Sunday, January 15, 2017

CALAM MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Prepared for California Public Utilities Commission and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, January 2017

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
(Application A.12-04-019, filed April 23, 2012)

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement

Cover [pdf], Dear Reviewer Letter [pdf], Table of Content [pdf], and List of Acronyms [pdf]

Calam Mpwsp Deir-eis by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

Cover, Dear Reviewer Letter, Table of Content, and List of Acronyms

Executive Summary [pdf]
Executive Summary by L. A. Paterson on Scribd


Executive Summary
Executive Summary

1. Introduction and Background [pdf]
 CalAm MPWSP DEIR-EIS CHAPTER 1 Introduction and Background by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

1. Introduction and Background

2.  Water Demand, Supplies, and Water Rights [pdf]
CalAm MPWSP DEIR-EIS CHAPTER 2 Water Demand, Supplies, And Water Rights by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

2.  Water Demand, Supplies, and Water Rights

3. Description of the Proposed Project [pdf 6.18mb]
CalAm MPWSP DEIR-EIS CHAPTER 3 Description of the Proposed Project by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

3. Description of the Proposed Project

4.  Environmental Setting (Affected Environment), Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
     4.1   Overview [pdf]
     4.2   Geology, Soils, and Seismicity [pdf 3.23mb]
     4.3   Surface Water Hydrology and Water Quality [pdf 3.83mb]
     4.4   Groundwater Resources [pdf 6.01mb]
     4.5   Marine Resources [pdf1.49mb]
     4.6   Terrestrial Biological Resources [pdf 9.01mb]
     4.7   Hazards and Hazardous Materials [pdf]
     4.8   Land Use, Land Use Planning, and Recreation [pdf1.37]
     4.9   Traffic and Transportation [pdf]
     4.10 Air Quality [pdf]
     4.11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions [pdf]
     4.12 Noise and Vibration [pdf 1.13mb]
     4.13 Public Services and Utilities [pdf]
     4.14 Aesthetic Resources [pdf 1.39]
     4.15 Cultural and Paleontological Resources [pdf 1.14]
     4.16 Agriculture and Forestry Resources [pdf]
     4.17 Mineral Resources [pdf]
     4.18 Energy Conservation [pdf]
     4.19 Population and Housing [pdf]
     4.20 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice [pdf]

4.  Environmental Setting (Affected Environment), Impacts, and Mitigation Measures

5.  Alternatives Screening and Analysis
     5.1  Introduction and Overview [pdf 1.12mb]
     5.2  Alternatives Not Evaluated in Detail [pdf 1.12mb]
     5.3  Alternatives Development, Screening and Evaluation Process [pdf 1.12mb]
     5.4  Description of Alternatives Evaluated in Detail [pdf 1.93mb]
     5.5  Alternatives Impact Analysis [pdf 4.25mb]
     5.6  Environmentally Superior Alternative/Preferred Alternative [pdf]

5.  Alternatives Screening and Analysis

6.  Other Considerations [pdf]
Calam Mpwsp Deir-eis Chapter 6 Other Considerations by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

6.  Other Considerations

7.  Report Preparation [pdf]
Calam Mpwsp Deir-eis Chapter 7 Report Preparation by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

7.  Report Preparation

8.  Index [pdf]
Calam Mpwsp Deir-eis Chapter 8 Index by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

8.  Index

CALAM MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement – Appendices, Prepared for California Public Utilities Commission and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, January 2017

