report on mitigation measures, to ensure that mitigation measures identified in the EIR are carried out. In some cases, impacts may be proactively avoided through measures and commitments made by the City and District. The environmental design features for the proposed project are such measures and will be included in the mitigation monitoring program to ensure compliance.
The Santa Cruz City Council and the District Board of Directors, as joint Lead Agencies, must certify the Final EIR prior to making the decision to approve, deny, or modify the proposed project.
Certification of a final EIR must occur prior to proposed project approval and is a three-part finding: first, that the “final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA”; second that the “final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR”; and third, that the “final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.”
Current Section Title
27
08//Commenting on the Draft EIR What is the public review period? How can I submit comments?
The Draft EIR will be available for public and agency comment for a 60 day period, beginning in DATE 2013, and concluding in DATE 2013. CEQA only requires a 45 day public review period for draft EIRs submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review (21091), however given the public interest in the document, the lead agencies have decided to provide a longer comment period of 60 days. During the public comment period, written comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR must be submitted by all interested public agencies, organizations, community groups, and individuals to: Heidi Luckenbach, scwd2 Desalination Program Coordinator City of Santa Cruz, Water Department 212 Locust Street, Suite C Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Email: hluckenbach@cityofsantacruz.com Electronic copies of the Draft EIR are available on the scwd2 Desalination Program website at http://www.scwd2desal.org/Page-Project-phases_EIR_ Reports_Docs.php. The Draft EIR will also be available for public review during the 60 day comment period at the following locations: •
Public libraries within the agencies’ service areas
•
Soquel Creek Water District Offices located at 5180 Soquel Drive, Soquel, California
•
City of Santa Cruz Water Department located at 212 Locust Street, Suite C, Santa Cruz, California
28
Current Section Title
Caption needed
Two public meetings will be held on June 3, 2013 to inform the public about the Draft EIR and to receive written and oral comments on the adequacy of the information present in the Draft EIR. Two meetings are being held in order to accommodate both agency personnel, who typically work during daylight hours on weekdays, and the public at large, for whom evening or night meetings are typically more convenient. The same information will be provided at both meetings.
PUBLIC MEETINGS:
1
2
SEACLIFF INN 7500 Old Dominion Court Aptos, CA 95003
11:30 AM – 2:30 PM
FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH 900 High Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060
6:00 PM – 9:00 PM
Current Section Title
29
09//Next Steps
What is the timeline for the proposed project? What approvals and permits are needed? The following is a summary of the process leading to approval of the proposed project: •
Draft EIR is made available for 60-day public review and comment
•
City Council and District Board consider certification of the Final EIR
•
City and District receive and respond to comments and prepare a Final EIR
•
City Council and District Board consider conditional project approval, make required findings, and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program
•
If conditionally approved by City and District, project approval is subject to the vote of the City electorate
SPRING 2008–FALL 2010: INFORM
2009
• Community Information Meetings
30
Current Section Title
2010
If approved by the City electorate, necessary permits, authorizations, and consultations from federal, state, and local agencies would be pursued, as listed below.
WINTER 2010:
SPRING 2013–WINTER 2013:
• Release NOP/IS • Scoping period
• Respond to commnets • Prepare Final EIR
SCOPE
2008
•
2011
RESPOND
2012
SPRING 2011–WINTER 2013: EVALUATE • Complete environmental and technical studies • Prepare and circulate Draft EIR • Public Meetings
2013
2014
SPRING 2014WINTER 2014: CONSIDER
• Final EIR • Consider EIR Certification • Consider project approval • City of Santa Cruz Vote
FEDERAL AGENCIES
STATE AGENCIES
REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
California Coastal Commission
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
California State Lands Commission
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service
State Water Resources Control Board
Monterey Bay Control District
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
City of Santa Cruz
California Department of Public Health
Soquel Creek Water District
NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary U.S. Coast Guard
Unified
Air
Pollution
County of Santa Cruz City of Capitola
Current Section Title
31
Glossary of Terms
BRINE:The byproduct of the reverse osmosis process which contains a
GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG):Gases that form a layer in the atmosphere that
concentration of salt, making it almost twice as salty as average seawater
can trap heat in much the same way as glass in a greenhouse, which is why this phenomenon is known as the “greenhouse effect.” The greenhouse effect is the result of heat absorption by GHGs, and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Increases in emissions of GHGs, such as those resulting from the combustion of carbon-based fuels, can increase this effect, resulting in changes in climate dynamics.
