People's Project EIR Excerpts

October 2015 1-1

Chapter 1 Introduction On behalf of the Moss Landing green Commercial Park, LLP. (Project Applicant), the Moss Landing Harbor District (Harbor District) is proposing to construct and implement the proposed water supply project entitled “The People’s Moss Landing Water Desalination Project” (People’s Project or Proposed Project) to provide the Monterey Peninsula Area in Monterey County California with a safe and reliable water supply of approximately 13,400 acre-feet of water per year (AFY) or 12 million gallons per day (MGD) to offset mandated water supply diversion curtailments on the Carmel River as well as provide for additional water supplies to meet the anticipated and planned future water supply demands in the Monterey Peninsula area..

1.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report The purpose of this Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies with information about the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Project. This Draft EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000et seq.) of 1970 (as amended), and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14). As described in CEQA guidelines Section1512(a), an EIR is a public information document that assesses potential environmental effects of the Proposed Project, and identifies mitigation measures and alternatives to the Proposed Project that would reduce or avoid adverse environmental impacts. CEQA requires that state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority. CEQA requires that a lead agency neither approve or carry out a project as proposed unless the significant environmental effects of the project have been reduced to an acceptable level, or unless specific findings are made attesting to the infeasibility of altering the project to reduce or avoid environmental impacts (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15092). An acceptable level is defined as eliminating, avoiding, or substantially lessening the significant effects. CEQA also requires that the decision makers balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. If environmental impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable, the project may still be approved if it is demonstrated that social, economical, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts. As the CEQA lead agency, the Harbor District would then be required to state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project based on information presented in the EIR, as well as other information in the record. This process is defined as a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” by Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines. The Harbor District will be the lead agency for CEQA compliance and will use this document to evaluate the Proposed Project’s potential environmental impacts and to aide in the decision making process. This EIR has also been prepared to be in compliance with federal laws and environmental regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the General Conformity Rule for the Clean Air Act (CAA), among others. Collectively, this is referred to as a CEQA-Plus document. It is understood that each federal agency has their own policies on how they comply with federal environmental laws. Specifically, in lieu of a formal NEPA Lead

The People’s Moss Landing Desalination Project Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report 1.0 Introduction

October 2015 1-2

Agency, this Draft CEQA-Plus EIR document covers both CEQA and NEPA aspects to help facilitate the issuance of permits from all local, state, and/or federal agencies.

1.2 Project Location and Background As shown on Figure 1-1, the Monterey Peninsula and surrounding area encompasses the six Monterey Peninsula cities of Pacific Grove, Carmel-by-the Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Sand City, Seaside, and extends into portions of the unincorporated area of Monterey County in the Carmel Highlands, Pebble Beach and the inland areas of Carmel Valley and the Laguna Seca area. The population of the Region is estimated to be about 115,000, with most of the population residing in low density housing in the Monterey Peninsula cities. The Monterey Peninsula and coastal areas of Monterey County have long suffered from water supply challenges and the constant threat of drought conditions. Water sources consist of surface water from the Salinas and Carmel Rivers as well as groundwater from the Seaside Basin aquifer.

1.2.1 California American Water Company The California American Water Company (CalAm) has served the Monterey Peninsula since it acquired properties from California Water and Telephone Company in 1966. CalAm’s Monterey District service area is located in the semi-arid central California coastal area and is entirely dependent on local rainfall for its water supply; imported water is not a viable option. By reason of its geography and rainfall patterns, the area is prone to severe droughts. Wells located along the Carmel River that draw water from the Carmel River Aquifer are the primary source of water for CalAm. An additional source of water for CalAm is a network of eight wells located in the Seaside Basin, which CalAm shares with a number of users and purveyors. CalAm’s supply storage facilities include two small reservoirs on the Carmel River: the Los Padres Dam and Reservoir and the San Clemente Dam and Reservoir. In 1987, CalAm’s water production peaked at approximately 18,000 AFY. CalAm is a private company and is regulated by the California Public utilities Commission (CPUC). The CPUC is a constitutionally-established state agency charged with providing regulatory oversight of investor-owned utilities in the transportation, energy, communications, and water industries. The CPUC consists of five commissioners who are appointed for six-year terms by the Governor. The commissioners are served by an Executive Director and a staff of professional engineers, economists, policy and industry analysts, attorneys and administrative law judges. The CPUC provides regulatory oversight in the areas of purpose and need; economic cost; ratemaking; safety and reliability; and customer service; among others. The CPUC is located in San Francisco and makes decisions by vote of its commissioners at regularly scheduled public business meetings. The water supply challenges facing CalAm and the Monterey Peninsula are long-term, significant and have been well-documented in a number of venues including the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Monterey County Superior Court, the CPUC, and the California Legislature. SWRCB Order 95-10 and the Seaside Basin adjudication are two major decisions that have affected the water supplies of the Monterey Peninsula area and are discussed below.

1.2.2 SWRCB Order 95-10 The SWRCB Order 95-10 substantially reduces diversion of all supplies along the Carmel River. The Order states that CalAm has been diverting approximately 10,730 afy from the Carmel River or its underflow without a valid basis of right and directs Cal-Am to diligently undertake the following actions:


October 2015 1-3

Figure 1 General Location Map

Source: ESA 2008


October 2015 1-4

obtain appropriative rights to the Carmel River water that was being unlawfully diverted; obtain water from other sources and make one-for-one reductions of the unlawful diversions; and/or contract with other agencies having appropriative rights to divert and use water from the Carmel River. In the interim, while Cal-Am is pursuing the development of an alternative supply, Order 95-10 directs CalAm to implement conservation measures to offset 20 percent of demand and restricts Cal-Am to an annual diversion from Carmel Valley sources, representing a 20 percent reduction from CalAm’s historic usage. The Order also prohibits water from being diverted from the San Clemente Dam when stream flows reach a predetermined low flow. The Order directs CalAm to maximize use of the Seaside Basin for the purpose of serving existing connections – while honoring existing allocations – to reduce diversions from the Carmel River to the greatest practicable extent. Development of the replacement supply required in Order 95-10 is the basis for the Proposed Project.

1.2.3 Seaside Basin Groundwater Adjudication In 1996, the Monterey County Superior Court issued a final decision in the case, California American Water v. City of Seaside, et al., Case No. 66343 (Monterey County Superior Court, 2006) (Decision) for the adjudication of water rights of the various parties who produce groundwater from the Seaside Basin. The establishment of adjudicated water rights of all the users of the Basin is intended to avoid long-term damage to the basin, including potential seawater intrusion, subsidence, and other adverse impacts of over-pumping. The Decision establishes a physical solution to Basin management that is “intended to ultimately reduce the drawdown of the aquifer to the level of the Natural Safe Yield; to maximize potential beneficial use of the Basin; and to provide a means to augment water supply for the Monterey Peninsula”.

1.2.4 Water Supply Issues The Carmel Valley Aquifer, which underlies the Carmel River, presently supplies approximately 70 percent of the Monterey Peninsula’s water through CalAm’s system. As a result of Order 95-10, California American Water is required to find a new source of water to replace the supply that it historically diverted from the Carmel Valley Aquifer. CalAm was also ordered by the SWRCB to reduce pumping in the Carmel Valley by 20 percent from historic levels. Since 1995 CalAm customers have managed to reduce water use on the Monterey Peninsula from more than 17,000 AFY to 14,000 AFY, a reduction of more than 20 percent. However, conservation efforts alone cannot adequately address the water demand and supply issues faced by the community. Water resources in the Carmel Valley and the greater Monterey Peninsula are regulated by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD). Based on SWRCB Order WR 95-10 and the Seaside Basin adjudication, Cal-Am needs to develop a replacement water supply of approximately 13,400 afy to meet existing water demands within its service area. This water supply would be enough to provide the replacement water for SWRCB Order 95-10 as well water for the legal lots of record, the existing general plan build-out estimates for each of the six Monterey Peninsula cities of Pacific Grove, Carmel-by-the Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Sand City, Seaside, and extends into portions of the unincorporated area of Monterey County in the Carmel Highlands, Pebble Beach and the inland areas of Carmel Valley and the Laguna Seca area, and local hospitality services returning to full demand prior to the downturn in the economy in recent years.


October 2015 1-5

Since 1989, several options have been proposed that proponents have hoped would meet the water supply needs of the Monterey Peninsula and address the impacts on the Carmel River underlying SWRCB Order 95-10 as well as the Seaside Basin Adjudication. To date, all of these proposed projects have not come to fruition due to a number of technical, economical, legal, institutional, political, and/or other factors.

1.3 Historical and Expected Demands Based on SWRCB Order WR 95-10 and the Seaside Basin adjudication, a replacement water supply is needed by to meet existing water demands within the Monterey Peninsula Area. The information presented in this section is based primarily on MPWMD’s analyses of existing and future demands for the area. MPWMD recently prepared a technical memorandum updating estimates of existing demand within the MPWMD and CalAm service area (Appendix A). MPWMD’s estimates of replacement water needed to meet existing demand within the service area and vicinity are described below.

1.3.1 Average Annual Water Demands Table 1-1 shows the total annual demand in CalAm’s Monterey Peninsula system over the 5-year period from 2007 to 2011. Demand during this time period ranged from 11,989 afy to 14,644 afy and averaged 13,291 afy. The maximum demand during this time period (14,644 afy in 2007) occurred before the economic downturn and before implementation of additional water conservation measures which were implemented in response to the Cease and Desist Order.

Table 1-1 Average Annual Water Demand in CalAm’s Monterey Peninsula Area System

Year (January through December) Total Demand (afy) 2007 14,644 2008 14,460 2009 13,192 2010 12,171 2011 11,989

5-Year Average 13,291

1.3.2 Expected Additional Demands Table 1-2 below summarizes the additional expected demands in CalAm’s Monterey Peninsula Area System which would be in addition to the average annual demand of 13,291 afy and would include the Pebble Beach Development, Tourism Bounce-back, and Lots-of-Record demands which total an additional 2,005 afy. These are discussed below.

Table 1-2 Expected Additional Water Demand in CalAm’s Monterey Peninsula Area System

Component Demand (afy) Pebble Beach 325 Tourism Bounce-Back 500 Lots-of-Record 1,180

Total 2,005


October 2015 1-6

Pebble Beach In recent years, the Pebble Beach Development Company has invested in wastewater reclamation and switched the irrigation demand to a recycled water system. The recycled water use for irrigation allowed Pebble Beach to conserve approximately 380 afy of potable water. Pebble Beach has exercised approximately 55 afy thus far and once a desalination facility is in place, they would exercise the remaining 325 afy for developing property. Therefore, the full 325 afy is expected to be added to the CalAm system demand. The Pebble beach demand would follow a similar pattern to the existing system demand throughout the year. Tourism Bounce-Back Recent discussions in the region indicate that once the economy turns around and the water supply is available, the tourism demand will increase by approximately 500 afy. This demand is evenly distributed (100 af/month) to a 5-month period from May through September. Lots-of-Record The total water rights allocated to existing lots-of-record (LOR) in the CalAm Monterey Peninsula system is approximately 1,180 afy. Once the desalination plant is implemented, LOR demand would be exercised and increase the system demand by 1,180 afy. The LOR demand would follow a similar pattern to the existing system demand throughout the year.

1.3.3 Future CalAm Service Area Demands – Adopted General Plan Build-out Demands Detailed below are the future CalAm service area demands from the existing adopted General Plan Build-out demands for each jurisdiction. Based on information provided by each jurisdiction, MPWMD developed a projection of water supply needed to meet the level of growth anticipated in the jurisdictions’ adopted general plans. The MPWMD prepared that estimate of future water needs in 2006 based on information obtained from the service area jurisdictions (MPWMD, 2006b). Since the 2006 estimate was prepared, the future water needs of two jurisdictions have been revised, lowering the overall total. Monterey County has adopted a new general plan that provides revised water demand estimates (Monterey County, 2010), and the City of Pacific Grove recently submitted testimony on the Proposed Project revising its estimate of water needed to accommodate general plan build-out (Hardgrave, 2013). With these revisions, future demand would total 3,652 afy. Table 1-3 shows the MPWMD’s future water demand estimates by jurisdiction.

Table 1-3 Future Water Demands by Service Area – All Jurisdictions

(Acre-Feet per Year)

Jurisdiction Future Water Supply

Needs (2006 Estimates)a

Future Water Supply Needs

(Revised) City of Carmel 288 288 City of Del Rey Oaks 48 48 City of Monterey 705 705 City of Pacific Grove 1,264 500b

City of Sand City 386 386 City of Seaside 582 582 Monterey County (Unicorporated) 1,135 1,005c,d


October 2015 1-7

Table 1-3 Future Water Demands by Service Area – All Jurisdictions

(Acre-Feet per Year)

Jurisdiction Future Water Supply

Needs (2006 Estimates)a

Future Water Supply Needs

(Revised) Monterey County Airport District 138 138

Total 4,545 3,652 a. Based on the MPWMD’s “Estimated Long-Term Water Needs by Jurisdiction Based on General Plan Build-out in Acre-Feet,” Exhibit 1-

C of Special Meeting/Board Workshop Agenda Item 1, MPWMD Board of Directors Packet, May 18, 2006b. b Revised based on testimony submitted to the CPUC by the City of Pacific Grove revising its 2006 estimate as shown. c Revised based on the Final EIR prepared for the 2010 Monterey County General Plan; the estimate shown is for the unincorporated

county areas served by the Carmel River and Seaside Basin aquifer in the general plan horizon year (2030), rather than general plan build-out (which is not expected until 2092).

d The estimate provided in the 2010 General Plan Final EIR for the unincorporated county area served by the Carmel River and Seaside

Basin aquifer includes 492 acre feet for the Highway 68/Airport affordable housing overlay, as well as supply for Greater Monterey Peninsula area (316 acre feet), the Carmel Mid-Valley affordable housing overlay (75 acre feet), Cachagua (partial) (5 acre feet), Carmel Valley (60 acre feet), unincorporated Carmel (37 acre feet), and Del Monte Forest (20 acre feet).

SOURCES: MPWMD, 2006b; Monterey County, 2010; Hardgrave, 2013.

1.4 Available Supplies Table 1-4 summarizes the major water supplies available to the CalAm Monterey Peninsula service area. Each is discussed below.

Table 1-4 Available Water Supplies to the CalAm Monterey Peninsula Area System

Source/Unit Demand/Supply (afy) Carmel River Wells Supply 3,376 Long-term Average ASR Capacity Supply 1,300 Salinas Groundwater Basin Supply 774 Sand City Desalination Plant Supply 94

Total – Available Supplies 5,544

1.4.1 Carmel River and Aquifer Storage and Recovery It has been assumed that the Carmel River will have a long-term annual average production of 4,676 afy and would be distributed over a 12-month period. Of this amount, 3,376 would be diverted directly to the customers and the remaining 1,300 afy would be delivered to the existing Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) facility for injection. The Carmel River diversions are mostly concentrated during the winter month, December through May. It should be recognized that in the early years of project operation, the amount of Carmel River water available may be only 3,376 afy, and the amount of Carmel River water that is delivered through the existing ASR may be significantly less than 1,300 afy. In these years, additional supplies may be available from the SGWB and the Sand City Desalination Plant.

1.4.2 Seaside Wells The capacity analysis of the SGWB has been performed for the year 2021. In the year 2021, the SGWB adjudication would be in full effect and the extraction from the Seaside wells would be limited to 1,474 afy. However, CalAm recently agreed to leave 700 afy in the ground for replenishing the Seaside groundwater levels and the total extraction has been reduced to 774 afy. It is assumed that the Seaside wells would be operated only during the months of April through November.


October 2015 1-8

1.4.3 Sand City Desalination Plant The existing Sand City desalination plant is assumed to operate at a constant 0.09 mgd throughout the year, totaling 94 afy.

1.5 Additional Water Supply Needs Table 1-5 provides a summary of the additional water supply needs for the CalAm Monterey Peninsula area system.

