CALAM MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), April 2015

ABSTRACT: The Draft Environmental Impact Report CALAM MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, April 2015, prepared for California Public Utilities Commission and prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) (1789 pages) document copy is embedded; 7.12 Environmentally Superior Alternative is reproduced and the Appendices for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) documents copies (1971 pages) are embedded in the following Posts.   

7.12 Environmentally Superior Alternative

The analysis of alternatives presented in Section 7.11, taken together with the analysis of the proposed MPWSP and the MPWSP Variant in Chapters 4 and 6, respectively, provide a basis to identify the environmentally superior alternative, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, among the alternatives to the proposed project and those to the MPWSP Variant. The environmentally superior alternative is the alternative identified as meeting most of the basic project objectives and resulting in the fewest significant environmental impacts. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 provides that if the No Project Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. Here, No Project Alternative 1 may technically qualify as the environmentally superior alternative because it would involve the least amount of change to the existing physical environment. However, No Project Alternative 1 would not meet most of the basic project objectives, is not feasible for reasons indicated previously, and could result in different impacts than the proposed project or other options given the failure of No Project Alternative 1 to supply sufficient water for customers within the CalAm service territory. For this reason, the discussion below focuses on selecting another environmentally superior alternative from among the myriad options presented in this EIR.

It is important to recognize that the selection of the environmentally superior alternative is not always a straight-forward and formulaic exercise. In some cases, including here, no alternative stands out from others as eliminating significant and unavoidable, long-term environmental effects. As such, considerable weighing among gradations of impacts and judgments as to the relative importance of topical impact areas in the context of the proposed project come into play. Such judgments, while based upon reasoning grounded in the scientific study that comprises the EIR, are inherently subjective. This means that, though this EIR identifies an environmentally superior alternative, the CPUC decision-makers could ultimately come to a different conclusion as to which option is the environmentally superior alternative based upon applying different weights to various impact areas.

The following discussion of the environmentally superior alternative assumes that the Alternative Pipeline Configuration 2, as described previously in Section 7.9.3 and as used for all of the alternatives analyzed above, would be used for either the proposed project or the MPWSP Variant.

Because the proposed project would result in the least amount of construction and operation impacts compared with either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2, it is the environmentally superior alternative of the proposed project alternatives (as opposed to Variant options). While Alternatives 1 and 2 would not result in impacts to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, the effects of the project in this regard would be less than significant, except as to one impact concerning remediation that would be less than significant with mitigation. On the other hand, Alternatives 1 and 2 would cause numerous construction effects that are significant and would require mitigation to attain a level of less than significant. Furthermore, Alternative 1 may prove infeasible due to failure to meet the basic objective of the project to supply sufficient replacement water to CalAm customers and the lack of site control for the slant wells. Alternative 2 may prove infeasible due to regulatory and permitting hurdles, and also would cause significant impacts above and beyond those identified for the project without corresponding offset to project significant effects. For these reasons, the proposed MPWSP project is the environmentally superior alternative among those options that do not include the GWR facilities.

Similarly, because the MPWSP Variant results in the least amount of construction and operation impacts compared with either Alternative 3 or Alternative 4, it is the environmentally superior alternative of the MPWSP Variant alternatives. The explanation provided in the paragraph above with respect to environmental impacts and project feasibility applies equally to the choice among the MPWSP Variant and Alternatives 3 and 4. 
When combined with other CalAm facilities (e.g. pipelines and ASR facilities) the project variant would have impacts similar to the proposed project for most of the topical areas evaluated. However, there are several impacts of the project variant that are unique, or are more or less severe than the proposed project. These factor heavily into the selection of the environmentally superior alternative and are thus listed below.

The following impacts are unique to the GWR facilities of the project variant, and would not be

associated with the proposed project:

• The soils that underlie the proposed location for the Injection Well Facilities in the Seaside Groundwater Basin could be susceptible to hydro-collapse if large quantities of water were injected into the ground. The risk would be less than significant.
• Construction of the proposed Reclamation Ditch and Tembladero Slough diversions could indirectly result in habitat modifications for endangered or threatened fish species as a result of construction activities and dewatering the construction sites. This impact would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
• Operation of the project variant would result in changes in stream flows that may interfere with fish migration in the Salinas River and Reclamation Ditch. This impact would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.