COMPONENT ALTERNATIVES:There are three basic functional components
of the Project: (1) seawater intake; (2) pretreatment and salt removal; and (3) disposal of by-products including concentrated salt water and solids that are removed in the pretreatment process. For each of these components, various design options or alternatives were considered, including pipeline alignments, intake locations, plant site locations, etc. Because many of these options are feasible and have similar environmental effects, they are evaluated separately and equally in the EIR to provide flexibility in project approvals. Ultimately, only one intake and plant location will be implemented. DIRECT POTABLE REUSE (DPR):DPR refers to the introduction of purified
water, derived from municipal wastewater, directly into a municipal water supply system after extensive treatment and monitoring to assure that strict water quality requirements are met at all times. ENTRAINMENT:When small planktonic organisms, including eggs and
embryonic forms of larger organisms, are drawn through intake screens and are damaged or killed when they are removed through the water filtration system.
32
Current Section Title
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (HCP): An HCP is a plan that allows for
“take” of species that are listed as threatened and endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. The federal and state oversight agencies for endangered and threatened fish species that occupy the rivers and streams that the City of Santa Cruz relies on for 80 percent of its water supply, are requiring the City to reduce surface water withdrawals, pursuant to a pending HCP, for protection of steelhead and coho salmon. IMPINGEMENT:When larger fishes and invertebrates are trapped against
a source water intake screen due to pressure from the flow of water through the screen and into an intake pipeline. INTEGRATED RESOURCES PLAN (IRP):The Soquel Creek Water District’s
IRP is a long-term water plan with a goal of protecting and recovering the District’s groundwater resources, through a diversified strategy emphasizing: •
Water-use efficiency through demand management (i.e. conservation and re-use);
•
Groundwater management, and;
•
Supplemental supply development.
INTEGRATED WATER PLAN (IWP):The City of Santa Cruz Integrated Water
SEAWATER INTRUSION: The movement of seawater into freshwater aqui-
Plan was prepared to address drought-related shortages and to plan for growth planned through 2030. The IWP includes investigations and strategies related to:
fers (groundwater supplies), which can lead to contamination of drinking water sources. Seawater has a higher salt content than freshwater, and therefore is denser, giving it a higher water pressure that can displace freshwater in an aquifer. A common cause of seawater intrusion is pumping of freshwater from a groundwater basin faster than it can be recharged through rainfall or other recharge methods.
•
Water demand projections;
•
Water conservation programs;
•
Customer curtailments in times of shortage, and;
•
New water supplies and infrastructure.
NET CARBON NEUTRAL: A combination of project design and GHG reduc-
tion commitments that avoids a net increase in GHG emissions above existing or baseline levels, the intent of which is to avoid any potential adverse effects of the project on climate change. NPDES PERMIT: A permit issued under the program the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, as authorized by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). NPDES permits are required for any direct (e.g., pipeline) discharge to waters that are regulated under the CWA. Project: In this Community Guide, the “Project” refers to the City of Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Water District (scwd²) Regional Seawater Desalination Project PROJECT ALTERNATIVES: CEQA requires the analysis of alternatives to a
project for purposes of avoiding and reducing environmental effects. A range of alternatives to the Project are considered in the EIR. REVERSE OSMOSIS: Reverse osmosis filtration involves forcing water
at very high pressures through a series of membranes with pore sizes small enough to exclude salts and other minerals, resulting in highly purified product water.
Current Section Title
33
[back cover]
contact information