Table 1-5 Additional Water Supply Needs for the CalAm Monterey Peninsula Area System

Source/Unit Demand/Supply (afy) Average Annual Demand 13,291 Expected Additional Demands 2,005 General Plan Build-out Needs Beyond Current Demand 3,652

Subtotal - Demands 18,948 Carmel River Wells Supply (3,376) Long-term Average ASR Capacity Supply (1,300) Salinas Groundwater Basin Supply (774) Sand City Desalination Plant Supply (94)

Subtotal - Supplies (5,544) Total Additional Water Supply Needs 13,404 (11.97 mgd)

1.6 CEQA Lead Agency On March 11, 2014, the Moss Landing Harbor District (District) agreed to be the lead agency for the development and implementation of the Proposed Project on behalf of the Monterey Peninsula area water users.

1.6.1 Moss Landing Harbor District

The Moss Landing Harbor District was formed on June 22, 1943 for the purpose of developing a harbor at Moss Landing pursuant to the Federal Harbors and Navigation Code. The Harbor District Board executed an Easement and Franchise Agreement with landowner and District Board member Wilbur C. Sandholdt, granting the District easements and right-of-way over approximately 13-acres of land through which the harbor channel would be cut. In 1945, the United States Congress authorized construction of a harbor at Moss Landing by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. In 1947 the dredging had been completed, the piers and wharves had been built, and the harbor was now officially open. Today, the Moss Landing Harbor is the number one commercial fishing harbor in the Monterey Bay with 600+ slips for recreational boaters and commercial vessels. Partnering with marine research and education, the Moss Landing Harbor District provides full public access to the environment. Centrally located between Monterey and Santa Cruz, the Moss Landing Harbor is bounded by the Pacific to the west, Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve to the north and east, and green fields of artichokes and strawberries to the south. The Board of Harbor Commissioners (BOHC) is dedicated to the efficient management of the Harbor and to the preservation of natural resources within the Harbor. The BOHC is fully empowered to receive and administer funds for the attainment of these objectives, all in accordance with Federal, State


October 2015 1-9

and local laws. The Harbor District has and shall exercise the powers set forth in Sections 6070-6086 of the California Harbors and Navigation Code.

1.7 Goals and Objectives The overall purpose of the Proposed Project is to rehabilitate existing facilities at the Moss Landing Green Commercial Park to develop a desalination project in order to provide the Monterey Peninsula Area with a safe and reliable water supply of approximately 13,400 afy or 12 mgd to offset mandated water supply diversion curtailments on the Carmel River and Seaside Basin as well as provide for additional water supplies to meet the anticipated and planned future water supply demands in the Monterey Peninsula area. Specifically, the primary purpose of the People’s Project is to provide CalAm with replacement water to replace existing water supplies that have been constrained by legal decisions affecting the Carmel River and Seaside Groundwater Basin water resources. The Harbor District has a duty and obligation to promote good harbor management including the development, maintenance and improvement of the Harbor and related facilities as well as the protection of the Harbor’s natural environment. As the Moss Landing Green Commercial Park and its facilities are located within the Harbor and on adjacent lands surrounding the Harbor, the Harbor District has a vital interest in the future development, uses, and operations of the Moss Landing Green Commercial Park as it pertains to the harbor and its operations. As such, the Harbor District has agreed to be the CEQA Lead Agency on behalf of the Applicant for the Proposed Project during the environmental, permitting, and construction phase. However, the harbor District does not have the authority, charter, and/or interest in owning or operating the Proposed Project. Instead, it is assumed that once constructed, the Project Applicant would then turnover the day-to-day operations to CalAm, as is the case with the existing Sand City Desalination Plant.

1.7.1 Guiding Principals for Project Implementation Detailed below are the guiding principles for project implementation:

• Designed to meet existing and build-out demands in portions of Monterey County. • Principal facilities must be located on existing property owned by Applicant/and/or Harbor

District (except for off-site water conveyance and storage facilities, which is inherently implied to be off-site

• Must use proven technology(s) • Must not interfere with the 180-foot or 400-foot aquifers and/or the Salinas Valley Groundwater • Not responsible for construction and operations and maintenance of “distribution” facilities to end

users • Must comply with the May 6, 2015 Adopted Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for

Ocean Waters of California Addressing Desalination Facility Intakes and Brine Discharges

1.8 Potential for Controversy The concept of securing a safe and reliable water supply for the Monterey Peninsula area has been a very contentious issue and a major source of disagreement amongst the various water supply agencies, regulatory agencies, politicians, and the general public, amongst others, for quite some time. There are several lawsuits, technical studies and regulatory decisions that are still pending to determine the fate of


October 2015 1-10

the future water supply issues of the Monterey Peninsula. As a result, no matter what project is proposed, there will likely be controversy surrounding the details for implementing a proposed project. Therefore, the this CEQA-Plus EIR attempts to address all of the specific details and potential impacts of implementing the People’s Project as well as evaluate other potential and viable alternatives. Detailed below are specific known areas for potential controversy:

• Working Agreements and Memoranda of Understanding in Place. Specifically, a major factor is the relationships and working agreements between agencies involved in the Proposed Project need to be developed and formalized. Under the Proposed concept, the Moss Landing Harbor District has agreed to be the CEQA Lead Agency and will assume the role of Project Proponent/Sponsor during the environmental review, permitting, and construction of the People’s Project. Under this scenario, CalAm would then become a water purchaser of the Proposed Project as well as the water purveyor to deliver water to the Monterey Peninsula Area through its existing distribution system. However, as these agreements are not yet in place, there is a potential for disagreement amongst the parties as to the details for costs and reliability of water supplies as well as many other political, legal and institutional factors between CalAm, the Harbor District, the Applicant, and the other cities in the Monterey Peninsula area. These details, as well as more specifics regarding the details of the People’s Project, need to be finalized prior to implementation.

• Competing Project Proposals. There are several ongoing and competing proposed projects sponsored by various entities including CalAm. There may be controversy as to which project or combination of projects or alternatives should be implemented to achieve the replacement needs and/or future growth requirements of the Monterey Peninsula area. Specifically and currently, there are two other viable competing proposals (i.e. CalAm’s Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and DeepWater Desal’s Monterey Bay Regional Water Project). As a result, this CEQA-Plus EIR will consider these two competing alternatives and other reasonable alternatives1 as well as the No Project Alternative, pursuant to CEQA and NEPA. In the end, it is assumed that only one desalination project would move forward to serve the water supply demands in the Monterey Peninsula Area.

1.9 Purpose and Scope of this EIR The People’s Project and analysis contained in this CEQA-Plus EIR document are the result of a multi-year planning effort that has entailed thorough consideration of many alternatives in the context of several different proposed projects and various related documents through the years. For this analysis, we have reviewed prior and relevant existing technical and environmental documentation to assess the potential impacts of implementing the People’s Project on endangered/threatened species, public health or safety, natural resources, regulated waters, and cultural resources, among others, to include and address specific issues associated with CEQA and NEPA. This document focuses on the potential physical environmental issues associated with implementing the

1 For this EIR it is assumed that the Regional Water Project (i.e. REPOG) is no longer a viable alternative due to pending lawsuits and fall-out amongst the Regional Partners including CalAm, the CPUC, the County of Monterey and the Marina Coast Water District, among others.


October 2015 1-11

People’s Project as it is currently defined and as presented in Section 2 – Project Description of this CEQA-Plus EIR document. For any potentially significant impact(s) identified, we have identified proposed mitigation measures and strategies to attempt to avoid and/or reduce those impacts to less-than-significant levels. The information in this CEQA-Plus EIR document is presented to assist the Harbor District and other project proponents of this concept to understand what the major potential physical environmental impacts are of constructing and operating the People’s Project. Summarized below is an overview of the CEQA Process.

1.9.1 Notice of Preparation In accordance with Sections 15063 and 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the District prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR and published it on June 29, 2015 (SCH # 2015061103). The NOP was circulated to the public, local, state and federal agencies, and other interested parties to solicit comments on the Proposed Project during the 30-day comment period.

During the scoping period, the Harbor District held a series of three scoping meetings in Monterey County to discuss the proposed project and to solicit public input as to the scope and content of this EIR. Scoping meetings were held:

2:00 pm Wednesday, July 8, 2015 6:00 pm Wednesday, July 8, 2015 Moose Family Center Prunedale Grange Hall 555 Canyon Del Rey Blvd. 17890 Moro Rd Del Rey Oaks, CA 93940 Prunedale, CA 93907

The NOP, the NOP Presentation, and all of the comments received are available for review on the Harbor District’s website at http://www.mosslandingharbor.dst.ca.us. Based on comments received during the NOP process, the Project Applicant and Harbor District have modified the Proposed Project accordingly and as presented in this CEQA-Plus EIR.

1.9.2 Draft EIR This document constitutes a CEQA-Plus Project-level EIR for the People’s Project. The Harbor District has prepared this EIR for the Project Applicant and provides a site-specific impact and mitigation analysis. Chapter 2, Project Description, provides a detailed discussion of the People’s Project, including a comprehensive discussion of each project component. In addition, this Draft CEQA-Plus EIR contains a description of the environmental setting, identification of project impacts, mitigation measures for impacts found to be significant, and an analysis of project alternatives.

1.9.3 Public Review This CEQA-Plus EIR document is being circulated to local, state, and federal agencies as well as to interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the report and Proposed Project. Publication of this Draft EIR marks the beginning of a 45-day public review period. A public hearing on the Draft CEQA-Plus EIR will be held by the Harbor District during the public review period. During this review period, written comments will be received by the Harbor District at the following address:


October 2015 1-12

Linda G. McIntyre, General Manager Moss Landing Harbor District

C/O Aspen Environmental Group 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 935 San Francisco, California 94104

The Draft EIR will also be available on the City’s website at http://www.mosslandingharbor.dst.ca.us.

1.9.4 Final EIR and EIR Certification Written and oral comments received on the Draft CEQA-Plus EIR will be addressed in a Response to Comments document which, together with the Draft CEQA-Plus EIR and changes and corrections to the Draft CEQA-Plus EIR. After review of the project and the Final CEQA-Plus EIR, the Harbor District, at a public hearing, will decide whether to certify the Final CEQA-Plus EIR and whether to approve or deny the Proposed Project or any identified and evaluated alternative contained within this CEQA-Plus EIR. If the Harbor District approves the Proposed Project (or alternative), even though significant impacts identified in the CEQA-Plus EIR cannot be mitigated to less-than significant levels, the Harbor District may still approve the Proposed Project (or Alternative), but first must state in writing the reasons for its actions/decision in a Statement of Overriding Considerations that also must be included in the record of the project approval and mentioned in the Notice of Determination (CEQ Guidelines Section 15093[c]).

1.9.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CEQA Section 21081.6(a) requires lead agencies to “adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment”. The specific “reporting or monitoring” program required by CEQA is not required to be included in the EIR. Throughout the EIR, however, mitigation measures must be clearly identified and presented in language that will facilitate establishment of a monitoring and reporting program. Any mitigation measures adopted by the Harbor District as conditions for approval of the project will be included in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to verify compliance.

Chapter 2 Project Description This chapter provides a detailed description of Proposed Project including a discussion of the Project goals and objectives, an overview of the Proposed Project and each of the major project components, construction considerations, operational plans, and potential approvals and permits that may be necessary.

2.1 Project Goals and Objectives As described in Chapter 1 – Introduction, the purpose of the Proposed Project is to provide the Monterey Peninsula Area in Monterey County California with a safe and reliable water supply of approximately 13,400 afy or 12 mgd to offset mandated water supply diversion curtailments on the Carmel River and Seaside Basin and to meet the future water supply demands in the Monterey Peninsula area.

2.1.1 Water Demands and Needs As further discussed in Chapter 1 – Introduction of this EIR, Table 2-1 below provides a summary of the demands and the capacity needed for a desalination facility to meet those demands.

Table 2-1 Desalination Plant Capacity Needed

Source/Unit Demand/Supply (afy) Average Annual Demand 13,291 Expected Additional Demands 2,005 General Plan Build-out Needs Beyond Current Demand 3,652

Subtotal - Demands 18,948 Carmel River Wells Supply (3,376) Long-term Average ASR Capacity Supply (1,300) Salinas Groundwater Basin Supply (774) Sand City Desalination Plant Supply (94)

Subtotal Supplies (5,544) Total Supply Required from Desalination Plant 13,404 (11.97 mgd)

It has been determined through various technical studies over recent years that additional conservation efforts and additional local water supply alternatives such as recycled water projects are not viable to deliver this volume of water to the Monterey Peninsula Area over the proposed desalination facility. As a result, this document only focuses on the development of a desalination facility to meet the current and future needs of the Monterey Peninsula area.

As a mater of standard practice, the rated capacity of a desalination plants (typically in mgd) is always stated by the output (product water) of the plant and not the input (feedwater) to the plant. The rated capacity of the desalination plant typically does not include production modules that are installed as standby capacity. Standby capacity units are typically required to maintain capacity when production units are taken out of service for scheduled maintenance procedures. In practice, these standby units ensure a margin of safety for reliably meeting production rated targets, but they are not included in the determination of reliable capacity of the plant to meet peak day requirements. As a result, the rated capacity of the Proposed Desalination Project is approximately 12 mgd or 13,400 afy. However, in order

The People’s Moss Landing Water Desalination Project Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report 2.0 Project Description

October 2015 2-2

to produce the approximately 12 mgd, the Proposed Project needs to generate approximately 30 mgd of feedwater.

2.1.2 Water Quality Objectives Table 2-2 provides a summary of the Proposed Project’s water quality goals and objectives. The product water from the Proposed Project will be post treated, disinfected and conditioned to meet and surpass the regulatory requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the California Title 22 Code. In addition, the Proposed Project will produce a lower hardness and dissolved solids in the finished water than what CalAm currently produces according to its 2012 Water Quality Report. Hard water contributes to inefficient and costly operation of water using appliances such as boilers, water heaters and heat exchangers. Heated hard water forms a scale of calcium and magnesium minerals that can contribute to the inefficient operation or premature failure of such appliances. Pipes can become clogged with scale buildup, which reduces water flow, causing more power consumption and ultimately may require pipe repair or replacement. Hard water also interferes with almost every cleaning task in households and Laundromats. The hardness in water affects the amount of soap and detergent necessary for cleaning. Soap used in hard water combines with the minerals to form a sticky soap curd. Some synthetic detergents are less effective in hard water because the active ingredient is partially deactivated by hardness, even though it stays dissolved. A hardness target of 100 mg/L and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) of 200 mg/L were established for the purposes of equipment selection and sizing.


October 2015 2-3

2.2 Proposed Project Description Overview The Proposed desalination plant will supply product water quality in compliance with the regulatory requirements of the California Department of Public Health, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the California Title 22 Code for Drinking Water Standards. The finished product water from the desalination plant will be compatible and even better quality than with other sources of potable water and delivered to CalAm’s distribution system serving the Monterey Peninsula Area. The People’s Project would be comprised of the following major facilities:

California Title 22 Regulations (MCL or SMCL)

California Title 22 Regulations

(Recommended)

Recommended by Monterey Peninsula

Regional Water Authority

(Final Report, Jan 2013)

Separation Processes, Inc.