The following impacts would be more severe with the project variant than with the proposed project:

• Construction of the project variant would result in an overall increase in the amount of soil that would be disturbed, and therefore, would increase the potential to result in soil erosion and loss of topsoil. The combined impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
• Rapid water fluctuations may induce erosion and sedimentation within the downstream affected reach of the Reclamation Ditch and Tembladero Slough components of the project variant that would not occur under the proposed project. This significant impact of the project variant would be reduced to less-than-significant with the implementation of mitigation.
• The addition of the GWR Facilities would result in an overall increase in temporary, construction-related trips on local roadways compared to the proposed project, and construction of the GWR facilities would overlap with construction of the CalAm facilities for almost two years. The combined significant impact would be mitigated to a less-than significant level.
• The proposed project would be able to mitigate the generation of noise levels to meet the applicable standards during construction. However, impacts associated with construction at the Tembladero Slough Diversion site would conflict with County Code Section 10.60.030, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact of the project variant, even with mitigation.
• While the emissions of PM10 associated with the proposed project could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, the total combined maximum day construction emissions of the MPWSP Variant would result in a significant unavoidable impact even with mitigation.
• Discharges of the proposed project through the existing outfall would result in exceedences in Ocean Plan water quality objectives for PCBs and ammonia. Discharges associated with the project variant would, in addition, exceed Ocean Plan water quality objectives for chlordane, toxaphene, DDT and TCDD Equivalents. All exceedences, for both projects, could be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the same mitigation measure.

The following impacts would be less severe with the project variant than with the proposed project:

• The response of the SVGB to the operations of the project variant in the Dune Sands Aquifer and 180-Foot Equivalent Aquifer would be much less pronounced than under the proposed project because less water would be extracted from the slant wells and more water would be provided to CSIP for agricultural users, and Salinas Valley return water would be injected into the 180-Foot Equivalent Aquifer.
• Interference with the remediation of a contaminated groundwater plume at Fort Ord can be mitigated under the proposed project; it would be avoided with operation of the project variant as a result of the dampened groundwater elevation response in the SVGB.
• The combined components of the project variant would use 4,700 MWh/year less energy than the proposed project. The impact would be less than significant for both the proposed project and the project Variant since the energy would not be used in a wasteful and inefficient manner.

The project variant would generate 253 metric tons CO2e (GHG) per year less than the MPWSP. The impact would remain significant and unavoidable for both the proposed project and the project variant. The MPWSP Variant would generate certain significant environmental effects that would not occur with the project, but for the most part, such effects would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.

There are two significant unavoidable impacts that would occur with the MPWSP Variant and not with the proposed project – construction PM10 emissions and noise – but these impacts would be temporary in nature and thus may be accorded a lesser weight than impacts of a more permanent and on-going nature. The MPWSP Variant would result in an increase in other construction related impacts (cultural resources, traffic and biological resources) due to the construction of the GWR Project elements. Each of these temporary impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. Although the MPWSP Variant and the proposed project would each result in a significant environmental impact associated with greenhouse gas emissions, the Variant would use less energy than the project and thus would have somewhat lower greenhouse gas emissions than the project. Compared to the proposed project, the MPWSP Variant would provide a diversified portfolio of water supplies, reduce pumping from the SVGB, increase Seaside Basin groundwater supplies, and improve groundwater levels and quality in the SVGB. While both the proposed project and the MPWSP Variant would have less than significant effects on the SVGB levels from pumping at the slant wells, the effects would be minimized with the MPWSP Variant. As noted, reasonable minds could differ as to the selection of the environmentally superior alternative. Nonetheless, weighing the short term unavoidable construction impacts of the Variant against the longer-term, more severe impacts of the project in the key areas of groundwater and greenhouse gas emissions, between the two options, the MPWSP Variant is deemed to be the environmentally superior alternative.