Appendices: A. NOP and NOP Scoping Report A1. Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List B1. MPWSP Plant Sizing Data: Various Five- and Ten-Year Normal, Dry, and Maximum Month Demand Scenarios B2. State Water Board Final Analysis of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project C1. Coastal Water Elevations and Sea Level Rise Scenarios C2. Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea Level Rise C3. Exploratory Borehole Results D1. Modeling Brine Disposal into Moterey Bay D2. Brine Discharge Diffuser Analysis D3. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment E1. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories Peer Review E2. Draft North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revisions, and Implementation for Future Slant Well Pumping Scenarios F. Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered G1. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations G2. Trussel Technologies Inc. Technical Memorandum, Response to CalAm MPWSP DEIR H. Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project, Project Description I1. Open-Water and Subsurface Intakes I2. Component Screening Results - Component Options Not Carried Forward J1. Coastal Water Project EIR Analysis: MPWMD 2006 Estimate of Long-Term Water Needs Compared with Growth Anticipated in Jurisdictions General Plans J2. Secondary Effects of Growth K. Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling

A.  NOP and NOP Scoping Report [pdf]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix A by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

A.  NOP and NOP Scoping Report

A1.  Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List [pdf]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix a1 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

A1.  Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List

B1. MPWSP Plant Sizing Data: Various Five- and Ten-Year Normal, Dry, and Maximum Month Demand Scenarios [pdf]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix b1 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

B1. MPWSP Plant Sizing Data: Various Five- and Ten-Year Normal, Dry, and Maximum Month Demand Scenarios

B2. State Water Board Final Analysis of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project [pdf 16.1mb]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix b2 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

B2. State Water Board Final Analysis of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

C1. Coastal Water Elevations and Sea Level Rise Scenarios [pdf 7.0mb]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix c1 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

C1. Coastal Water Elevations and Sea Level Rise Scenarios

C2. Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea Level Rise [pdf 2.10mb]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix c2 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

C2. Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea Level Rise

C3. Exploratory Borehole Results [pdf 53.3mb]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix c3 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

C3. Exploratory Borehole Results

D1. Modeling Brine Disposal into Moterey Bay [pdf 1.98mb]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix d1 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd


D1. Modeling Brine Disposal into Moterey Bay

D2. Brine Discharge Diffuser Analysis [pdf]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix d2 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

D2. Brine Discharge Diffuser Analysis

D3. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment [pdf 2.25mb]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix d3 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

D3. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment

E1. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories Peer Review [pdf 1.14mb]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix e1 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

E1. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories Peer Review

E2. Draft North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revisions, and Implementation for Future Slant Well Pumping Scenarios [pdf 32.4mb]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix e2 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

E2. Draft North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revisions, and Implementation for Future Slant Well Pumping Scenarios

F.  Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered [pdf]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix f by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

F.  Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered

G1.  Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations [pdf 1.74mb]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix g1 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

G1.  Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations

G2.  Trussel Technologies Inc. Technical Memorandum, Response to CalAm MPWSP DEIR [pdf]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix g2 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

G2.  Trussel Technologies Inc. Technical Memorandum, Response to CalAm MPWSP DEIR

H.  Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project, Project Description [pdf 12.3mb]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix h by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

H. Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project, Project Description

I1.  Open-Water and Subsurface Intakes [pdf]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix i1 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

I1.  Open-Water and Subsurface Intakes

I2.  Component Screening Results - Component Options Not Carried Forward [pdf]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix i2 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

I2.  Component Screening Results - Component Options Not Carried Forward

J1. Coastal Water Project EIR Analysis: MPWMD 2006 Estimate of Long-Term Water Needs Compared with Growth Anticipated in Jurisdictions General Plans [pdf]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix j1 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

J1. Coastal Water Project EIR Analysis: MPWMD 2006 Estimate of Long-Term Water Needs Compared with Growth Anticipated in Jurisdictions General Plans

J2. Secondary Effects of Growth [pdf]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix j2 by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

J2. Secondary Effects of Growth

K. Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling [pdf]
Calam Mpwsp Appendix k by L. A. Paterson on Scribd

K. Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Draft Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement, January 2017

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
(Application A.12-04-019, filed April 23, 2012)
PUBLIC NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2006101004

Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
  • To view the complete DEIR/EIS without appendicies, click here [pdf 49.1mb].
  • To view the Appendices for the DEIR/EIS, click here [pdf 127mb].