Design Product

Water Quality Goal

Parameter Unit Low High Average After Post Treatment

(17oC)

Gross Alpha Prticles Radio-Activity pCi/L 0.1 0.4 0.3 15 ND

Combined Radium pCi/L ND 3 1.7 5 ND

Uranium pCi/L 0.1 0.4 0.3 20 ND

Radon pCi/L 163 638 322 ND

Arsenic ug/L ND 8 1.2 10 ND

Nitrate (As NO3) mg/L ND 26.9 10.1 45 <10

Selenium ug/L ND 7 3 50 <1

Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM) ug/L 3.9 61.2 29.3 80 <40

Haloacetic Acids (HAAs) ug/L 1.3 28.7 14.4 60 <30

Sulfate mg/L 60 80 69 500 250 <10

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L 136 618 417 1000 500 <380 <200

Chloride mg/L 32 136 84 500 250 <60 60-100

Boron mg/L ND 1.1 0.23 0.5 0.5-1.0

Calcium mg/L 17 86 48 >40 as CaCO3

>40

Alkalinity mg/L 48 242 151 >40 as CaCO3

>40

pH Unit 6.2 8.4 7.3 8 7.5-8.3

Magnesium mg/L ND 25 15

Sodium mg/L 48 91 70 <100

Total Hardness mg/L 42 310 183 <100

Sodium Adsorpbtion Ratio (SAR) Unit <5

LSI Unit >0

Table 2.2: Finished Water Design Water Quality

California American Water (2012 Water Quality Report)


October 2015 2-4

• Open ocean/bay intake system consisting of rehabilitating the existing intake structure to include a new 30-inch intake pipe that would extend out from the existing caisson approximately 50- to 100-feet in the open water/bay. The previous intake pipeline was removed and does not currently exist. Three (3) wedge wire passive screens (two active and one standby) would be attached at the end of this new pipeline extension and would be located approximately 25- feet below mean sea level (msl). Each passive screen structure would be 48-inches in diameter and would be used to draw seawater into the existing caisson. The screens would be designed for a maximum through-screen velocity of 0.5 feet per second and with 0.5 millimeter (mm) wedge wire slots to minimize impingement and entrainment.;

• Desalination plant and appurtenant facilities, including source water receiving tanks; pretreatment, reverse osmosis, and post-treatment systems; chemical feed and storage facilities; and associated non-process facilities;

• Brine storage and rehabilitation of the existing 51-inch diameter discharge facility; and

• Product water storage and conveyance facilities, including a 5 million gallon clearwell, pump

station, a new17.5 mile pipeline conveyance facility and a new 5 million gallon terminal reservoir system to interconnect with CalAms System at Seaside, CA.

Specifically, the proposed PMLWDP would include a 12-mgd desalination plant to provide replacement water supplies to meet existing and future growth demands for the approximately 40,000 customers in CalAm’s Monterey Peninsula District. Figure 2-1 provides an overview of the Project layout. Additional, facilities may be needed by CalAm to make their system work with this new water supply. However, the focus of this analysis is on the facilities needed to get the water to CalAm’s distribution system for CalAm to distribute. The Proposed Project does not intend to operate or dictate how CalAm would continue to operate its system. A preliminary Project process flow diagram is provided in Figure 2-2, Figure 2-3, and Figure 2-4. Detailed below is a discussion of each of the major components.

2.2.1 Open Ocean/Bay Intake Facility As shown in Figure 2-2, the proposed open bay seawater collector system would draw seawater from the Monterey Bay for use as source water for the proposed desalination plant. Approximately 28 to 30 mgd of source water would be needed to produce approximately 12 mgd of desalinated product water. The proposed intake for the open bay system would use an existing 20-foot diameter intake pump caisson structure that is located on the beach and adjacent to the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories. The existing intake caisson was originally built in the 1940’s and used as an open intake facility and pump house; it was replaced by the existing harbor intake system in the 1970’s. The existing open bay intake structure would be rehabilitated to include a new 30-inch intake pipe that would extend out from the existing caisson approximately 50-feet in the open water/bay. The previous intake pipeline was removed and does not currently exist. Three (3) wedge wire passive screens (two active and one standby) would be attached at the end of this new pipeline extension and would be located approximately 25- feet below mean sea level (msl). Each passive screen structure would be 48-inches in diameter and would be used to draw seawater into the existing caisson. The screens would be designed for a maximum

Figure 2-‐1 -‐ People’s Project Site Plan and Layout

Figure 2-2

Open Water Intake

Figure 2-3

Open Water Intake

Figure 2-4

Open Water Intake


October 2015 2-9

through-screen velocity of 0.5 feet per second and with 0.5 millimeter (mm) wedge wire slots to minimize impingement and entrainment.

A new pump house would be built on top of the existing intake structure at a height of approximately 15- feet above msl so that that the pumps would be outside of the tsunami zone of inundation. Vertical turbine pumps would be utilized with pumps submerged in the intake structure and motors in the pump house above. A new 30-inch pipeline would be slip-lined within the existing 36-inch intake pipeline to convey the seawater to the People’s Proposed desalination plant at the Moss Landing Green Commercial Park.

2.2.2 Desalination Plant As shown in Figure 2-2 above, the proposed desalination plant would be located at the Moss Landing Green Commercial Park southeast of the intersection of Dolan Road and Highway 1, and across Dolan Road from the Moss Landing Power Plant facility. The Moss Landing Green Commercial Park is the location of the former Kaiser Refractories Magnesium Extraction and Brick Production Plant that ceased production in February 1999. The function of the original facility was a water demineralizing plant to extract certain minerals (magnesium) from seawater (Steenkiste, 2011). The approximately 200-acre site is zoned under the Monterey County General Plan Heavy Industrial Coast Dependent use. Of the total site, a proposed 16.5-acre parcel is being proposed for developing the Proposed desalination plant and would be fenced off from the rest of the property. The site is ideal for a desalination plant since it has access to a subsurface water source through an existing intake and pipeline facilities, is close to a major roadway for deliveries, is adjacent to a power plant and high voltage grid, and is an industrial zoned property. The site layout focuses on locating permanent structures away from environmentally sensitive areas of the site, such as wetlands and flood plains.

2.2.2.1 Desalination Plant and Process The proposed desalination plant would encompass approximately 16.5 acres (approximately 696,960 square feet), which is accessed from Dolan Road. The treatment plant’s key facilities would include: (1) the existing 36-inch source water pipeline connected to the existing intake facility; (2) an equalization basin, to receive and store the incoming source water; (3) an inlet pump station, to convey source water from the equalization basin to a pretreatment system; (4) a pretreatment system; (5) an RO system; (6) a post-treatment system; (7) a return flow pipeline that conveys brine and washwater back to the disengaging basin; (8) chemical feed and storage facilities; and (9) facilities for residuals management. The plant facilities would also include non-process facilities for administrative and other uses. The following sections describe each of these facilities.

Source Water Pipeline The desalination plant would draw subsurface seawater from the new subsurface intake facility that would be rehabilitated from the existing intake facility as described above. As mentioned above, the existing intake 36-inch abandoned intake facility would be slip-lined with a 30-inch new pipeline that will take the subsurface seawater or source water beneath State Route 1 (Highway 1) and deliver it to the proposed desal plant at the Moss Landing Green Commercial Park. The source water pipeline terminates at a series of existing open top, partially buried, concrete storage tanks that will be rehabilitated to serve as an equalization basin for the desalination plant site.


October 2015 2-10

Equalization Basin The proposed desalination plant would include an equalization basin at the desalination plant site to stabilize volume and temperature of the source water received from the subsurface intake facility prior to entering the desalination pretreatment process. The equalization basin will include rehabilitating two (2) existing partially buried concrete open tanks to provide some equalization of the seawater, adequate detention time for coagulation of chemicals to react with the raw seawater and to provide settling of large particulates and solids that may have made it through the passive screens. Each of these two tanks would have a capacity of 1.8 million gallons and have an overall detention time of approximately 88 minutes. In addition, plate settlers will be installed in the tanks to enhance sedimentation and settling. Also, a coagulant dosing systems will be used upstream of the contact tanks to inject chemicals such as ferric chloride into the seawater, in order to improve the efficiency of downstream treatment processes. These tanks will be equipped with hopper bottoms for solid collection. A mechanical rotating sludge collector will be installed in each tank to remove deposited solids as needed based on a timer control. Inlet Pump Station A plant inlet pump station would pump raw seawater from the equalization basin to the pretreatment system. The pump station would be sized for a lift of approximately 30-feet and would have a capacity of 30 mgd. Pretreatment System Because RO technology is sensitive to microbial contamination, turbidity, and other contaminants and conditions, pretreatment of the source water is required to prevent the membranes from becoming fouled or encrusted with scale. Proper pretreatment can increase the efficiency of the RO system and extend the useful life of the RO membranes. The proposed pretreatment system would have a capacity of 30 mgd, to treat the entire source water intake. The pretreatment system for the Proposed Project would primarily consist of flocculation, Dissolved air flotation (DAF), media filtration, ultrafiltration, and cartridge filtration. Each is discussed below. Floccculation Flocculation is the agglomeration of small particles and colloids to form larger settleable and filterable particles (floc), for removal in subsequent treatment processes. During flocculation, gentle mixing accelerates the rate of particle collision, and the destabilized particles are further aggregated and enmeshed into larger precipitates. Optimum mixing intensity requires gentle (low-shear) mixing equipment to enhance contact of destabilized particles (typically 20-30 minutes) and to build floc particles of optimum size, density and strength. Optimum floc is usually formed under conditions of gradually reducing energy (tapered flocculation), as achieved in multiple stages, each with variable speed mixers. The Proposed Project will include a two stage tapered energy flocculation process with variable mixer drives which would be automatically adjusted based on seawater temperatures. The proposed floculation process includes 12 unites (10 operating units and 2 standby units) each with a a capacity of 41,000 gallons and a detention time of approximately 20 minutes. Dissolved Air Floatation

Dissolved air flotation (DAF) is a water treatment process that is used for removing light weight organics, algae, oil and difficult to settle particulates. DAF is particularly effective when the suspended solids are


October 2015 2-11

neutrally or positively buoyant, typical of surface waters. DAF has been used extensively in seawater desalination facilities to minimize the impacts of harmful algal blooms (HABs) and other organic matter. HABs dramatically increase suspended solids concentrations in seawater supplies, fouling downstream filters and necessitating rapid backwash cycles or even causing systems to fail. In some cases, desalination systems have been taken offline for months while HABs persisted.

Removal in DAF is achieved by dissolving air in the water under pressure and then releasing the air at atmospheric pressure in a flotation tank. The released air forms tiny bubbles that adhere to the suspended matter causing the suspended matter to float to the surface of the water where it is then removed by a skimming device. A portion of the clarified effluent water leaving the DAF tank is pumped into a small pressure vessel into which compressed air is also introduced. This results in saturating the pressurized effluent water with air. The bubbles adhere to the suspended matter, causing the suspended matter to float to the surface and form a froth layer that is then removed by a skimmer.

The Proposed Project will include six (6) DAF units (4 operating units and 2 standby units). Each unit will be 36-inches by 36-inches and a loading rate of approximately 3.9 gallons per minute per square foot (gpm/sf).

Media Filtration

The Proposed Project will have a media filtration process where water travels through layers of sand/gravel/anthracite ranging from fine to coarse grades in a process known as straining or sieving. Thus, suspended solids are removed from the source water. A two-stage media filtration process is proposed as it results in a higher degree of clarity in the filtered water because more turbidity particles are trapped throughout the bed. Media Filtration consisting of anthracite-sand multimedia has been successfully utilized successfully in many RO plants worldwide with relatively clean ocean waters.

In order to have very low (non-detect) particulates and a Silt Density Index (SDI) of less than 3, which is the goal of this project, a two-stage media filtration will be required. SDI is a field test, which gives a more accurate determination of pretreatment quality for desalination systems than turbidity measurements. RO membrane manufacturers require a maximum SDI of 4, ideally less than 3. With SDI values greater than 4, some RO membrane manufacturers will terminate their performance guarantees. As a result, the Proposed Project will have six (6) 18’x56’ media filters in both the first and second stages for a total of 12 (i.e. 10 operational and 2 standby). After the water is treated by the first stage, it is filtered through the second stage. This stage of media filtration further reduces the amount of particulates, bacteria, turbidity, and organic levels in the finished water and acts as a polishing filter. The end result will be a wash water percent of 2.

Cartridge Filters

The Proposed Project will include seven (7) cartridge filters (6 operational units and 1 standby unit) with a loading rate of 3.5 gpm/10-inches and a filter size of 5 microns. For most municipal RO systems, cartridge filters (typically 5 microns) should be considered, even for the optimized pretreated waters. The reason is that sometimes foulants / scalants are not in the source water but are coming from other sources. Examples are: cement lining and corrosion of steel and ductile iron raw water piping, well casing failure, colloidal sulfur from oxidation of hydrogen sulfide and pretreatment failure or upset. In these occasional, but not unusual cases, the cartridge filter will act as an “insurance policy” for protecting the “asset,” the


October 2015 2-12

RO membranes. Therefore, cartridge filters should not be viewed as a “pretreatment” per se, but rather as a last defense for protecting RO elements. After several months of operation, if there is no indication of particulate pass through in the pretreated water, cartridge filters with a larger nominal size of 10 micron could be utilized.

Reverse Osmosis System Reverse osmosis (RO) is an ion separation process that uses semi-permeable membranes to remove salts in saltwater to produce fresh water. This process also works as an absolute barrier for cysts and viruses. Pretreated seawater is forced at very high pressures through the membranes, and the water molecules, smaller than almost all impurities, including salts, are selectively able to pass through the membranes. The fresh water produced, or product water, is also referred to as “permeate”. The remaining impurities and residual water are discharged as concentrate (i.e. brine). A schematic drawing of the proposed RO process is shown in Figure 2-5, Principles of Reverse Osmosis Process.

Figure 2-5 Principles of the Reverse Osmosis Process

In an RO system, a higher concentration solution on one side of a semi-permeable membrane is subjected to pressure, exceeding natural Osmotic pressure of the feed water, causing freshwater to diffuse through the membrane leaving behind a more concentrated solution containing a majority of the dissolved minerals and other contaminants which is the origin of the name, “Reversing the Osmotic Pressure”. The first pass of RO will result in permeate with a TDS concentration of 200-300mg/L depending on the seawater temperature. In order to meet and surpass the design water quality requirements established for this project as previously discussed, the Boron level should be between 0.5mg/L and 1.0mg/L and TDS less than 200mg/L. Computer projections indicate a partial second pass brackish water RO (BWRO) is required. As a minimum, 30% of product water needs to come from the second pass. For this document, a 1.4 pass (i.e. 40% from second pass) is assumed. The RO membranes would be housed in a new approximately 20,000-square-foot building, comprising the largest structure within the desalination plant footprint. Table 2-3 provides a summary of the conceptual design of the first pass RO system for the Proposed Project.


October 2015 2-13

Table 2-3 First Pass Seawater Reverse Osmosis System

Item Units Design Total Number of Skids EA 7 Number in Service EA 6 Flux Rate with 1 Unit Out of Service GFD 8.0 Number of Pressure Vessels per Skid1 EA 96 Number of Elements per Pressure Vessel EA 7 Recovery % 45 Membrane Feed Pressure2 psi 700-780 1 Space on Skid for 108 PVs, or 12% Expansion 2 Varies with Seawater Temperature

Table 2-4 provides a summary of the conceptual design of the Second Pass Brackish Water RO system for the Proposed Project.

Table 2-4 Second Pass Brackish Water Reverse Osmosis System

Item Units Design Percent of Plant Production from Second Pass EA 40 Total Number of Skids EA 5 Number in Service EA 4 Flux Rate with 1 Unit Out of Service GFD 17 Number of Pressure Vessels per Skid1 EA 27 Number of Elements per Pressure Vessel EA 7 Stages2 EA 2 Recovery % 90 Membrane Feed Pressure3 psi 240-390 1 Space on Skid for 108 PVs, or 12% Expansion 2 Array: 2:1 3 Varies with Seawater Temperature

The major energy requirement for reverse osmosis is to pressurize the source, or “feed” water. Because the feed water has to pass through very narrow passages in the membrane module, any suspended solids and particulates must be removed during the initial treatment phase (pretreatment). Since the concentrate stream of the RO still has significant residual pressure, Energy Recovery Devices (ERD) will be installed on each RO train to recover this energy by reducing the RO feed pump pressure. For the purposes of this document, pressure exchanger type ERD (which are the most efficient available recovery devices) are assumed. RO pumps are selected based on coldest expected temperature and a 15% contingency/ fouling factor1. The clean-in-place (CIP) process for the RO membranes includes two steps: first, circulating a number of cleaning chemicals in a predetermined sequence through the membranes; and second, flushing the membranes with clean water to remove the waste-cleaning solutions. The contents of the cleaning solutions and the frequency of the cleaning (most likely in the range of once every six weeks to once every

1 Additional information on pressure-exchanger energy recovery systems is available at www.energyrecovery.com.


October 2015 2-14

twelve months2) would be determined during the pilot testing process. The spent non-continuous cleaning solutions would be collected and disposed of at an appropriate disposal site (see Residuals Management section, below). Re-mineralization

Hardness, alkalinity, and pH of the product water would be adjusted after the RO process to make the water more compatible with the other sources of supply in the CalAm system and to ensure acceptable water quality. Based on the quality of the permeate produced from the partial double pass RO system and the product water quality goals set in Section 2.1.2, Calcium (Ca) must be added to the product water and pH should be adjusted for a LSI greater than zero. The goal is to have calcium greater than 40mg/L as CaCO3 and HCO3 greater than 40mg/L as CaCO3, as indicated in Section 2.1.2.

