IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

Incremental Recycled Water Program

Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System

Scoping Meeting

July 31, 2002

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

2

IntroductionIntroduction

Purpose of Meeting Meeting agenda

Introduction – Ed Brauner, Deputy City Manager

CEQA Overview – Pat Collins, EIR Manager

Description of Program – David Smith, Ph.D., Program Manager

Public comments Purpose of Incremental Recycled Water

Program

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

3

CEQA OverviewCEQA Overview

City has decided to prepare a Program EIR

Not as detailed as a Project EIR Allows for broad policy considerations,

program-wide mitigation measures Subsequent CEQA documents for specific

projects

No preferred alternative – all alternatives will be evaluated equally

Issued a Notice of Preparation and Initial Study to agencies on July 16th

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

4

Incremental Program ScheduleIncremental Program Schedule

Feasibility Eval.

Public Involve.

Tech Studies

CEQA

Design

Permitting

Construction/Ops

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Discharge Permit Re-Issuance

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

5

Near-Term IRWP Public Involvement OpportunitiesNear-Term IRWP Public Involvement Opportunities

EIR Scoping Comment period ends August 14

Screening of Alternatives to be Studied in the EIR

Screening criteria discussed Aug 1st at BPU; Aug 6th at Council

Screening on Sep 19th at BPU; Sep 24th at Council

Draft EIR public review Spring ‘03

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

6

Purpose of ScopingPurpose of Scoping

Inform agencies and the public about the project

Identify the range of alternatives Identify specific issues to be analyzed in

depth Understand various points of view about

the IRWP so the EIR can respond

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

7

Public CommentsPublic Comments

Written comments Mailed or faxed to Santa Rosa City

Manager’s Office Hand in Comment Form tonight Deadline is August 14, 2002

Oral comments

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

8

Program OverviewProgram Overview

Why is the Program needed? What are the possible solutions?

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

9

Why the Incremental Recycled Water Program?Why the Incremental Recycled Water Program?

Geysers Recharge Project General Plans as of 1994 (21.3 mgd) Meets capacity needs through 2010 11 mgd (9 – 12 mgd) for entire project

IRWP Meet capacity needs beyond 2010 General plans changed to allow 25.9 mgd California Toxics Rule imposed in 2000

New limits on effluent quality New solutions needed to comply

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

10

California Toxics Rule – Constituents of ConcernCalifornia Toxics Rule – Constituents of Concern

Copper – pipe corrosion, difficult to remove

Lead – pipe corrosion

Cyanide – treatment byproduct

Aldrin - pesticide

alpha-BHC - pesticide

gamma-BHC (lindane – head lice control)

beta-Endosulfan - pesticide

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

11

General Plans and Future FlowGeneral Plans and Future Flow

Pre-’94 18 mgd

Apr ’94 + 3.3 mgd

July ’02

General Plan Flow Disposal/Reuse

IrrigationDischarge

+ Geysers - Irrigation - Discharge

+ ?????+ 4.6 mgd

Total=25.9 million gallons per day

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

12

IRWP Purpose and NeedIRWP Purpose and Need

Three Primary Project Objectives Provide treatment, reuse and disposal

for planned population Protect public health and natural

resources, esp. River and tributaries Economically feasible

Supporting Objectives Maximize reuse Potable supply benefits Environmental protection Maximize use of existing infrastructure Manageable and reliable system

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

13

How Much Water Needs to Handled?How Much Water Needs to Handled?

Year Type

Recycled Water

Production(BG/yr)

Reuse and Disposal (BG/Yr)a

Geysers at 11 mgd

Existing Irrigation

Needs to be

Managed

Dry 9.8 4 2.1 3.7Normal 10.5 4 2.1 4.4

Wet 12.3 4 1.9 6.4

a BG/Yr = billion gallons per year

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

14

What are the Possible Solutions?What are the Possible Solutions?

Laguna Plant Expansion

Indoor Water Conservation

Inflow & Infiltration Reduction

Urban Reuse Agricultural Reuse

Industrial Reuse Geysers Expansion Additional Treatment

& Reuse Discharge

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

15

Possible Location for IRWP AlternativesPossible Location for IRWP Alternatives

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

16

Alternatives - Laguna Plant ExpansionAlternatives - Laguna Plant Expansion

Increase treatment capacity from 21.3 to 25.9 mgd

Common to all reuse and disposal alternatives

All needed facilities expected to fit within existing site

Cost $40 - $158 million Filtration requirements may change

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

17

Alternatives – Indoor Water ConservationAlternatives – Indoor Water Conservation

Implementation beyond current programs

Santa Rosa – sustain existing program Others cities – additional effort

Different program for each Subregional partner

Flow Reduction

(mgd)