Cover [pdf], Dear Reviewer Letter [pdf], Table of Content [pdf], and List of Acronyms [pdf]


Executive Summary [pdf]

1.  Introduction and Background [pdf]

2.  Water Demand, Supplies, and Water Rights [pdf]

3.  Description of the Proposed Project [pdf 6.18mb]

4.  Environmental Setting (Affected Environment), Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
     4.1   Overview [pdf]
     4.2   Geology, Soils, and Seismicity [pdf 3.23mb]
     4.3   Surface Water Hydrology and Water Quality [pdf 3.83mb]
     4.4   Groundwater Resources [pdf 6.01mb]
     4.5   Marine Resources [pdf1.49mb]
     4.6   Terrestrial Biological Resources [pdf 9.01mb]
     4.7   Hazards and Hazardous Materials [pdf]
     4.8   Land Use, Land Use Planning, and Recreation [pdf1.37]
     4.9   Traffic and Transportation [pdf]
     4.10 Air Quality [pdf]
     4.11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions [pdf]
     4.12 Noise and Vibration [pdf 1.13mb]
     4.13 Public Services and Utilities [pdf]
     4.14 Aesthetic Resources [pdf 1.39]
     4.15 Cultural and Paleontological Resources [pdf 1.14]
     4.16 Agriculture and Forestry Resources [pdf]
     4.17 Mineral Resources [pdf]
     4.18 Energy Conservation [pdf]
     4.19 Population and Housing [pdf]
     4.20 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice [pdf]

5.  Alternatives Screening and Analysis
     5.1  Introduction and Overview [pdf 1.12mb]
     5.2  Alternatives Not Evaluated in Detail [pdf 1.12mb]
     5.3  Alternatives Development, Screening and Evaluation Process [pdf 1.12mb]
     5.4  Description of Alternatives Evaluated in Detail [pdf 1.93mb]
     5.5  Alternatives Impact Analysis [pdf 4.25mb]
     5.6  Environmentally Superior Alternative/Preferred Alternative [pdf]

6.  Other Considerations [pdf]

7.  Report Preparation [pdf]

8.  Index [pdf]

Appendices

A.  NOP and NOP Scoping Report [pdf]

A1.  Draft EIR/EIS Distribution List [pdf]

B1. MPWSP Plant Sizing Data: Various Five- and Ten-Year Normal, Dry, and Maximum Month Demand Scenarios [pdf]

B2. State Water Board Final Analysis of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project [pdf 16.1mb]

C1. Coastal Water Elevations and Sea Level Rise Scenarios [pdf 7.0mb]

C2. Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea Level Rise [pdf 2.10mb]

C3. Exploratory Borehole Results [pdf 53.3mb]

D1. Modeling Brine Disposal into Moterey Bay [pdf 1.98mb]

D2. Brine Discharge Diffuser Analysis [pdf]

D3. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment [pdf 2.25mb]

E1. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories Peer Review [pdf 1.14mb]

E2. Draft North Marina Groundwater Model Review, Revisions, and Implementation for Future Slant Well Pumping Scenarios [pdf 32.4mb]

F.  Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered [pdf]

G1.  Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations [pdf 1.74mb]

G2.  Trussel Technologies Inc. Technical Memorandum, Response to CalAm MPWSP DEIR [pdf]

H.  Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project, Project Description [pdf 12.3mb]

I1.  Open-Water and Subsurface Intakes [pdf]

I2.  Component Screening Results - Component Options Not Carried Forward [pdf]

J1. Coastal Water Project EIR Analysis: MPWMD 2006 Estimate of Long-Term Water Needs Compared with Growth Anticipated in Jurisdictions General Plans [pdf]

J2. Secondary Effects of Growth [pdf]

K. Existing Water Conservation and Water Recycling [pdf]

REFERENCES:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
(Application A.12-04-019, filed April 23, 2012)