Public Meetings

The CPUC will be holding four public meeting/open house presentations to facilitate your review of the Draft EIR:

Tuesday May 26, 2015, 1:00 pm: Marina Public Library, 188 Seaside Ave Marina

Wednesday May 27, 2015, 1:30 pm: Oldemeyer Center, Seaside Room, 986 Hilby Ave. Seaside

Wednesday May 27, 2015, 6:30 pm: Oldemeyer Center, Laguna Grande Hall, 986 Hilby Ave. Seaside

Thursday May 28, 2015, 1:30 pm: Sunset Center, Carpenter Hall, San Carlos Street, Carmel

Public Comment on the Draft EIR:

As of April 30, 2015, this begins a 60-day public review period; your written comments are due no later than July 1, 2015 and should be sent to:

Andrew Barnsdale
California Public Utilities Commission
c/o Environmental Science Associates
550 Kearny Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94108

Comments can also be sent by fax to (415) 896-0332, or by email to mpwsp-eir@esassoc.com

CEQA Process Schedule (See ALJ Ruling dated January 23, 2015)
Public Release of Notice of Preparation	October 10, 2012
EIR Scoping Period (30 days)	October 10, 2012 - November 9, 2012
Public Scoping Meetings	October 24, 2012 and October 25, 2012
Draft EIR Publication	April 30, 2015
Public and agency comment period	Comments are due by July 1, 2015
Public hearings on Draft EIR	May 2015
All-party Meeting in Monterey	July 30, 2015
Publication of Final EIR	October 2015
CPUC Proposed Decision Issued	December 2015
All-party Meeting	January 2016
Proposed Decision on Commission Agenda	February 2016

Calam Mpwsp Deir 2015

Draft Environmental Impact Report CALAM MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, April 2015, prepared for California Public Utilities Commission

And prepared by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) (1789 pages)

REFERENCES:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project

(Application A.12-04-019, filed April 23, 2012)

Draft Environmental Impact Report

To view the complete Draft EIR without appendicies, click here [pdf 57.7mb].

To view the Appendices for the Draft EIR, click here [pdf 281mb].

Notice of Availability (NOA) [pdf], Cover [pdf], Table of Content [pdf], and List of Acronyms [pdf]

Executive Summary [pdf]

1.  Introduction [pdf]

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

3.  Project Description [pdf 6.67mb]

4.  Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures
     4.1   Overview [pdf]
     4.2   Geology, Soils, and Seismicity [pdf 4.08mb]
     4.3   Surface Water Hydrology and Water Quality [pdf 5.06mb]
     4.4   Groundwater Resources [pdf 16.1mb]
     4.5   Marine Resources [pdf]
     4.6   Terrestrial Biological Resources [pdf 3.98mb]
     4.7   Hazards and Hazardous Materials [pdf]
     4.8   Land Use, Land Use Planning, and Recreation [pdf]
     4.9   Traffic and Transportation [pdf]
     4.10 Air Quality [pdf]
     4.11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions [pdf]
     4.12 Noise and Vibration [pdf]
     4.13 Public Services and Utilities [pdf]
     4.14 Aesthetic Resources [pdf]
     4.15 Cultural and Paleontological Resources [pdf]
     4.16 Agriculture and Forestry Resources [pdf]
     4.17 Mineral Resources [pdf]
     4.18 Energy Conservation [pdf]
     4.19 Population and Housing [pdf]

5.  Cumulative Impacts [pdf]

6.  MPWSP Variant [pdf 3.15mb]

7.  Alternatives [pdf 10.3mb]

8.  Growth-Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth [pdf]

9.  CEQA Statutory Sections [pdf]

10. Report Preparers [pdf]

Appendices

A.  NOP and NOP Scoping Report [pdf 3.6mb]

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 22.4mb]

C1. Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea Level Rise [pdf 7.0mb]

C2. Coastal Water Elevations and Sea Level Rise Scenarios [pdf]

C3. Exploratory Borehole Results [pdf 69.2mb]

D1. Far-Field Analysis of Brine Discharge [pdf 10.6mb]

D2. Brine Discharge Diffuser Analysis [pdf]

D3. Water Quality Analysis of the Discharges [pdf]

D4. Ocean Plan Compliance Assessment [pdf 4.05mb]

E1. Test Slant Well Groundwater Modeling and Analysis - CEMEX Active Mining Area [pdf 9.82mb]

E2. Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Groundwater Modeling and Analysis [pdf 127mb]

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

G.  Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations [pdf]

H.  Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project, Project Description [pdf 24.4mb]

I.  Component Screening Results [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]

Report:Smaller Cal Am desal plant, new groundwater project preferred

By Jim Johnson, Monterey Herald

Posted: 04/30/15, 7:50 PM PDT