16. Assignment of Proceeding
John A. Bohn is the assigned Commissioner and Angela K. Minkin is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.
1. Cal-Am is a Class A investor-owned water utility, regulated by this Commission. Its Monterey District serves most of the Monterey Peninsula, including Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, and Seaside, as well as the unincorporated areas of Carmel Highlands, Carmel Valley, Pebble Beach, and the Del Monte Forest.
2. Cal-Am supplies the Monterey District with surface water and groundwater from the Carmel River System and the coastal subarea of the Seaside Groundwater Basin (also known as the Seaside Basin). Cal-Am also operates three small independent water systems along the Highway 68 corridor east of Monterey that draw water from the Laguna Seca subarea of the Seaside Basin.
3. Water supply has long been constrained due to frequent drought conditions on the semi-arid Monterey Peninsula, which obtains its water supply solely from rainfall. In addition, as described in the FEIR, seawater intrusion and excess diversion have existed for decades, first identified in the late 1930s and documented by the State of California in 1946.
4. According to the FEIR, as of 1995, Cal-Am served approximately 105,000 customers in its Monterey District, supplying them with approximately 17,000 afy. Of this amount, approximately 14,106 afy was supplied from the Carmel River system and 2,700 afy was supplied from the Seaside Basin. Today, there are approximately 39,000 metered connections in the Monterey District.
5. In 1995, the SWRCB issued its Order No. WR 95-10, which concluded that although Cal-Am had been diverting 14,106 afy from the Carmel River, it has a legal right to only 3,376 afy from the Carmel River system, including surface water and water pumped from the Carmel Valley wells.
6. The SWRCB ordered Cal-Am to replace what SWRCB determined to be unlawful diversions of 10,730 afy from the Carmel River with other sources and through other actions, such as conservation to offset 20 percent of demand.
7. In 2006, the Monterey County Superior Court issued a final decision regarding adjudication of water rights of various parties who use groundwater from the Seaside Basin. (California American Water v. City of Seaside et al., Case No. 66343). The court's decision established physical limitations to various users' water allocations to reduce the drawdown of the aquifer and prevent additional seawater intrusion and set up a Watermaster to administer and enforce the Court's decision.
8. Cal-Am is currently allocated 3,504 afy from the Coastal subarea of the Seaside Basin and 345 afy from the Laguna Seca subareas. These allocations will be reduced over time until they eventually reach 1,474 afy from the overall Seaside Basin. Prior to the Seaside Basin adjudication, Cal-Am's allocation for the Coastal subarea was 4,000 afy.
9. In 2006, the MPWMD issued a technical memorandum, updating the demand in Cal-Am's service territory. In sum, the replacement water supply required to meet total updated demand is 12,500 afy.
10. The Carmel River provides a habitat for the California red-legged frog and the South Central California Coast steelhead trout, both of which are listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
11. Both the USFWS and NOAA Fisheries contend that any entity that pumps water from the Carmel Valley Aquifer may be liable for a "take" because such pumping may alter the riparian habitat, affect the steelhead's ability to migrate, and affect the red-legged frog's ability to mature.
12. Cal-Am has entered into a Conservation Agreement with NOAA Fisheries, with the long-term goal of procuring an alternative water supply source to reduce withdrawals from the Carmel Valley Aquifer.
13. The focus of Phase 2 of this proceeding is the selection of a long-term water supply solution to address the water shortfall for Cal-Am's Monterey District and to explore a regional alternative to Cal-Am's Coastal Water Project, as directed in D.03-09-022.
14. An EIR is an informational document to inform the Commission, responsible and trustee agencies, and the public in general, of the environmental impacts of the proposed project and alternatives, design a recommended mitigation program to reduce any potentially significant impacts, and identify, from an environmental perspective, the preferred alternative.
15. In addition to this Commission, many federal, state, and local agencies are involved in the regulation of water, water rights, and water supply on the Monterey Peninsula, including, but not limited to, the State Water Resource Control Board, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, the Marina Coast Water District, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, the Monterey Regional Waste Management District, and the Seaside Groundwater Basin Watermaster.
16. The Marina Coast Water District's service territory is north of and adjacent to Cal-Am's service territory in the Monterey Peninsula. MCWD provides water and sewer service to the City of Marina and the former Fort Ord community, from its existing facilities.
17. The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency operates the regional wastewater treatment plant located north of Marina and also operates the regional recycling treatment plant located at the same facility.
18. Under contract to the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency distributes recycled water to agricultural customers for irrigation on 12,000 acres in Castroville. This recycled water has been paid for by the agricultural customers in the Salinas Valley and is known as the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Program.