Project Description

Announcements & Schedule

Comments & Documents

Saturday, January 14, 2017

U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson to Sentence Pacific Gas and Electric Company, January 23, 2017 (USA v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Criminal Case California Northern District Court, Case No. 3:14-cr-00175)

ABSTRACT: RE: USA v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Criminal Case California Northern District Court, Case No. 3:14-cr-00175 
District Judge Thelton e. Henderson, presiding
U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson is scheduled to sentence Pacific Gas and Electric Company on January 23, 2017, at 2:30 P.M., Courtroom G, 15th Floor, San Francisco, for criminal pipeline safety violations stemming from a fatal pipeline explosion in San Bruno on September 9, 2010, which “killed eight people, injured 66 others and destroyed or damaged dozens of houses.”   In August 2016, the jury convicted PG&E of six felony counts, including “one count of obstructing a National Transportation Safety Board probe of the San Bruno explosion and five counts of violating a federal pipeline safety law’s requirements for identifying, evaluating, recording and prioritizing risks in its high-pressure natural gas transmission lines,” according to reporting by Julia Cheever, Bay City News (maximum possible fine $500,000 per conviction, or a total of $3 million). HIGHLIGHTS OF UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM and HIGHLIGHTS OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM are presented; UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM and DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM document copies are embedded.
UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case No. CR 14-00175 THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

HIGHLIGHTS OF UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Offense Conduct
The Presentence Report (PSR) accurately summarizes the proof at trial regarding PG&E’s offense conduct.
Count One
The evidence proved that PG&E intentionally and corruptly endeavored to obstruct, influence, or impede the NTSB’s investigation.
Counts Two and Five Through Eight
PG&E was also convicted on Counts Two and Five through Eight, which charged knowing and willful violations of Minimum Federal Safety Standard regulations for natural gas pipelines, in violation of the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. § 60123(a).
Relevant Conduct
In addition to the offenses of conviction, the evidence at trial demonstrated a larger pattern of obstructive conduct by PG&E, as well as other violations of the pipeline safety regulations.
  1. Obstruction
  2. Other Pipeline Safety Violations
The evidence also showed, by at least a preponderance of the evidence and notwithstanding the jury’s acquittal on Counts 3-4 and 9-12, that PG&E failed to maintain leak repair records and to retain strength test pressure records (STPRs), as required under 49 C.F.R. §§ 192.709(a) and 192.517(a).
SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATION
The government concurs with the sentencing guidelines calculation set forth in the revised PSR.
CONCLUSION
PG&E violated the sacred trust placed in it by every person living in or merely passing through Northern California to follow minimum standards of safety in operating its natural gas pipelines – pipes that transport highly explosive material under the public’s homes, freeways, and businesses. Its deliberate and repeated choices not to do so were motivated by the desire to maximize profits instead of safety – in other words, greed. The San Bruno explosion was not an “accident”; it was a matter of time. And PG&E’s efforts to corruptly mislead the federal investigation of the explosion highlight its status as a bad corporate citizen.
PG&E’s crimes compel a serious sentence that will alter its culture for good. Only through the comprehensive probationary scheme laid out in the PSR, as modified in the government’s proposal and together with the maximum fine allowed by statute, will the sentence reflect the seriousness of PG&E’s crimes, promote respect for the law, justly punish PG&E, and protect the public from further crimes by PG&E, and adequately deter future such crimes.
Finally, the United States anticipates that several victims of PG&E’s crimes, including representatives from San Bruno and the NTSB, may seek to be heard at sentencing regarding the impacts of PG&E’s crimes. The government will make every effort to advise the Court of the number of individuals who wish to speak prior to commencement of the sentencing proceedings.
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
CASE NO. CR-14-00175-THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