Based on experience with other desalination plants, up-flow limestone contactors with polishing with Lime and Caustic will be used for this Proposed Project This approach, although has a higher Capex, will result in a much more reliable post treatment, consistent water quality, and lower turbidity in the finished water. Another proven, but relatively new method is to not post treat all product water, but only 30-50% and then blend it, allowing for better mixing and control.

Typically, the limestone up-flow rate is 3-4 gpm per square feet to minimize media escape. The conceptual design for the Proposed Project consists of 50% of the blended permeate (6.75 MGD) being acidified, then fed to an up-flow limestone bed. Then, it is blended with the rest of the product, and lime is added to the bypass line. Fine-tuning of pH level will be achieved with a small dose of Caustic. Re-mineralization conceptual design parameters are shown in Table 2-5.

Table 2-5 Second Pass Brackish Water Reverse Osmosis System

Item Units Design Percent of Product through Calcite System % 50 Total Number of Calcite Beds EA 7 Number in Service for Sizing EA 6 Dimensions, Each Feet 12’x46’ Loading rate with 1 Out of Service Gpm/sf 3 Wash Water Percent After Recovery % 1

Disinfection In post disinfection, hypochlorite is needed for distribution system protection. On site generation may be considered depending on the bulk chemical cost. The disinfection will meet and surpass the regulatory requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the California Title 22 Code and US Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. Depending on the final pipeline and termination point (such as intermediate chlorine boos stations) Chloramines may be more effective solution than Chlorination.

2 Membrane manufacturers typically recommend cleanings occur when the following fouling characteristics are evident: a

10-15% decrease in normalized permeate flow; a 10-15 percent increase in normalized permeate quality; a 10-15 percent increase in normalized pressure drop, as measured between the feed and concentrate headers. The nature and rapidity of fouling varies by site and depends on a number of factors, including quality of the feedwater, system recovery rate, and element flux. Cleaning intervals may vary from every 6-12 weeks in high fouling water to 6-12 months (or longer) in low fouling waters (http://www.torayro.com/).


October 2015 2-15

Byproducts and Residual Management The following is a summary of the types and estimated quantities of byproducts and residuals produced at the proposed facility:

• Concentrate (Brine) from the RO system. This stream will essentially have all salts and ions present in the source water but at higher concentration. At the proposed RO recovery of 45%, the concentration of salts and ions will be 1.8 times that of the seawater. At this recovery for all alternatives the concentrate will contain TDS in the range of 63,000 to 64,000 depending on the sweater temperature and salinity. Due to the TDS content, there are no economically feasible reuse opportunities with the RO concentrate. The brackish water RO concentrate which will have a TDS of 2,000 mg/L, substantially lower than the seawater and therefore will be completely recycled to the feed of the RO system.

• Recovered and Treated Backwash water from the Media Filters. The back wash water from the Media Filters and UF will be transferred to backwash collection tanks and pumped to the backwash treatment system consisting of sludge tank and centrifuges. The sludge is collected and sent to sludge treatment facility, while the clear supernatant is mixed with the concentrate and sent to the outfall.

• Recovered and Treated Clean Backwash from Post Treatment. Similarly recovered clean backwash from post treatment will be mixed in the outfall blend tank and send to outfall. A possible re-use of the stream for spray irrigation, wash water, etc. will be investigated during design. Table 2-6 is a summary and expected quality of the combined outfall. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and other discharge parameters will meet the current and proposed future effluent permit requirements. For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that the combined outfall concentrations will be processed to be the same or less than ambient seawater quality after dispersion.

Table 2-6 Outfall Water Quality and Quantity

Flow (MGD)

TDS (mg/L)

TSS (mg/L)

To

Concentrate (Brine) from RO 15.46 62,761 Outfall Recovered and Treated Backwash from Media Filtration 1.39 35,800 Outfall Recovered and Treated Clean Backwash from Post Treatment 0.06 400 Outfall

Combined Total 16.91 60,300 Outfall

• Clean-in-Place Wastes. All three types of membranes used in the Proposed Project will require

Clean In Place (CIP) systems as discussed above. The waste from CIP cannot be recycled, nor can it be sent directly to the sewer due to its basic or acidic nature. Therefore, neutralization systems will be included in the membrane facility with neutralization tank placed under the building floor. The appropriate chemical, typically either sodium bisulfite acid or sodium hydroxide, neutralizes the cleaning chemicals so that the waste can be properly sent to the sanitary sewer. A vertical chemical resistant pump will serve as mixing the chemicals as well as


October 2015 2-16

pumping the neutralized content of the tank gradually to the sewer system. The CIP events are planned and will be scattered throughout a week to reduce peak waste flows.

• Miscellaneous Wastes. Miscellaneous drains from analyzers, wash-downs, sample panels, etc. will be connected to sanitary sewer system.

• Bathroom and Indoor Plumping Wastes. Bathroom, showers and other building plumbing wastes will be connected to sanitary sewer system. Table 2-7 shows the estimated peak volumes and continuous flows to the sanitary system. A sewage pump station with adequate equalization wet well will be included to pump the sewer to the existing sanitary sewer adjacent to the PMLD site. This equalized flow was discussed with the Castroville Sanitation District (CSD), who will be taking over the Moss Landing area, and they indicated this volume of discharge can be sent to the gravity sewer at the intersection of Dolan and Highway 1 sewer system manhole.

Table 2-7

Other Residuals Disposal Total Volume

per Event, All Skids

(Gallons)

Frequency

Continuous Flow

(Gallons per Day)

Comment

To

RO CIP Cleaning

300,000

Once per Month

50,000

Neutralized

Sanitary Sewer

BWRO Cleaning

80,000

Once Every Two Months

20,000

Neutralized

Sanitary Sewer

Floor Drain, Analyzers, and Wash Waters

N/A

Continuous

3,000

Neutralized

Sanitary Sewer

Sanitary Sewer from Buildings and Offices

N/A

Continuous

1,500

Neutralized

Sanitary Sewer

Combined Total

74,500

Neutralized

Sanitary Sewer

All process solid wastes will be combined and sent to the sludge tanks and sludge treatment facility. The sludge treatment will consist of sludge conditioning, centrifuges, thickeners, belt presses and chemical treatment for production of 30-35% solid content sludge, which will be sent off site by dump trucks. Table 2-8 shows estimated volume of sludge to be hauled off-site.

Table 2-8 Estimated Sludge Production

Item Units Design Dry Sludge Volume (30%Solids) Gal/Day 407 Weight of Dry Sludge Pounds/Day 4,070 Weight of Dry Sludge Tons/Day 2 Number of Hauling Trucks per Week Number < 2

Chemical Feed and Storage Facilities Various chemicals to be used during treatment would be stored and processed onsite. The estimated use, dosage (in units of milligrams per liter [mg/l]), and annual consumption (in units of pounds per year [lbs/yr]) of each chemical are summarized in Table 2-9 below.


October 2015 2-17

The listed chemicals are non-flammable and will be stored in tanks that meet applicable regulatory requirements. It is anticipated that chemical storage tanks for daily use will be located within the new pre-treatment, reverse osmosis, and post-treatment building. The design of this building will incorporate the regulatory requirements for hazardous materials storage, such as spill containment features that exceed the capacity of the tanks; segregation of individual chemicals to prevent mixing in the case of accidental spillage; and appropriate alarm and fire sprinklers. Chemicals that have specific reactivity risks with one another will be stored at opposite ends of the storage area to reduce the risk of mixing. In addition, two lime saturation tanks, situated adjacent to the chemical building, will contain a bed of calcite for post-treatment after the RO process. Chemicals would likely be purchased in bulk and then processed onsite for their designated purpose. Processing chemicals onsite would result in lower purchasing costs.

Table 2-9 Estimated Chemical Usage

Chemicals mg/L Flow (MGD) lb/day Coagulant (Ferric Chloride of Ferric Sulfate) 10 29 2,443 Flocculant/Polymer/Filter Aid 2 29 489 Sulfuric Acid 10 29 2,443 Antifoulant 2 28 469 Lime 20 6 1,004 Caustic 10 12 1,005 CO2 5 6 251 Hypochlorite 3 12 301 Ammonia 3 12 301 Sodium Metabisulfite 3 12 300

Total lb/day (All Chemicals) 9,006 Power Usage Detailed power calculations were prepared assuming average water temperatures. A summary of power estimates is presented in Table 2-10. These estimates include power for intake pumps, pretreatment, desal, finished water pumping, all other process equipment, as well as estimates for building lighting, exterior lighting, HVAC, ventilation and miscellaneous uses. The estimates also include a 10% contingency. More refined estimates will be provided as the design progresses.

Table 2-10 Estimated Power Usage

Process Description Units Design Intake and Pump Station MWH 517 Pretreatment MWH 921 First Pass RO MWH 4,114 Second Pass BWRO MWH 714 Post Treatment Systems MWH 225 Solids Handling MWH 9 Finished Water Pumping MWH 410 Buildings, Lighting, and HVAC MWH 686 Other/Miscellaneous MWH 82

Total (Including 10% Contingency) MWH 8.4 KWH/1,000 Gallons of Finished Water kWh/kGal 16.8


October 2015 2-18

The primary source of electricity for the project will be either direct service from the Moss Landing Power Plan through an over-the-fence agreement with Dynegy, or from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) from the existing local electrical grid. Circuits feeding the desalination plant will be provided from an existing 12 KV electrical system3 through a 460- volt circuit. In the future, the Moss Landing Commercial Park also intends to install a solar PV facility of at least one to two MW and potentially larger at the existing site to serve a portion of the project’s energy requirements in order to provide a “green and clean” energy source to the project. The project site has sufficient available space outside wetland areas to install such a facility. The solar PV facility will be constructed as a separate project in the future once sufficient details are known, and therefore it is not an integral part of the proposed project at this point in time.

An independent secondary power supply (if available) or emergency backup generator will be required to operate the entire facility during power shortages. The emergency generator can run on diesel fuel or natural gas (preferred, if available). This item is being further investigated. All major plant controls, critical instruments and automation devices will have Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) and battery backups.

Office Space Requirements

Table 2-11 is a summary of the office space requirements for the Proposed Project. The control room, laboratory and offices are planned to be located in the desal building. The Desal Process Building will also house bulk desal chemicals and have space for parts and storage. The Desal Process Building will also house the central electrical room for shortest distance to the major power users such as RO pumps, for optimum efficiency. Proper safety equipment and emergency eyewash/shower stations will be provided at all chemical storage/feed facilities meeting code requirements. Fire extinguishers and fire sprinklers will be installed in buildings where necessary and meet local code requirements.

Table 2-11

Office Space Requirements Space Estimated Area (SF)

5 Offices 650 Control room 400 Conference room 400 Laboratory 350 Records and Archives Room 300 Bathroom/Shower 400 Parts Storage and Workshop 1,000

Total 3,500 Staffing Requirements The proposed desal facility will be fully automated with a central control system with Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) as well as multiple remote PLCs and controllers at each group of controlled equipment. This level of automation is necessary for proper control and optimization of various process

3 Supplied from Dynegy (MLPP, 2013).


October 2015 2-19

units. The facility control will also include various levels of alarms containing outside calling Remote Telemetry Unit (RTU) for safety, water quality and process reliability reasons. However, despite this level of automation, any plant of this size and complexity must have full time licensed operators at all times during facility operation. In addition, the State of California has mandatory minimum requirements for staffing water treatment facilities. Table 2-12 provides the staffing requirements for the Proposed Project. This level of staffing and operator licensing requirements meets and exceeds the minimum state requirements. Each of the off-duty staff will be “on call” to be able to respond to emergencies.

Table 2-12 Staffing Requirements

Position First Shift Second Shift Third Shift Plant Manager 1 - - Assistant Plant Manager 1 - - Operators 4 2 2 Laboratory Technician 1 - - Electrical Technician 1 - - Instrument Technician 1 1 - Maintenance Mechanic 1 1 1 Administrative Assistant 1 - - Total Number of Staff 18

Access and Security

The primary plant access will be from Dolan Road in the vicinity of the existing entrance. The entire desal plant site will be fenced and separated from other current or proposed activities on site as shown in Figure 2. Automated motorized gates with cameras at entrances and other strategically located areas will be installed with split screen monitors in the plant control room for security and safety. In terms of security of the water system, all final product water systems will be secured by removable access ladders and locks on access hatches. Similarly, the intake pump station will have fencing and security cameras.

2.2.3 Outfall Facility The existing outfall pipe is a 51-inch4 diameter concrete pipe that extends out 2,750 feet and approximately to 43 feet deep5 in Monterey Bay. The pipe goes under the marina and the marina parking lot island, under the commercial harbor, under the island (site of the former Marine Laboratories campus), and out into Monterey Bay (Steenkiste, 2011). The pipe is buried with approximately 25 feet of cover over the entire length (Miller, 2012). A structural evaluation (Miller, 2012) identified cracks that could be repaired with epoxy resin, and indicated that following the repair, the concrete pipe would be structurally adequate to function as an outfall. The last 130 feet of pipe of the 2,750-foot outfall pipe contains a diffuser section, which has 32 nozzles (MLBP, 2013). Operation of this outfall would require repair of the outfall pipeline and diffuser, and modifications to meet the State Ocean Plan requirements. The outfall is located in an area of high water activity near the head of the submarine canyon that will aid in rapid dispersion of the 4 The Miller Structural Evaluation (2012) indicates the existing outfall pipeline is a 51-inch diameter pipe. 5 The People’s Moss Landing Project proponent’s response to the SPI questions (Agha, 2012) indicated that the depth is uncertain, but estimated to be 43 feet.


October 2015 2-20

discharge. The discharge will likely not influence the intake of the Moss Landing Power Plant. The pressure in the RO concentrate stream, as it emerges from the energy recovery system, would be sufficient to provide the necessary head to deliver brine without additional pumping. During the pretreatment and RO process at the desalination plant, brine would be generated, and would be approximately twice as saline as seawater or about 60 parts per thousand. The proposed 12 mgd would discharge approximately 17.5 mgd effluent consisting of concentrate, filter flush water, and rinse water from the membrane cleaning operation. The brine from the desalination facility would be discharged to the ocean with a maximum concentration of 62.5 parts per thousand (ppt). Nevertheless, the discharge system will be designed to incorporate state-of-the-art techniques to meet the forthcoming Ocean Plan Discharge Standards for rapid mixing so that the brine concentrate does not fall to the ocean floor and so that effects on benthic organisms do not become an issue.

2.2.4 Product Water Storage and Conveyance Facilities As shown in Figure 2-6, the product water storage and conveyance facilities for the Proposed Project would deliver product water from the desalination plant at the Moss Landing Green Commercial Park to Seaside, CA. The product water storage and conveyance facilities would include the following infrastructure:

• 5 MG Clearwell at the Desalination Plant • Desalinated Water Pump Station • Product Water Transmission Pipeline • 6 MG Terminal Reservoir

In general, product water produced at the desalination plant would enter a water storage tank, known as a clearwell. From there, it would be pumped by the desalinated water pump station into the proposed Product Water Transmission Pipeline for conveyance approximately 17.5 miles south to Seaside, CA where it would terminate at the proposed Terminal Reservoir. Each of these major product water storage and conveyance facilities are described further below. Clearwell

A 5 Million gallon ground storage tank is proposed to be built on site, as shown in Figure 2-1. The proposed tank is a pre-stressed concrete tank with dome top and internal columns. For better mixing inside the tank, internal baffles and spray nozzles on inlet piping will be installed. The clearwell would serve as the initial product water conveyance storage facility. It would store treated, desalinated water.