Flow Reduction

(BG/yr)

Cost ($million,

Cap/O&M)

Program thru 2000

1.54 0.56 -

IRWP 0.73 0.26 3.1/1

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

18

Alternatives – Inflow & Infiltration ReductionAlternatives – Inflow & Infiltration Reduction Rehabilitation of sewers to reduce I&I volume

Annual I&I volume

0 - >3 BG/Yr

Priority areas

Crosstown area, such as Montgomery Village

Oldtown area, such as hospital, cemetery, Town and Country areas

Wide range of implementation level possible – up to $600 million for 70% reduction

Appropriate level defined by avoided costs

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

19

Alternatives – Urban ReuseAlternatives – Urban Reuse

Construct up to 75-mile distribution network 1 main pump station, up to 6 booster pumps stas.

Parcels greater than about 1 acre Maximum project

Irrigation System Cost - $112 million, $57k/MG

Existing City water users 0.7 BG/Yr

Existing other users 0.6

Future users 0.7

Total 2.0 BG/Yr

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

20

Alternatives - StorageAlternatives - Storage

Needed for several alternatives Surface

Santa Rosa Plain East of Rohnert Park North County

Subsurface Santa Rosa Plain Potential water quality benefits

Storage cost – up to $70 million

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

21

Urban Reuse – Possible Surface Storage AreaUrban Reuse – Possible Surface Storage Area

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

22

Urban Reuse – Possible Subsurface Storage AreaUrban Reuse – Possible Subsurface Storage Area

Favorable Area for Groundwater Injection and Extraction

2 BG storage needed

1 well field with 14 injection/ extraction wells stores 1 BG

Well field is approximately 3,000 feet wide and 9,000 feet long

Treatment benefit

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

23

Alternatives – Agricultural IrrigationAlternatives – Agricultural Irrigation

East of Rohnert Park 1.2 BG potential demand Storage - 0.5 BG Conveyance

North County 5 subareas 10.3 BG potential demand; 4.3 BG reliable

supply Storage - 1.8 BG Conveyance

$19.2k/MG

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

24

Alternatives – Industrial ReuseAlternatives – Industrial Reuse

Gravel processing Typical facility “uses” 0.2 BG/yr Cost $3k/MG or more depending on

distance from Geysers Pipeline

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

25

Alternatives – Geysers Pipeline Capacity IncreaseAlternatives – Geysers Pipeline Capacity Increase

Installed system To AV: 48-inch, 40 mgd AV to Geysers: 30-inch, 16 mgd

Expansion potential 48-inch: from 40 to 81 mgd

Convey peak flows to indirect discharge, additional storage or reuse – CTR compliance

Add 2 PS between Plant and AV - $30 million

30-inch: from 16 to 27 mgd Increase steamfield injection

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

26

Alternatives – Geysers ExpansionAlternatives – Geysers Expansion

Current project = 11 mgd, 4 BG/yr Expansion

From 11 to 21 mgd, 2.9 BG/yr Pipeline: $0.3 capital, $2.3 million O&M Steamfield: $32 milliona cap, $1.3 milliona O&M

From 11 to 27 mgd, 4.6 BG/Yr Pipeline: $42 million capital, $7.7 million O&M Steamfield: $62 milliona cap, $2.6 milliona O&M

Maximizes use of existing facilities

a Calpine’s estimate

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

27

Alternatives – Additional Treatment & ReuseAlternatives – Additional Treatment & Reuse

Up to 126 pollutants could be regulated CTR compliance strategies:

Avoid direct discharge or Improve effluent quality to comply

Effluent quality improvement strategies Source control – not sufficient Treatment – Reverse osmosis - up to $212 million

RO water suitable for Discharge to the Russian River - $1 million Groundwater injection – cost not yet estimated Augmentation of Lake Sonoma - up to $60 million

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

28

Alternatives – Indirect DischargeAlternatives – Indirect Discharge

Discharge to River via soil and groundwater

Percolation ponds Infiltration basins (gravel pits) Groundwater injection

Locations adjacent to River Cost

Greater than $10 million for conveyance and site improvements

Land cost not yet estimated.

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

29

Selected Example Combinations of AlternativesSelected Example Combinations of Alternatives

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

30

Scoping CommentsScoping Comments

The most useful comments are:Suggest alternatives to be included in

the EIR Identify specific issues to be analyzed

in the EIR

IncrementalRecycled

WaterProgram

31

Public CommentsPublic Comments

Written comments Hand in Comment Form tonight Mailed or faxed to Santa Rosa City

Manager’s Office Deadline is August 14, 2002

Public comments