HIGLIGHTS OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
AN APPROPRIATE SENTENCE
PG&E is prepared to submit the maximum statutory fine ($3,000,000). In addition, as further noted below, PG&E is not opposed to the imposition of a properly scoped monitorship and is working with the Government on a joint proposal which, if agreement is reached, will be submitted to the Court ahead of sentencing.
Governing Legal Standards
Congress requires that in assessing a “just” punishment, district courts “shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The Court, then, has the power and the duty to impose a sentence that reflects balance and due proportion.
The Court Should Decline to Impose Additional Probation Conditions As
Recommended by the Probation Office
Probation conditions that functionally increase the punishment above the statutory maximum are unconstitutional.
Consistent with those principles, PG&E objects in particular to the following aspects of the Probation Office’s recommendations.
  1. The Analysis Underlying the PSR Recommendations Is Flawed
In its revised presentence report (“PSR”), the Probation Office has recommended several probationary requirements that are based on faulty conclusions or a misunderstanding of the law. And the conditions recommended by the Probation Office appear to stem largely from the report’s incorrect conclusion that the conduct underlying the regulatory violations found by the jury caused the explosion in San Bruno. PSR at 43. The government did not allege and the jury did not find that the regulatory violations charged in this case caused the tragic accident in San Bruno. As the Court repeatedly instructed, “there is no allegation in this case and there has been no evidence in this case that any alleged regulatory violation caused the San Bruno explosion. Such evidence had no place in this criminal prosecution because this case is not about the cause of the San Bruno explosion[.]”
ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PSR
PG&E respectfully submits that the PSR has incorrectly applied Guidelines provisions, and this part of the report’s analysis must be rejected.
The guidelines and policy statements in Chapter Eight of the Guidelines apply in this case. U.S.S.G. § 8A1.1. With respect to the fine, Section 8C2.1 directs the Court to apply either the specific provisions set forth in Sections 8C2.2 through 8C2.9 for certain enumerated offenses, or to apply Section 8C2.10, which directs the Court to determine the fine according to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553 and 3572. PG&E agrees with PSR’s conclusion that Section 8C2.10 applies to all of the counts of conviction in this case. PSR at ¶ 138.
Note: “PSR” Presentence Report

REFERENCE:
Prosecutors urge strict probation conditions on PG&E, Julia Cheever Bay City News, January 10, 2017

Friday, January 13, 2017

City Administrator Chip Rerig: FRIDAY LETTER, January 13, 2017

FRIDAY LETTER January 13, 2017
Badge Pinning Ceremony for Police Chief Tomasi
Friends of the Mission Trail Nature Preserve 'Weedies'
Centennial Time Capsule
Spotlight on You - Corporal Jeff Watkins
Carmel Oral History Project

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 E-MAIL RULING GRANTING JUST WATER REQUEST TO REPLY

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the E-MAIL RULING GRANTING JUST WATER REQUEST TO REPLY document copy is embedded. IT IS RULED that the request is granted. Just Water shall serve its response by December 12, 2016.
FILED 12-05-16
E-MAIL RULING GRANTING JUST WATER REQUEST TO REPLY

Proceeding Number A.12-04-019 REPLY OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER (“JUST WATER”) TO JOINT RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER

ABSTRACT: Re: Application of California-American Water Company (U210W) for Approval of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project and Authorization to Recover All Present and Future Costs in Rates, the REPLY OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER (“JUST WATER”) TO JOINT RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER document copy is embedded. CONCLUSION: Just Water continues to assert that in participating in this proceeding, it will not prejudice any party and will not delay the schedule or broaden the scope of the issues in the proceeding. Just Water has addressed the claims of Cal-Am filed in the Joint Response to Motion for Party Status of Citizens for Just Water dated November 30, 2016, and contrary to those claims, Just Water asserts that: (1) the Motion is not “untimely”; (2) the Motion positively does address new topics that have not previously been considered; and (3) the Motion does not raise environmental issues. Just Water urges the assigned ALJ to accept and grant the Citizens for Just Water (“Just Water”) Motion to become party to the proceeding.
FILED 12-14-16
REPLY OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER (“JUST WATER”) TO JOINT RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR PARTY STATUS OF CITIZENS FOR JUST WATER