Desalinated Water Pump Station

This pump station will pump the product water from the on-site tank to the off-site tank. For purposes of conceptual sizing of this pump station, it is assumed the pipeline termination will be approximately at elevation 35’ above MSL, and the pipeline is 17.5 miles long. Based on the estimated pressure losses due to fittings and pipe losses, a pressure of 80 psi is needed. For estimating purposes 90 gate valves, 60 (45 degree bends) and 20 (90 degree bends) were used in the head-loss calculations.

Product Water Transmission Pipeline Generally, the proposed 17.5 mile Product Water Transmission Pipeline would be a 24-inch class 300 Ductile Iron Pipe that would follows public rights-of-way (ROWs), existing railroad easements, and agricultural roads. Crossings at all sensitive locations (either major intersections or drainage channels) would be

Figure 2-6

Conveyance and Storage Facilities


October 2015 2-22

accomplished by means of jack-and-bore techniques, horizontal directional drilling (HDD), tunneling, or the use of existing or new bridge structures to span the sensitive location. For purposes of this discussion, the Product Water Transmission Pipeline would be divided into two segments and discussed below:

• Transmission Main North Pipeline Alignment Segment. From the Moss Landing desalination plant site, the approximately 9.5-mile Transmission Main North Pipeline Alignment Segment would head east along Dolan Road to the existing Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) ROW. The alignment would then turn south and continue parallel to and west of the UPRR. The UPRR is operational in this region, so an easement paralleling the UPRR ROW would be required. The alignment would turn to the southwest along Salinas Street in Castroville, crossing under Merritt Street. Approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the Merritt Street crossing, the pipeline would cross under Highway 156, then would continue southwest along Highway 156 and southeast along Nashua Road to the Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC) railroad ROW. Easements on private land would probably be required along Highway 156 and portions of Nashua Road. It is anticipated that the pipeline would be constructed parallel to the existing railroad tracks within the existing TAMC ROW, thereby minimizing environmental and community impacts. One exception would be the Salinas River crossing, at which point the pipeline alignment would depart from the TAMC railroad ROW and the pipeline would cross the Salinas River either on the piers of the Monte Road Bridge or subsurface using trenchless technology. Transmission Main North would end at the intersection of the TAMC ROW and Reservation Road in North Marina.

• Transmission Main South Pipeline Alignment Segment. The Transmission Main South Pipeline Alignment Segment would have the same characteristics as Transmission Main North. It would be a 24-inch force main to convey water from Transmission Main North to the proposed Monterey Pipeline and the Terminal Reservoir using approximately 8 miles of pipeline. The alignment of Transmission Main South would begin at the intersection of the TAMC ROW and Reservation Road. The alignment would follow the TAMC ROW south to its intersection with La Salle Avenue (Auto Parkway), where it would intersect with the northern end of the Monterey Pipeline. From that point, water would either flow south in the Monterey Pipeline or east in Transmission Main South. From the intersection of the TAMC ROW / La Salle Avenue intersection, the Transmission Main South alignment would run east along LaSalle Avenue to Yosemite Street, then south to Hilby Avenue, at which point it would turn east on Hilby, crossing General Jim Moore Boulevard en route to Terminal Reservoir.

Terminal Reservoir The proposed Terminal Reservoir would be located east of General Jim Moore Boulevard in an area that was formerly Fort Ord and was recently annexed by the City of Seaside. The Terminal Reservoir would consist of two 5-MG tanks for a total capacity of 10 MG. Each of the two approximately 33-foot-high, 150-foot-diameter aboveground concrete tanks would receive water from the desalination plant when production exceeds customer demand (and from other sources, such as the existing ASR or the Carmel River, as conditions require). It would act as a hydraulic control point for the CalAm system in Seaside. Water from different sources would mix in the Terminal Reservoir.


October 2015 2-23

2.3 Construction Methods The following sections describe the typical construction methods to be used for each project component.

2.3.1 Desalination Plant and Source Water Pipeline Construction

The existing intake would be rehabilitated to include a new 30-inch intake pipe and three wedge wire passive screens. The screens would be 48-inches in diameter and would draw seawater into the existing caisson. A new pump house would be built on top of the existing intake structure at a height of approximately 15 feet above msl so that that the pumps would be outside of the tsunami zone of inundation. Vertical turbine pumps would be utilized with pumps submerged in the intake structure and motors in the pump house above. A new 30-inch pipeline would be installed (“slip-lined”) within the existing 36-inch intake pipeline to convey the seawater to the Proposed desalination plant. Construction of the open-ocean/bay intake facility would be completed within approximately 2 years from notice to proceed. During peak construction, 5 to 10 construction workers may be employed. During construction, hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants and cleaning solvents would be used to fuel, lubricate and clean vehicles and equipment. The materials would be properly transported and stored in accordance with hazardous materials regulations and in accordance with best management practices to prevent release.

2.3.2 Desalination Plant Facilities Construction Construction of the desalination plant and appurtenant facilities would include site preparation, equipment delivery, and building construction. Some excavation and grading would be required for locations with uneven gradient. Ground clearing and excavation of the site would be performed using heavy construction equipment such as bulldozers, backhoes, cranes, and graders. Heavy equipment would be used to construct connections with existing water conveyance systems, and to construct footings of tanks and other support equipment. Upon completion of excavation, construction activities would also include pouring concrete footings for tanks, laying pipeline and making connections, installing support equipment such as control panels, and fencing the perimeter of the site.

2.3.3 Outfall and Intake Pipeline Construction

The existing outfall pipe was videotaped and found to be generally in good condition with some rehabilitation needs. A more detailed investigation will be conducted during design to insert the new 36-inch outfall pressure pipe in the existing 51-inch pipe. Similarly a new 32-inch is proposed to be inserted in the existing 36-iinch intake pipe. Several access points exist on these pipelines. During detail design, every attempt will be made to minimize site disturbances by strategically locating access points, especially in sensitive areas. Based on review of the pipe plan and profiles and dedicated right-of-ways, it is believed that both outfall and intake can be built in the existing right-of-ways, with limited temporary access and construction easements. The outfall/discharge facility will be designed to incorporate state-of-the-art diffusers and diffusion techniques to meet the forthcoming Ocean Plan Discharge Standards for rapid mixing so that the brine concentrate does not fall to the ocean floor and so that effects on benthic organisms do not become an issue. A SCUBA diver may be required to install the diffusers and also ensure that these facilities are properly constructed and in proper working order.


October 2015 2-24

2.3.4 Product Water Transmission Pipeline Construction Pipelines would be installed using conventional open-trench or trenchless technology. The pipelines would be constructed of reinforced concrete cylinder pipe, mortar-lined and coated steel pipe, steel cylinder concrete pipe, or ductile iron pipe, typically delivered and installed in 6- to 40-foot-long sections.

Most of the construction would be open-cut trenching. Pipe sections would be placed in a trench of varying depth depending on pipe size and topography, and covered using conventional equipment such as backhoes, side-boom cranes, wheeled loaders, sheep’s-foot excavators, and compactors. Typically, earth cover over the pipe would be 5 feet. Variations in this depth would be required to accommodate local topography, hydraulic grade, and utility congestion, among other factors. The trench width would be mostly 10- to 15-feet.

For portions of the alignment where it is not feasible to perform open-cut trenching, trenchless technology methods such as boring and jacking, micro-tunneling, or horizontal directional drilling may be used. These special construction methods would be used in areas where it is difficult to perform open-cut trenching, such as State highway crossings, stream and drainage crossings, and high utility congestion areas.

Construction activities may involve trenching, spoil handling, equipment and materials lay-down and storage, pipeline installation, backfilling and restoration, and vehicle ingress and egress. Typically, work tasks are anticipated to proceed in the following order:

• Clearing, grubbing and grading the rights-of-way; • Trenching and hauling of excess spoils; • Relocating utilities, if required; • Delivering pipe and pipe bedding material; • Installing pipe bedding material; • Installing pipe; • Backfilling the trench; • Hydrostatic testing; and • Restoring the ROW to original condition (pavement replacement, revegetation, etc.).

The width of the disturbance corridor for the pipeline construction would, under typical circumstances, vary from 25- to 50-feet, depending on the size of the pipe being installed. Trenchless technologies may require wider corridors at entry and exit pits.

Typical pipeline installation rates would be up to 250 linear feet per day. All construction activities would be restricted to the ROW approved by the applicable landowner or agency. All roadways disturbed during pipeline installation would be restored. Generally, trench spoils would be temporarily stockpiled within the construction easement, then backfilled into the trench after pipeline installation.

Some pipeline installation would require construction in existing roadways. Traffic control measures would be implemented as necessary, in coordination with local agencies.

Construction staging for the project would depend upon the contractor and subcontractors. Typically, the pipe would be brought to the site just ahead of construction and staged along the alignment ready for placement. Equipment and other construction materials may require sites for storage, staging, and lay-down.


October 2015 2-25

2.4 Operation and Maintenance Procedures General operation and maintenance procedures would be developed for the project’s system components, including pipelines, pump stations, and the desalination plant. Examples of typical operation and maintenance procedures are briefly described below.

2.4.1 Pipelines The following are general pipeline and interconnection operation and maintenance procedures:

• Weekly, visually inspect pipeline alignments; • Mow grass within pipeline alignments; • Grade access roads as needed; • Test and service blow-off valves and air/vacuum relief valve assemblies as needed; • Annually walk the pipeline alignment and inspect the cathodic protection system; and • Pressure-test pipeline, paint pipeline appurtenances, repair tunnel entrances, and repair

minor leaks in buried pipeline joints or segments (when necessary).

2.4.2 Pump Stations The following are general pump station operation and maintenance procedures:

• Conduct routine operation maintenance checks; • Conduct routine general pump station cleaning and maintenance; • Perform routine maintenance of pump station exteriors; • Routinely test pumps during non-emergency periods and verify operational readiness under

anticipated full emergency project head; • Annually perform major maintenance and cleanup; and • Service motor cooling system (emergency pumps), replace pump seals, paint pump station and

equipment, and disassemble pump to inspect bearings and impeller (recirculation and emergency pumps) as needed.

The various pumps that would be used during operations at the pump would operate on a seasonal basis, although during extreme wet or dry conditions facilities could operate continuously throughout the year, or not at all. It may be assumed that when the facilities do operate, they would operate continuously for 24 hours a day.

2.4.3 Desalination Plant Operation and maintenance personnel at the desalination plant would continuously monitor the seawater desalination facility, and would be present at the location 365 days a year, 24 hours per day. Their duties would include:

• Monitor chemical flows to the various processes, water flows into and out of the various processes, equipment operating parameters (e.g., pressure, temperature, and flow rates), and various other continuous operations; maintain, update and order chemicals and equipment to meet operational requirements;

• Prepare monthly records and reports to comply with requirements of local, state, and Federal agencies; and


October 2015 2-26

• Routinely maintain (daily, monthly, and yearly) equipment in accordance with manufacturers’ requirements, and provide equipment maintenance for emergency situations and/or breakdowns.

The accumulation of silts or scale on the RO membranes causes fouling, which reduces membrane performance. When this happens, RO membranes must be cleaned to remove the residues. The cleaning process includes two steps: first, a number of cleaning chemicals are circulated in a predetermined sequence through the membranes; and second, the cleaned membranes are flushed with clean water (permeate) to remove the waste-cleaning solutions and to prepare the membranes for normal operation.

2.5 Potential Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals The Proposed Project, with its myriad distinct components and range of alternatives, is a complex project. Numerous federal, state, and local regulations and permit requirements would apply to the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Table 2-13 lists the major federal, state, and local permits, approvals, and consultations identified likely to be required for the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Table 2-13 is not intended to be exclusive and exhaustive. Other permits and approvals may be required. If so, the lead agency(s) would be bound by law to comply with such requirements.

Table 2-13 Potential Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations for Project/Action Facilities

Agency Type of Approval Federal Agencies

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Incidental Take Statement in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. Incidental Take Permit in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703–711)

Consultation and issuance of a biological opinion in accordance with ESA Section 7

Consultation in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667c)

Consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA)

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Fisheries

Authorization by the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Superintendant of federal, state and local agencies’ permits within the sanctuary in accordance with NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary Program requirements for the MBNMS. (15 Code Fed. Regs. Part 922)


October 2015 2-27


Agency Type of Approval Incidental Take Permit in accordance with Section 104 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. § 1374)

Incidental Take Statement in accordance with ESA Section 7 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

Consultation and biological opinion in accordance with ESA Section 7

Consultation in accordance with Section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (“the Sustainable Fisheries Act”) (16 U.S.C. § 1855(b))

Consultation with the SHPO and/or THPO, as appropriate, in accordance with NHPA Section 106.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

Permit in accordance with Clean Water Act Section 404 (33 U.S.C. § 1344) Permit in accordance with Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 (33 U.S.C. § 403) Consultation under ESA Section 7 Consultation with NOAA Fisheries in accordance with Section 305(b) of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. § 1855(b)) Consultation with the SHPO/THPO in accordance with NHPA Section 106

State Agencies

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (PUC Article 1) Consultation with NOAA Fisheries in accordance with Section 305(b) of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. § 1855(b))

State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights

Order of approval Consultation with NOAA Fisheries in accordance with Section 305(b) of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. § 1855(b))

Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Central Coast Region

Compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit For Storm Water Discharges Associated With Construction Activity National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit in accordance with Clean Water Act Section 402 (33 U.S.C. § 1342) Waste Discharge Requirements in accordance with the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code § 13000 et seq.)


October 2015 2-28


Agency Type of Approval Water Quality Certification in accordance with Clean Water Act Section 401 (33 U.S.C. § 1341) Consultation with NOAA Fisheries in accordance with Section 305(b) of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. § 1855(b))

California State Lands Commission

Amendment of Land Use Lease (Right-of-Way Permit) (Pub. Res. Code § 6000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 1900 et seq.) Consultation with NOAA Fisheries in accordance with Section 305(b) of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. § 1855(b))

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)

Incidental Take Permit in accordance with the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & Game Code § 2081) Lake/Streambed Alteration Agreement (Fish & Game Code § 1602) Consultation in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667c) Consultation with NOAA Fisheries in accordance with Section 305(b) of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. § 1855(b))

California Coastal Commission (CCC)

Coastal Development Permit in accordance with the California Coastal Act (Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq.) Consultation with NOAA Fisheries in accordance with Section 305(b) of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. § 1855(b))

California Department of Public Health (CDPH)

Permit to Operate a Public Water System (Health & Safety Code § 116525) Consultation with NOAA Fisheries in accordance with Section 305(b) of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (16 U.S.C. § 1855(b))

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Encroachment Permit (Streets &Highway Code § 660 et seq.)

Local Agencies Local Agency Formation Commission Annexation of Project Facilities

Monterey County Public Works Department Encroachment Permit (Monterey County Code (MCC) Chapter 14.04)

Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD)

Water System Expansion Permit in accordance with Ordinance 96 of the MPWMD Board of Directors

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District MBUAPCD)

Authority To Construct and Operate

Moss Landing Harbor District Encroachment Permit

Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis

3.0 Introduction This section presents potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The scope of the analysis and key attributes of the analytical approach are presented below to assist readers in understanding the manner in which the impact analyses have been conducted in this EIR. 3.0.1 Scope of the Environmental Impact Analysis Based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and as modified to include NEPA requirements to help facilitate the federal permitting process this CEQA-Plus EIR addresses the following environmental resource topics in detail:

Subsection # Subsection Title 3.1 Aesthetics 3.2 Air Quality 3.3 Biological Resources 3.4 Cultural Resources 3.5 Energy 3.6 Geology, Seismicity, and Soils 3.7 Groundwater Resources 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Wastes 3.9 Land Use, Agricultural, and Recreation 3.10 Marine Biology 3.11 Noise 3.12 Public Services and Utilities 3.13 Surface Water Resources 3.14 Traffic and Transportation 3.15 Socioeconomics

For each resource topic, the CEQA-Plus EIR describes the existing environmental setting and regulatory framework, evaluates potential project impacts, and recommends mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid potentially significant impact(s). 3.0.2 Definition of Baseline or Existing Conditions The Existing Conditions subsections present the existing environmental setting of the region and study area in relation to each of the resource topics. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 (Environmental Setting), an EIR must include a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, to provide the “baseline physical conditions” against which project-related changes can be compared. Based on the CEQA Guidelines, the baseline condition is normally the physical condition that exists when the Notice of Preparation is published. The Notice of Preparation for the proposed project was published on June 29, 2015, establishing the baseline for this CEQA-Plus EIR as 2015. Throughout this CEQA-Plus EIR, 2015 data is used for the description of the environmental setting to the extent

The People’s Moss Landing Water Desalination Project Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report

October 2015 3-2

available. Where such information is not available, data is used that is representative of baseline conditions.

3.0.3 Definition of Project Area and Study Area The project area consists of: (1) locations for the seawater intake structure, intake pipeline, pump station, and transfer piping alternatives; (2) the seawater desalination plant location; (3) the brine/concentrate disposal and conveyance system locations; and (4) the potable water conveyance system improvement locations. These locations were previously described in Chapter 2, Project Description, and are further described throughout this section. The extent of any additional study area beyond the project area itself varies among resource topics, depending on the extent of the area in which impacts could be expected. A study area for each environmental topic is defined beyond the project area, as necessary and warranted, in the various subsections of this section.

3.0.4 Impact Determinations As required by CEQA, an EIR must identify and evaluate the significance of impacts caused by a proposed project. Evaluation of the significance of an impact involves a variety of factors, such as the applicable standards of significance, the use of standard analytical methodologies and modeling approaches, an assessment of the extent and characteristics of the project effect, consistency with conclusions reached for similar projects, and principles derived from CEQA, CEQA-Plus, and NEPA case law. The standards of significance, analytical methodologies, and other aspects of the analyses are described in detail in each section. The impact significance determinations listed below were used in this analysis.

§ Significant (SU) – This category applies to those impacts that have been determined to be significant or potentially significant and cannot be mitigated to less than significant. This determination is made when there is no mitigation available, or the available feasible mitigation measures would not reduce the impact to less than significant. A Statement of Overriding Considerations must be made by the Harbor District for any project approval that will involve significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant.

§ Less than significant with mitigation (LTSM) – This category applies to those impacts

that may be significant or potentially significant, but can be reduced to less than significant through either project modifications or feasible mitigation measures.

§ Less than significant (LS) – This category applies to effects of the project on the

environment that could be adverse but are not significant or potentially significant, and therefore, do not require mitigation.

§ No impact (NI) – This category refers to effects of the project on the environment that

are not considered adverse.

§ Beneficial Impacts (B) – CEQA does not require that beneficial impacts of a proposed project be identified and evaluated. However, NEPA does and as this is a CEQA-Plus document, such effects are identified in this document if they address one or more of the identified project objectives, as identified in Chapter 2, Project Description.


October 2015 3-3

3.0.5 Numbering Systems Each of the environmental resource topics is evaluated in the numbered subsections shown above. The standards of significance and the impacts and mitigation measures in each subsection are also numbered. An example of the number system for each resource topic is provided below: Numbering System for Chapter 3.10, Marine Biological Resources:

• Environmental Impacts – The impacts are numbered Impact 3.10-1, Impact 3.10-2, Impact 3.10-3, etc.

• Mitigation Measures – The mitigation measures are numbered based on which impact

they address. For example, mitigation measures for Impact 3.10-1 are numbered Mitigation Measure 3.10-1a, Mitigation Measure 3.10-1b, Mitigation Measure 3.10-1c, etc.

3.0.6 Alternatives In addition to the potential for direct and indirect impacts associated with the Proposed Project, alternatives to the Proposed Project are considered and evaluated. CEQA requires an EIR to describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Proposed project, while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(a)). As this is a CEQA-Plus document and to meet NEPA requirements, any alternatives carried forward for consideration for project approval must be evaluated on a an equal basis. Chapter 4, Alternatives, identifies, considers, and evaluates various Alternatives that would meet the goals and objectives of the Proposed Project.

3.0.7 Growth Inducing Impacts CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate the growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project1. A growth-inducing impact is defined as follows:

[T]he ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects, which would remove obstacles to population growth.... It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

The environmental effects of induced growth are secondary or indirect impacts of the project. Growth can result in significant increased demand on community services and public service infrastructure; increased traffic, noise, degradation of air and water quality; and conversion of agricultural land to urban uses.

1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d).


October 2015 3-4

Based on the CEQA definition above, assessing the growth-inducement potential of a water project such as the Proposed Project involves answering the question:

Will construction and/or operation of the proposed desalination plant and/or related infrastructure and facilities remove an obstacle to growth and thus directly or indirectly support more economic or population growth or residential construction in the surrounding environment?

Chapter 5, Growth Inducement Potential, evaluates the growth inducement potential of the Proposed Project as well as any alternatives that may be carried forward for consideration of project approval.

3.0.8 Cumulative Impacts In addition to the potential for direct and indirect impacts associated with the Proposed Project, the project may contribute to broader cumulative impacts, when considered together with other development that may cause related impacts. Chapter 6, Cumulative Impacts, analyzes these potential effects.

Chapter 4 ALTERNATIVES

4.1 Introduction CEQA requires an EIR to describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(a)). As this is a CEQA-Plus document and to meet NEPA requirements, any alternatives carried forward for consideration for project approval will be evaluated on a an equal basis. This section sets forth the objectives of the Proposed Project, summarizes its significant impacts, describes the range of alternatives considered, discusses the alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis, and compares the merits of the alternatives evaluated in detail. Section 3, Environmental Analysis, of this CEQA-Plus EIR provides a detailed evaluation of the Proposed People’s Project. A comparative evaluation of the component alternatives is provided in this section. Other potentially feasible alternatives are also identified and evaluated in detail in this section, as warranted under CEQA, CEQA-Plus, and NEPA.

4.2 Project Objectives and Significant Impacts As indicated above, CEQA, CEQA-Plus, and/or NEPA requires an environmental document to describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Project (i.e. Chapter 2 Proposed Project Description) that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Proposed Project, while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant impacts. Given that, this section provides the project objectives and a summary of significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. As shown in Table 4-1, all of the identified reasonable alternatives are evaluated in this chapter and are compared to the Proposed Project’s Goals and Objectives (i.e. Purpose and Need for NEPA) and to lessen the identified significant environmental impacts of the Proposed Project.

4.2.1 Project Objectives

As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2 of this environmental document, the purpose of the People’s Project is to provide the Monterey Peninsula Area with a safe and reliable water supply of up to offset mandated water supply diversion curtailments on the Carmel River and Seaside Basin as well as provide for additional water supplies to meet the anticipated and planned future water supply demands in the Monterey Peninsula area.

4.2.2 Significant Impacts Alternatives to be considered under CEQA are those that can avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant environmental effects identified for the proposed project. Many of the

The People’s Moss Landing Water Desalination Project Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.0 Alternatives

October 2015 4-2

adverse environmental impacts were judged to be less than significant. Other adverse impacts were judged to be significant, but could be reduced to a less-than-significant level through the application of mitigation measures. However, even though the water supply provided by the Project appears to be largely consistent with the growth assumptions for the general plans within the CalAm service area, and the impacts of such growth have been analyzed and addressed in environmental documents prepared for those plans, the People’s Project would remove an obstacle to growth (by providing a reliable water supply). As such, the People’s Project would have a significant growth-inducing impact if it would serve for future growth and development. Since there are no feasible mitigation measures that would lessen those impacts, the impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. However, the Project Proponent/Applicant could reduce the amount of water produced and serve the replacement water to avoid any significant and unavoidable impacts. As stipulated by the CEQA Guidelines, CEQA-Plus and/or NEPA, the range of alternatives considered in this environmental document may be limited to those that would avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the proposed project. This alternatives analysis begins with a screening and evaluation of the individual components as provided in Table 4-1, including: a range of water supply alternatives; intake options; desalination plant sites options and outfall options are defined, screened for fatal flaws, and evaluated against each other and against the same component of the Proposed Project, to determine which options reduce or avoid potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project components. The Proposed Pipeline Conveyance facility has already been analyzed in CalAm’s 2009 Coastal Water Project EIR, which was determined to minimizes potential environmental impacts as compared to alternative alignments considered. Thus, the conveyance pipeline alternatives have already been evaluated and would either have the same, similar, or more severe environmental impacts than the Proposed Conveyance Pipeline alignment to Seaside, CA and connect into CalAm’s existing distribution system. As a result, alternative conveyance alignments are not being carried forward or considered in this CEQA-Plus EIR unless to avoid a specific cultural or sensitive biological resources area – in which case the Proposed Project Description will be modified to avoid that area(s). The Harbor District has the discretion to select whatever alternative or combination of project components it deems most appropriate, provided that the environmental impacts of the Proposed Project can be mitigated, or to the extent that they cannot, provided that the Harbor District adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations, as discussed in Chapter 1, Introduction of this CEQA-Plus EIR. This CEQA-Plus EIR and the alternatives analysis supports the Harbor District’s need to make an informed decision, and provides it with a variety of options to select from in case any particular component proves to be infeasible or is undesirable for environmental or other policy reasons.


October 2015 4-3

Summarized below is a discussion of comparing the Proposed Project to each of the alternatives that made the screening evaluation as described in Table 4-1, including the No Project Alternative. Each are discussed and compared below.

The People’s Moss Landing Water Desal Project Alternatives Evaluation 4-4

TABLE 4-1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Water Supply Alternatives Name Brief Description Recommendation Rationale

CalAm’s Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

The Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project will consist of slant intake wells, the desalination plant and related facilities Depending on the availability of water from the Groundwater Replenishment Project the desalination plant will be sized at either 9.6 mgd or 6.4 mgd. Slant wells draw water from under the sea floor, past the average high tide line and avoid the impacts to marine life posed by open ocean intakes. The brine resulting from the desalination process will be discharged to the ocean through the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency’s existing outfall. The plant will be owned and operated by our company and will require a 10-mile pipeline to deliver water to the Monterey Peninsula. CalAm commits to reduce the size of the plant to 6,250 acre-feet per year, if Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District’s proposed groundwater replenishment project, which will apply advanced treatment to recycled water currently being produced by

Considered, but Eliminated from Further Consideration

This Project Alternative was eliminated because it does not meet our goals and objectives. It is not located on our Property. Project Applicant or CEQA Lead Agency does not have jurisdiction, existing property and/or infrastructure to implement this alternative. It does not provide water to the North Monterey County Area. Slant wells do not meet guiding principals of not interfering with the 180- and 400-foot aquifers. As admitted in in Cal Am’s own 2009 EIR, the new Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project has a fatal flaw in the slant well design that would draw, albeit a very small amount of water, (i.e. approximately 1,000 afy) from the 180-foot Aquifer and thus would require a water rights permit prior to implementation. Given the political, institutional, and legal considerations, the CalAm Water Peninsula Water Supply Project is not implementable at this time. Therefore, if not implementable, it would not fulfill the basic project goals of providing a safe and reliable water supply to the Monterey Peninsula Area. Impacts would be essentially the




Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency’s treatment plant, is developed in time and we are able to procure water from it. The groundwater replenishment project is expected to yield 3,500 acre-feet annually.

same or greater as the Proposed Project after mitigation is in place for the open intake to reduce impingement and entrainment to less than significant levels (i.e. Screen size to reduce approach velocity(s)). Slant wells would have a much larger footprint and construction impacts. Manifold piping system would take much more land and space than the Proposed Project. However, if CalAm, CPUC, and/or the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary approves and implements this project, the Proposed Project may need to be reduced significantly or eliminated.

DeepWater Desal’s Monterey Bay Regional Water Project

The Monterey Bay Regional Water Project, proposed by DeepWater Desal, LLC, would provide up to 25,000 afy of potable water supply to serve participating communities in the Monterey Bay region, potentially including the Monterey Peninsula, Castroville, Salinas, and parts of Santa Cruz County. The project would withdraw up to 48.7 million gallons per day (mgd) of seawater and produce up to 25 mgd of potable supply.


Does not meet Goals and Objectives. Not located on our Property. Project Applicant or CEQA Lead Agency does not have jurisdiction, existing property and/or infrastructure to implement this alternative. Applicant is not interested in developing a Data Center as part of this Proposed Project – Maybe as a separate or future project on the Moss Landing Green Commercial Park, but not part of this Proposed Project. Impacts would be the same or more severe as




the Proposed Project. If DeepWater, Coastal Commission, and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary approves and implements this project, the Proposed Project may need to be reduced significantly or eliminated.

Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Water Replenishment Project

Provide 3,500 afy of stormwater and recycled water to off-set Seaside Groundwater Basin


Already being implemented by Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control District (MRWPCD). We do not have jurisdiction, existing property and/or infrastructure to implement this alternative. If MRWPCD does approve and implement this project, the Proposed Project may need to be reduced by 3,500 afy to serve the Monterey Peninsula Area.

New Los Padres Dam and Reservoir/Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project

The New Los Padres (NLP) Dam and Reservoir project was originally proposed by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) in 1989 and included a 24,000- acre feet (af) dam and reservoir on the Carmel River, located about 0.5 mile downstream of the existing Los Padres Dam. The project was proposed to have a production limit of 21,000 afy,


After considering public opposition to dams on live streams, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) opposition to the CRDRP, the results of the evaluation of Plan B (see Section 7.4.3) and other factors, CalAm concluded that the CRDRP was not feasible. The NLP Dam and Reservoir Project, and the CRDRP are still not feasible due to legal, social and economic factors that continue to preclude their implementation.




which assumed 3,381 af would have been available to accommodate growth (new connections and remodels).

The MPWMD prepared the required CEQA documentation in 1994-1995, obtained a Section 404 permit under the federal Clean Water Act in 1995, and obtained a water right permit from the SWRCB in June and July 1995. However, in November 1995 voters failed to pass a measure authorizing funding for the project (CPUC, 2009).

Additional Conservation Measures in the North Monterey County Area

To Be Determined as feasible by Monterey County Water Resources Agency


Project Applicant or CEQA Lead Agency does not have jurisdiction. Monterey County Water Resources Agency and/or individual communities must be the lead in implementing this idea or program.

Coastal Water Project, Project Plan B, and the Regional Project

Main elements of the three projects have been carried forward to provide the Monterey Peninsula Area with the water to meet their demands.


According to CalAm and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the Coastal Water Project, Project Plan B, and the Regional Project are no longer feasible alternatives for economic, social and legal reasons..

Salinas Valley Water Project The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) has


According to CalAm and the Monterey County Water




focused its groundwater management efforts on completion of the Salinas Valley Water Project (Salinas River Diversion Facility and modification to the Nacimiento Dam Spillway). The current drought has created a renewed interest in the Interlake Tunnel concept. The Interlake Tunnel Project is currently being considered by the MCWRA and would involve the construction of an 11,000-foot-long tunnel to divert approximately 50,000 afy of water from Nacimiento Reservoir to San Antonio Reservoir that would have otherwise been spilled at Nacimiento Dam. The Nacimiento River basin produces nearly three times the average annual flow of the San Antonio River basin, therefore, capturing high Nacimiento River flows and diverting those flows to San Antonio Reservoir would increase the overall storage capacity of the system (MCWRA, 2014).

Resources Agency, this alternative is no longer a feasible alternatives for economic, social and legal reasons..

Additional Conservation Projects and/or Measures No project details identified to

date. Monterey Peninsula Area has proven that they have maximized conservation practices


This Project Alternative was eliminated from further consideration due to the fact that this is not within the Project Applicant’s or the Harbor District’s jurisdiction or ability to




as much as practical. implement, control, and/or control. Does not meet the Proposed Project’s Goals and Objectives. If/when implemented by others, it could/would help reduce the size of our Proposed project.

Additional Water Recycling Projects and/or Measures No project details identified to

date. Monterey Peninsula Area has proven that they have maximized recycled water practices as much as practical.


Not within the Project Applicant’s or the Harbor District’s jurisdiction or ability to implement, control, and/or control. Does not meet our Goals and Objectives. If/when implemented by others, it could/would help reduce the size of our Proposed project.



Alternative Locations (Major Facilities) Name Brief Description Recommendation Rationale

Subsurface Intake Facility -‐ Beach Location behind

Monterey Marine Lab.

Site location directly on the beach approximately 0.5 miles south of the Moss Landing Harbor entrance. And behind the Monterey Marine Lab.


Location does not have sufficient space to develop a subsurface facility to produce the 30 mgd of source water required to develop 12 mgd of potable water. Hydrogeological tests done to date indicate that only 2 to possibly 5 mgd of source water can be withdrawn from this location.

Subsurface Intake Facility - At existing Harbor Surface Water Intake Facility

Located across the street (westside) of the Intersection of HWY 1 and Dolan Road.


Location does not have sufficient space to develop a subsurface facility to produce the 30 mgd of source water required to develop 12 mgd of potable water. Hydrogeological tests done to date indicate that only 2 to possibly 5 mgd of source water can be withdrawn from this location. Water quality at this location in the Dune Sand Aquifer is suspect do to legacy groundwater issues from the former Kaiser Refractories Plant, the Moss Landing Power Plant and the Moss Landing Harbor Operations. Concern is that operations would draw water from the Moss Landing Harbor, which has motor boats which can leak petroleum products and which is not publically acceptable source water for a new drinking water supply. Drilling deeper would interfere with the 180 and/or the 400-foot aquifer(s), which is not consistent with the guiding principals


for implementing the Proposed Project.

Subsurface Intake Facility - Off-site Locations

Any other location other than the Proposed Project and/or property and easements that we own and/or can control through a CEQA/NEPA Lead Agency


Does not meet the Proposed Project’s Goals and Objectives of rehabilitating the existing infrastructure at the Moss Landing Green Commercial Park. Applicant and/or the harbor District does not own and will not purchase additional property on speculation for the essential parts of a Regional Desal Project in Monterey County.

Open Harbor Intake -‐ Harbor Intake

This Alternative would be located at the existing Moss Landing Harbor Intake.


This alternative would still have the same impingement and entrainment issues as the Open Monterey Bay Intake in the Proposed Project. This alternative is being eliminated due to water quality concerns in the Harbor due to petroleum spills from the hundreds of motorized boats in the Harbor. This alternative would require dredging of the Harbor and possible elimination of the Harbor Operations, which would have significant recreational impacts and impossibility of relocating the boats to a new harbor.

Open Monterey Bay Intake - Off-site Locations

Any location other than the Proposed Project and/or property and easements that we own and/or can control through a CEQA/NEPA Lead Agency


Does not meet the goals and objectives of rehabilitating the existing infrastructure at the Moss Landing Green Commercial Park. Applicant does not own and will not purchase property on speculation for the essential parts of a Regional Desal Project in Monterey County. Any entrainment or impingement impacts from another location would be similar or possibly more severe than


the Proposed Project. Desal Plant Any location other than the Proposed

Project and/or property and easements that we own and/or can control through a CEQA/NEPA Lead Agency


The Project Applicant or the Harbor District does not own or will not purchase property on speculation for the essential parts of a Regional Desal Project in Monterey County. Project Applicant has an industrial park with existing infrastructure that is perfect for new development for a Regional Desal Project. Other locations are not consistent with the Proposed Project’s Goals and Objectives. If another entity builds a competing project it could cause a reduction in the size of our Proposed Project or eliminate the need for it all together.

Desal Plant -Off-site Locations



The Project Applicant or the Harbor District does not own or will not purchase property on speculation for the essential parts of a Regional Desal Project in Monterey County. Project Applicant has an industrial park with existing infrastructure that is perfect for new development for a Regional Desal Project. Other locations are not consistent with the Proposed Project’s Goals and Objectives. If another entity builds a competing project it could cause a reduction in the size of our Proposed Project or eliminate the need for it all together.

Outfall Facility -Off-site Locations



The Project Applicant or the Harbor District does not own or will not purchase property on speculation for the essential parts of a Regional Desal Project in Monterey County. Project Applicant has an industrial park with


existing infrastructure that is perfect for new development for a Regional Desal Project. Other locations are not consistent with the Proposed Project’s Goals and Objectives. If another entity builds a competing project it could cause a reduction in the size of our Proposed Project or eliminate the need for it all together.



Ownership, Operations, and Maintenance Alternatives Name Brief Description Recommendation Rationale

Ownership, Operations, and/or Maintenance - Moss Landing Harbor District

The Moss Landing Harbor District would own, operate, and/or maintain the Proposed Project


This is not an environmental issue per se according to CEQA and/or NEPA and does not necessarily affect the environment at least from an environmental resource category. However, since it is a key consideration in the viability for implementing a successful Desal or water supply Project, the following discussion is provided. The Moss Landing Harbor District does not have the legal authority, capacity, and/or interest/desire to own operate, and/or maintain a desalination facility. The Applicant needs to find another entity with appropriate authority to make water supply policies and meet existing demands. Moss Landing Harbor District only has authority to issue permits within its Harbor facilities with which it owns and operates. Applicant will work with public agencies such as MCWRA and/or MPRWMD to provide water to agencies with existing demands and with existing distribution systems in Monterey County.

Ownership, Operations, and/or Maintenance

-‐ Regional Public Water

Regional Water Agencies, which have the legal statutes, authority, and willingness own, operate, and/or


This is not an environmental issue per se according to CEQA and/or NEPA and does not necessarily affect the




Agencies maintain the Proposed Project. Examples include:

-‐ Monterey County Water Resources Agency

-‐ Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

-‐ A New Joint Powers Authority (JPA)

-‐ Other public agencies Project Applicant would work with various public agencies such as MCWRA, MPRWMD and/or look to form a new JPA to provide water to agencies with existing demands and with existing distribution systems in Monterey County.

environment at least from an environmental resource category. However, since it is a key consideration in the viability for implementing a successful Desal or water supply Project, the Applicant needs to consider this as an option as it will impact the Project’s ability to get permits after the completion of the CEQA and/or NEPA process. However, to date none of the public agencies have expressed interest in ownerhip and or operations. As a result, the default is to first try to work with CalAm to either own or operate the People’s Project, instead of their own Proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project.

Ownership, Operations, and/or Maintenance

-‐ CalAm or other Private water companies regulated by the CPUC

CalAm would own, operate, and/or maintain the Proposed Project

-‐ Project Applicant could discuss the possible sell of the Proposed Project to CalAm so that CalAm can integrate it into their system - at least to serve the Monterey Peninsula Area.

-‐ Alternatively, CalAm could

operate the system as they

Considered, and will be incorporated into the Proposed Project Description to the extent necessary to discuss possible ownership and/or operations.

This is not an environmental issue per se according to CEQA and/or NEPA and does not necessarily affect the environment at least from an environmental resource category. However, since it is a key consideration in the viability for implementing a successful Desal or water supply Project, the Applicant needs to consider this as a viable option as it will impact the Project’s ability to get permits after the completion of the CEQA and/or




are doing for the City of Sand City’s Desal Project. This would still require a public or private water entity to own it and be regulated by a public board or the California Public Utilities Commission.

NEPA process.



Alternative Technologies Name Brief Description Recommendation Rationale

Subsurface -‐ Ranney Wells

A Ranney well is a radial well comprised of a vertical caisson (a large diameter shaft where the water is collected from each well and then pumped) extending below the water table from which horizontally placed perforated screens are extended (SGD, 1992). The use of multiple horizontal laterals means that production of each radial well is greater than a single vertical well (Feeney, 2002). A single Ranney well can yield between 0.1 to 25 mgd, which is five to ten times the yield of a vertical well (Hunt, 2008). Examples of Ranney wells in marine environments include three Ranney wells at the Salina Cruz Power Plant in Mexico that draw between 9 and 14 mgd of seawater, and one at the Steinhart Aquarium at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco (Hunt, 2008; Feeney, 2013).

Construction of Ranney wells involves excavating a large shaft for the central caisson, then installing the horizontal laterals outward from the vertical shaft. The central caisson may range from 8 to 20 feet in diameter (SGD, 1992). The laterals are advanced by either jacking outward (seaward) from the vertical shaft under hydraulic pressure, or by jetting them into place (Geoscience, 2008). This


The Project Site does not have sufficient space to locate vertical wells that can withdraw the required 30 mgd of “source water” in order to produce 12 mgd of “Product Water”. Specifically, hydrogeological investigations conducted by CapRock Geology have not been able to prove that a Ranney well(s) would work at the Beach location due to space constraints and the ability to withdraw the quantity of water required. The Harbor Location and/or on the main Moss Landing Green Commercial Park location would require withdrawing water from the Dune Sand Aquifer, which has water quality issues due to past operations and contamination from at the Kaiser Refractories Plant and the Moss Landing Power Plant.




analysis assumes that the central caisson would be approximately 16 feet in diameter, be buried at a depth of approximately between 90 to 260 feet, and have a permanent aboveground electrical control building to house pumps and other associated headworks (SGD, 1992). Ranney wells must be spaced approximately 350 to 500 feet apart to reduce interference between adjacent Ranney wells. Although the final footprint for a Ranney well intake system can be relatively small compared to other types of wells (e.g., vertical), the construction area can be larger (Geoscience, 2008). Construction of a large caisson on the beach, even though the caisson would ultimately be buried, would require a large footprint for construction activities and dewatering operations. This analysis assumes each Ranney well would result in 1 acre of temporary construction disturbance. Conventional construction equipment, including a 60-ton crane, concrete trucks, and assorted support vehicles, would be used for excavation, forming, pouring and setting of the vertical concrete caisson, dewatering of the caisson, advancement of the laterals,




development, and test pumping. During dewatering, lateral advancement development, and test pumping, water would need to be discharged to a portable holding tank to settle out suspended solids and the decanted effluent subsequently percolated into the ground in the beach area (SGD, 1992; Feeney, 2002). With the exception of electrical controls, this analysis assumes Ranney wells would be buried below grade. Each Ranney well would be constructed over approximately 6 to 9 months and could involve 24-hour construction (Geoscience, 2008). Ranney well maintenance includes periodic cleaning of the screened laterals to prevent clogging, and repairs and/or replacement of the submersible pumps. Assuming Ranney wells would be buried in the beach, the sand around the pumps would need to be excavated to allow maintenance staff to access the caisson and screened laterals. Ranney well laterals are mechanically cleaned using a high-pressure rotating water jet blaster; a mechanical packer/surge-block device that surges water or air in isolated sections of the laterals; and/or a bore blast where a small quantity of nitrogen is used to create a pressure pulse down the length of the laterals. This analysis




assumes that Ranney well laterals would require cleaning every 5 to 10 years; however, ongoing monitoring of Ranney well performance would be conducted to determine the frequency of cleaning and maintenance.

The submersible pumps for Ranney wells would be housed in the central caisson, which means that large pumps, even turbines, could be used. Larger infrastructure has larger electrical windings and typically requires less maintenance. The submersible pumps would be repaired or replaced approximately every 10 years (SGD, 1992; Feeney, 2002).

Subsurface -‐ Vertical Wells Vertical wells are shallow intake wells that

make use of beach sand or other geologic mediums to filter water. A vertical beach well consists of a casing, well screen, and vertical turbine pump. The suitability of a site for vertical wells is determined by drilling test wells and conducting a detailed hydrogeologic investigation to ascertain the formation transmissivity and substrate characteristics. Source water yield from a vertical well can range between 0.1 and


The Project Site does not have sufficient space to locate vertical wells that can withdraw the required 30 mgd of “source water” in order to produce 12 mgd of “Product Water”. Specifically it would take approximately 20-25 vertical wells spaced out approximately 300 feet apart. The Project Site does not have sufficient space for that many wells. Manifold piping would also provide additional environmental construction and permanent easement impacts that




1.5 mgd (Hunt, 2008). It is preferable to locate beach wells as close to the coastline as possible to minimize impacts on inland aquifers. Four vertical beach wells (two active, twostandby) are used to draw brackish source water for the 300-afy Sand City Coastal Desalination Plant (Water Technology, 2012). Vertical wells are typically constructed with a track-mounted drill rig and require an area of approximately 100 feet by 100 feet at each well location (SGD, 1992). Like subsurface slant wells, vertical wells require dewatering during well development, and the effluent produced during well development is discharged either directly to the ocean or to temporary onsite settling basins (SGD, 1992; Feeney, 2002). This analysis assumes that the wellhead and associated electrical box for a vertical well would be buried below grade, and that submersible pumps would be used. Each wellhead would result in approximately 400 square feet of permanent disturbance and a permanent easement would be required for maintenance access (SGD, 1992). Vertical wells are typically spaced approximately 300 feet apart from each other to reduce well interference (SGD, 1992). Maintenance of vertical wells is limited to replacing the submersible

the Proposed Project. The restricted lateral lengths of Ranney wells, as well as issues related to construction in a beach environment, could place limitations on the use of this technology to provide desalination plant feed water supply. The length of the laterals is currently limited to approximately 127 to 240 feet for the traditional Ranney-type collector well, and 350 to 375 feet for collector wells using the Sonoma method of construction (Geoscience, 2008). When used for water supply, the maximum length of the horizontal laterals is typically limited to 150 feet. There may also be limitations on the depth of installation (for example, the maximum depth of the caisson is dependent on the geologic substrate), in which case the laterals would need to be installed and operated within the shallow Dune Sands Aquifer. Ranney wells would occupy roughly the same physical area as slant wells (approximately 10 acres).




pumps; however, the small-diameter pumps used in vertical wells have a shorter service life and must be replaced more frequently than other types of well pumps. Since the wells would be buried, pump replacement would require excavation around the wellhead to allow service access.

Subsurface Intake

-‐ Slant Wells Slant wells are installed at an angle below the sea floor using vertical well drilling technology. The yield from a slant well depends on the underlying geology. When compared to vertical wells and Ranney wells, slant wells can be screened at greater distances offshore and can result in fewer impacts on coastal groundwater aquifers. Slant wells can be drilled from behind sand dunes or from the active beach area (i.e., between the toe of the dunes and the open ocean). The wellheads can be buried beneath the sand or installed flush with the ground surface. Multiple slants wells can be grouped into clusters to extend from a single “pod.” Consistent with the slant wells proposed as part of the MPWSP, it is assumed that construction of each slant well pod (consisting of up to 4 wells) would result in 1 acre of temporary disturbance.

Slant wells would require maintenance


The Project Site does not have sufficient space to locate slant wells that can withdraw the required 30 mgd of “source water” in order to produce 12 mgd of “Product Water”. Specifically, it would take approximately 20-25 vertical wells spaced out approximately 300 feet apart. The Project Site does not have sufficient space for that many wells. Manifold piping would also provide additional environmental construction and permanent easement impacts that the Proposed Project. In addition, slant wells would interact with the 180-foot and/or the 400-foot aquifer(s), which is against the guiding principles of the Proposed Project’s Goals and Objectives.




every 5 years. During maintenance, the wellheads are excavated and exposed, and mechanical brushes are lowered into the wells to mechanically clean the screens. Ground disturbance associated with periodic maintenance is assumed to be similar in extent to construction disturbance (i.e., approximately 1 acre of disturbance for each well pod).

Subsurface Intake -‐ Infiltration Galleries Infiltration galleries consist of a series of

submerged slow sand media filtration beds located beneath the ocean floor. Multiple collector screens and intake pipes within the filtration beds draw seawater to a single intake well located onshore. Water is pumped through onshore intake pumps. Infiltration galleries are most appropriately implemented in locations where geologic conditions are relatively impermeable or of insufficient thickness and depth to support groundwater extraction (Pankratz, 2008).


Infiltration galleries require construction on the beach as well as on the ocean floor. The design surface-loading rate of the sand filter media is typically between 0.05 to 0.10 gallons per minute (gpm) per square foot. Using a 42 percent recovery rate, an infiltration gallery for a 12-mgd desalination plant would need to draw at least 30 mgd (20,833 gpm) of source water. Based on a loading rate of 0.075 gpm per square foot, approximately 277,773 square feet (or 6.3 acres) of the seabed in Monterey Bay would need to be excavated at a depth of 6 to 8 feet to install an active infiltration bed for the Desalination Plant. Once constructed, periodic removal or replacement of the surface layer




of the filtration beds is needed to maintain intake capacity (WateReuse, 2011). Based on the extent of temporary and permanent disturbance that an infiltration gallery would have on the sand dunes and sensitive marine habitat in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, this technology is considered infeasible based upon environmental, social and legal factors and is not discussed further.

Subsurface Intake

-‐ Horizontal Wells Horizontal wells, which are installed using HDD technology, draw seawater from shallow offshore aquifers. Horizontal wells would be constructed in clusters of three or four wells, each well equipped with a well pump and extending horizontally approximately 2,400 feet and at a depth of roughly 40-180 feet below sea level. Approximately 12 to 15 horizontal wells would be needed to provide sufficient source water for a 12-mgd Desalination Plant. The source water collected by each horizontal well cluster would be pumped from each well to a common caisson and then from the caisson to the Desalination Plant.


The Beach Project Site /location does not have sufficient space to locate Horizontal wells that can withdraw the required 30 mgd of “source water” in order to produce 12 mgd of “Product Water”. Sufficient space does exist at the Moss Landing Green Commercial Park. However, this technology has not been used for a Desal Project in the United States and is not proven at a capacity greater than 20 mgd. Horizontal wells are not evaluated further for the following reasons: (1) the amount of pipeline that would




be pushed under the sea floor (upwards of 2,500 feet) would be challenging in terms of construction time, physical limitations and the disposal of drilling sludge (and consequently much more expensive than other options); (2) installing artificial filter packs to stabilize unconsolidated formations like those found in the project area has yet to be demonstrated successfully and on a consistent basis, and; (3) HDD would not avoid or minimize any of the impacts associated with the proposed action.

Current hydrogeological studies are being conducted at the Project site. If proven viable, this would be the preferred/proposed intake – replacing the open water bay intake that is the current proposed plan.

Subsurface Intake -‐ Hybrid (i.e. Open

Ocean and Subsurface

This alternative involves the use of a hybrid system of combining an open-ocean intake system with subsurface intake system in order to help reduce the size of the open ocean intake system and is based upon how large the capacity of the subsurface intake facility is designed for.


This alternative would not eliminate impingement and entrainment and would have the same permitting issues and concerns. The construction of such a system would have a larger footprint than the proposed Project and larger construction related




impacts. The manifold system to bring source water back to the plant would be more complex and take up more land than the Proposed Project.

Discharge -‐ Evaporation Ponds

Under this alternative, the 17.5 mgd of brine/concentrate would not be discharged into the bay/ocean and instead would be routed to a series of evaporation ponds or lagoons where the water would be evaporated and the remaining salts would then be hauled off by truck or rail for sale to the open market for sea salt.


The Project site does not have sufficient space to construct and operate a series of ponds or lagoons for evaporation. Specifically, 17.5 mgd equates to approximately 54 acre-feet of brine/concentrate per day and which would take approximately 54 acres in just ponds or lagoons to hold one foot of water. In order to have the chance for evaporation, the ponds should be 2-3 inches deep to facilitate evaporation, which would equate to approximately 215 acres without account for redundancy, which would put it on the order of 450 acres. The ponds or lagoons would need to be lined and there would be the need for a large conveyance system to deliver water to each pond or lagoon. Given the coastal climate and the winter conditions, this alternative is unrealistic and unproven and is eliminated from further consideration.

Discharge -‐ Thermal Drying of

Under this alternative, the 17.5 mgd of brine/concentrate would be dried using


This alternative would drastically increase energy consumption and




Brine/Concentrate thermal heaters to evaporate the water leaving behind the sea salt for sale in the market place for sea salt.

would likely make the cost of water uneconomical. The hope is that the market for sea salt would help offset this cost, but there would be added cost for storing 54 acre-feet of sea salt everyday. This would take a tremendous amount of covered storage and transportation (trucks/trains) would be constantly coming in and out of the plant. This alternative is unproven for desal plants of this size and complexity and at some point, if implemented, the desal Plant’s brine/concentrate will likely need to discharge to the ocean.

Energy -‐ Renewable Energy

Sources

This alternative involves the use of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, etc. to operate the desalination plant


The desalination plant will take 8.4 Megawatts (MW) of power to operate. The use of these renewable energy sources for a desalination plant of this size, especially in a coastal environment like the Monterey Area, has not been proven to work. In addition, the Project site does not have sufficient space to place solar power and wind turbines of a sufficient energy generation capacity to have any meaningful offset to this large energy demand. In the future, small units of solar panels may be added to the Proposed Project to help offset some of the smaller/low energy demands such as office




buildings and etc. However, this would not substantially alter the need of the Desal Plant to still be connected to the electrical grid to ensure that it can meet its energy demands. For now, solar and other renewable energy alternatives are not being carried forward in the Proposed Project or as viable alternatives. If and when they are considered, they will need to undergo their own independent environmental analysis once specific details are known.



Alternative Sized Desal Project Alternatives Name Brief Description Recommendation Rationale

Larger Desal Plant -‐ Up to 28,000 afy or 25 mgd

Under this alternative, the Proposed Project would be sized to serve up to 28,000 afy or 25 mgd of water to the Peninsula and other portions of Monterey County that have a demonstrated need for the water.


This alternative was considered and eliminated from further consideration due to the fact that the current Proposed Project was designed to meet the demands of the Monterey Peninsula Area, including build-out. A key aspect for expanding the Proposed Project facilities to accommodate additional demands is the justification for those demands. Currently, these demands and willingness to participate in the development of the Proposed Project to serve those additional demands has not yet occurred. More importantly, the size of the intake facility and the discharge facility is the limiting factor. The existing discharge facility cannot be rehabilitated to accommodate any additional demands above the 13,400 afy or the 12 mgd demands represented by the Monterey Peninsula Demands as the limit for sliplining the existing outfall to 36-inches in diameter. Similarly, the existing intake pipeline back to the Moss Landing Green Commercial Park is limited to being sliplined to 30-inches in diameter, which limits the overall capacity. Additionally, a larger sized facility would have expanded impacts as compared to the




Proposed Project, including additional impacts to marine biology among others.

North County Alternative -‐ 13,400 afy or 12 mgd

Under this alternative, the growth portion of the Proposed Project (i.e 3,652 afy) would be reallocated to the North Monterey County area to meet existing demands instead of providing growth to the Monterey Peninsula Area.

This alternative should be carried forward as a viable alternative. As it is similar in size with the alternative below, it will be combined.

It meets most of the goals and objectives or the Proposed Project and could result in lesser impacts due to not providing water to facilitate growth in the Monterey Peninsula Area. Additional environmental analysis would be further required to justify the demands and willingness for the North Monterey County Area to participate in this Alternative. However, overall, it makes sense to peel off the growth demands to help serve existing water supply demands or shortfalls if and when can be justified.

Pure Water Alternative -‐ 13,400 afy or 12 mgd

Under this alternative, the growth portion of the Proposed Project (i.e. 3,652 afy) would be re-allocated to the Pure Water Project in order to blend desalinated water with the 3,500 afy of water from the Pure Water Project for injection or direct reuse to meet existing demands instead of providing growth to the Monterey Peninsula Area.

This alternative should be carried forward as a viable alternative.

It meets most of the goals and objectives or the Proposed Project and could result in lesser impacts due to not providing water to facilitate growth in the Monterey Peninsula Area. Additional environmental analysis maybe further required to justify blending this water with the Pure Water water supplies.

Smaller/Reduced Desal Plant -‐ 9,800 afy or 9.0 mgd

Under this alternative, the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project would be built and will provide 3,500 afy of

This alternative should be carried forward as a viable alternative. As it is similar in size with the alternative below, it will be combined.

It meets most of the goals and objectives or the Proposed Project and would result in lesser impacts due to the size of the alternative in




stormwater and recycled water to off-set Seaside Groundwater Basin, resulting in the need of a smaller desal plant to serve the Monterey Peninsula Area.

comparison to the Proposed Project.


Under this alternative, it is assumed that the 3,650 or 3.25 mgd of projected demands for the North Monterey County Area cannot be sufficiently demonstrated or substantiated by an entity(s) that want the desalination water.

This alternative should be carried forward as a viable alternative. As it is similar in size with the alternative above, it will be combined.

It meets most of the goals and objectives or the Proposed Project and would result in lesser impacts due to the size of the alternative in comparison to the Proposed Project.


Under this alternative, the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project would be built and will provide 3,500 afy of stormwater and recycled water to off-set Seaside Groundwater Basin, resulting in the need of a smaller desal plant to serve the Monterey Peninsula Area…AND… it is also assumed that the 3,650 or 3.25 mgd of projected demands for the North Monterey County Area cannot be sufficiently demonstrated or substantiated by an entity(s) that want the desalination water.

This alternative should be carried forward as a viable alternative.

It meets most of the goals and objectives or the Proposed Project and would result in lesser impacts due to the size of the alternative in comparison to the Proposed Project.

Smaller/Reduced Desal Plant • 3,650 afy or 3.25 mgd

Under this alternative, it is assumed that CalAm’s Monterey Water Supply Project and or the Pure Water Monterey groundwater Replenishment Project’s would be


This Alternative does not meet the majority of the goals and objectives to provide 13,404 afy or 12 mgd. At this size, the effort would not be worth benefit to the North Monterey




built and provide 9,750 afy or 8.75 mgd to meet the Monterey Peninsula water demands, leaving only the North Monterey County demands of 3,650 afy or 3.25 mgd.

County Area. Sizing for this small of a facility would be a waste of the existing infrastructure in an industrial zoned area. At some point alternative uses for this land and facilities will be more viable for the Applicant.

No Project Alternative Under the No-Project Alternative, existing conditions at the various project sites would continue, but water management in the CalAm service area would be forced to readjust for the implementation of SWRQB Order 95-10 and the Seaside Basin Adjudication. In January of 2008, the SWRCB issued a draft Cease & Desist Order (CDO) regarding the unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River by CalAm. If adopted, the draft CDO would have imposed a seven-year, phased ramp-down from CalAm’s existing interim pumping limit on the Carmel River or until compliance with Order 95-10 is achieved (SWRCB, 2008; pers. comm. Kassel pers. comm., 2008). On September 19, 2009, the SWRCB issued a revised proposed CDO (SWRCB, 2009), and on October 20, 2009, the finalized CDO was issued as SWRCB Order WR 2009-0060. Under the No-Project Alternative

This alternative shall be carried forward.

It is a requirement for CEQA and NEPA.




(including the implementation of the CDO) the available water supplies from the Carmel River and Seaside Basin would be a total of 7,276 afy1. The 11,285 afy taken from the Carmel River supply would be reduced to 3,376 afy, while the 4,000 afy taken from the Seaside Basin would be reduced to1,474 afy. Implementation of the No-Project Alternative would eliminate all of the impacts identified for the three projects analyzed in this EIR. The water supply deficit that would result from the CDO in the case of the No-Project Alternative, however, would lead to severe water rationing and possible water shortages throughout the CalAm service area. Water rationing and water shortages would likely have potentially significant effects on the local economies within the area, including a possible moratorium on construction and development, which is not within the scope of this EIR but which should be noted nonetheless.

1 This total consists of 3,376 afy from the Carmel River rights, 2,426 afy from ASR rights, and 1,474 afy from the Seaside Basin entitlement.




Additionally, the beneficial impacts of the Project with respect to the restoration of flows in the Carmel River would not occur if the No-Project Alternative was implemented. In short, the No-Project Alternative would fail to meet any of the Project objectives, notably including the objective to provide a safe and reliable water supply to the Monterey Peninsula Area as well as to protect the economic effects of an uncertain water supply.


October 2015 4-35

4.3 Alternatives Carried Forward for Evaluation This Section will be updated with all of the determined viable alternatives as described in the resulting analysis contained in Table 4-1. To meet CEQA-Plus and/or NEPA considerations, each will be discussed in equal level of detail and cover all of the individual resource categories identified in and discussed in Chapter 3.

§ Alternative 1 – North Monterey County Alternative. Under this alternative, the growth portion of the Proposed Project (i.e 3,652 afy) would be reallocated to the North Monterey County area to meet existing demands instead of providing growth to the Monterey Peninsula Area.

§ Alternative 2 – Pure Water Alternative. Under this alternative, the growth portion of the Proposed Project (i.e. 3,652 afy) would be re-allocated to the Pure Water Project in order to blend desalinated water with the 3,500 afy of water from the Pure Water Project for injection or direct reuse to meet existing demands instead of providing growth to the Monterey Peninsula Area.

§ Alternative 3 – Smaller/Reduced Sized Alternative. This alternative considers a reduced sized desal plant under various sizes, including assuming that the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project would be built and will provide 3,500 afy of stormwater and recycled water to off-set Seaside Groundwater Basin, resulting in the need of a smaller desal plant to serve the Monterey Peninsula Area…AND/OR… it is also assumed that the 3,650 or 3.25 mgd of projected demands for the North Monterey County Area cannot be sufficiently demonstrated or substantiated by an entity(s) that want the desalination water. As a result, the size of the desal plant would be either 9,750 afy or 8.75 mgd or 6,250 afy or 5.6 mgd.

§ No Project Alternative. Under the No-Project Alternative, existing conditions at the various project sites would continue, but water management in the CalAm service area would be forced to readjust for the implementation of SWRQB Order 95-10 and the Seaside Basin Adjudication. In January of 2008, the SWRCB issued a draft Cease & Desist Order (CDO) regarding the unauthorized diversion of water from the Carmel River by CalAm. If adopted, the draft CDO would have imposed a seven-year, phased ramp-down from CalAm’s existing interim pumping limit on the Carmel River or until compliance with Order 95-10 is achieved (SWRCB, 2008; pers. comm. Kassel pers. comm., 2008). On September 19, 2009, the SWRCB issued a revised proposed CDO (SWRCB, 2009), and on October 20, 2009, the finalized CDO was issued as SWRCB Order WR 2009-0060.

Under the No-Project Alternative (including the implementation of the CDO) the available water supplies from the Carmel River and Seaside Basin would be a total of 7,276 afy1. The 11,285 afy taken from the Carmel River supply would be reduced to 3,376 afy, while the 4,000 afy taken from the Seaside Basin would be reduced to1,474 afy.

1 This total consists of 3,376 afy from the Carmel River rights, 2,426 afy from ASR rights, and 1,474 afy from the Seaside Basin entitlement.


October 2015 4-36

Implementation of the No-Project Alternative would eliminate all of the impacts identified for the three projects analyzed in this EIR. The water supply deficit that would result from the CDO in the case of the No-Project Alternative, however, would lead to severe water rationing and possible water shortages throughout the CalAm service area.

Water rationing and water shortages would likely have potentially significant effects on the local economies within the area, including a possible moratorium on construction and development, which is not within the scope of this EIR but which should be noted nonetheless. Additionally, the beneficial impacts of the Project with respect to the restoration of flows in the Carmel River would not occur if the No-Project Alternative was implemented. In short, the No-Project Alternative would fail to meet any of the Project objectives, notably including the objective to provide a safe and reliable water supply to the Monterey Peninsula Area as well as to protect the economic effects of an uncertain water supply.

Each of these alternatives is evaluated in detail below and covering the individual resource areas as identified in Chapter 3.

NOTE: THIS SECTION WILL BE DEVELOPED AFTER THE REST OF THE EIR IS COMPLETED


October 2015 4-37

4.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative CEQA, CEQA-Plus, and/or NEPA require the identification of the environmentally superior alternative, other than the No Project Alternative. Each of the Proposed Project Alternatives analyzed in this CEQA-Plus EIR would result in similar construction and operation impacts for the common elements (e.g., desalination facilities, source water and product water pipelines, pump stations, and wells). Detailed below is the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

§ Alternative 3 – Smaller/Reduced Sized Alternative. This alternative considers a reduced sized desal plant of 6,250 afy or 5.6 mgd, assuming that the Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project would be built and will provide 3,500 afy of stormwater and recycled water to off-set Seaside Groundwater Basin, resulting in the need of a smaller desal plant to serve the Monterey Peninsula Area…AND … it is also assumed that the 3,650 or 3.25 mgd of projected demands for the North Monterey County Area cannot be sufficiently demonstrated or substantiated by an entity(s) that want the desalination water. As a result, the size of the desal plant would be 6,250 afy or 5.6 mgd. This alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative due to the fact that it would have a smaller footprint and only serve existing demands in the Monterey Peninsula Area.

People's Project EIR Excerpts

Documents

Transcript of People's Project EIR Excerpts