19. The Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) operates the solid waste management facilities adjacent to the proposed Regional Project. In conjunction with the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, the Waste Management District captures landfill gas and uses it as fuel in an existing cogeneration facility.
20. Many of the Public Agencies charged with managing water resources on the Monterey Peninsula have inter-related missions and, to a certain extent, overlapping supervisory boards.
21. No party disputes the need to find an alternative water supply to replace Cal-Am's water supplies that are drawn from the Carmel River, in order to ensure that Cal-Am complies with State Water Resource Control Board SWRCB Order 95-10, the Seaside Basin adjudication, and the State Water Resource Control Board Cease and Desist Order.
22. There is a need for additional water supply, over and above any water savings that can be accomplished through conservation, use of recycled water, or prohibition of potable water for landscape irrigation.
23. Past efforts to solve the long-standing water supply issues on the Monterey Peninsula have not been successful, including the proposed New Los Padres Dam and Reservoir proposed by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District in 1989, but turned down by the voters in 1995 and the Carmel River Dam proposed by Cal-Am in 1997, which was effectively halted by AB 1182 (Stats. 1998, Ch. 797).
24. In 2002, the Commission completed a water supply contingency plan, known as "Plan B," which concluded that a combination of desalination and aquifer storage and recovery could produce 10,730 afy. Cal-Am determined that the Carmel River Dam was no longer a viable project and, in 2004, filed the instant application, which was amended in 2005.
25. When the Coastal Water Project is online, Cal-Am generally plans to utilize the majority of its Carmel River right to provide a base supply for the system during the winter. The Seaside groundwater allocation would provide a base supply in the summer.
26. Excess Carmel River water and desalinated water would be injected and stored in the Seaside Basin aquifer storage and recovery system in the winter for extraction during the summer to meet summer average and peak day demands. Desalinated water would be then used to supplement remaining demand.
27. Desalinated water is extremely expensive, both in terms of capital costs and in terms of ongoing operations and maintenance costs.
28. We continue to encourage parties to search for all possible water supplies that can reduce the need for desalinated water, as the additional components of the Regional Project, Phase 2 are studied and analyzed.
29. The FEIR sets forth three water supply projects that have been analyzed at an equal level of detail, each of which can satisfy the following project objectives:
· Satisfy Cal-Am's obligations to meet the requirements of State Water Resource Control Board Order 95-10;
· Diversify and create a reliable drought-proof water supply;
· Protect the Seaside basin for long-term reliability;
· Protect listed species in the riparian and aquatic habitat below San Clement Dam;
· Protect the local economy from the effects of an uncertain water supply;
· Minimize water rate increases by creating a diversified water supply portfolio;
· Minimize energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of water delivered to the extent possible;
· Explore opportunities for regional partnerships, consistent with D.03-09-022; and
· Avoid duplicative facilities and infrastructure.
30. In addition to the primary objectives described above Phase I of the Regional Project is designed to address the following objectives and opportunities:
· Satisfy MCWD's obligation s to provide a water supply adequate to meet the approved redevelopment of the former Fort Ord;
· Satisfy MCWRA's obligation to maintain hydrologic balance of the Salinas Groundwater Basin;
· Satisfy MCWRA's obligation to protect agricultural water users' utilization of water resources;
· Maximize regional reliability;
· Maximize use of recycled and freshwater sources;
· Maximize funding opportunities through regional cooperation; and
· Integrate urban, agricultural and environmental objectives.
31. While each of the three projects analyzed in the FEIR would provide the majority of water required, none would meet total demand on their own. There are certain other project components and measures that are assumed to be operational under all of the alternatives studied in the FEIR.
32. The Moss Landing Project would be sited on 16 acres at the Moss Landing Power Plant and would be owned and operated by Cal-Am. The proposed project includes a desalination plant sized to produce 10 mgd of desalinated water. The proposed project also includes a seawater intake system using source water supplied from the existing Moss Landing Power Plant once-through cooling water return system, an open-water brine discharge system through the Moss Landing Power Plant, and a variety of conveyance and storage facilities, including approximately 28 miles of pipeline and an aquifer storage and recovery system. The aquifer storage and recovery system consists of two existing and two proposed injection/extraction wells.
33. The proposed project would produce 8,800 afy of desalinated water in non-drought years (and 10,900 afy in drought years) that would be delivered to Cal-Am's Terminal Reservoir for distribution to its customers.
34. The Moss Landing Project's open intake and once-through cooling design is environmentally controversial and subject to increasingly restrictive regulations.
35. The proposed project and the alternative projects include certain storage, delivery and distribution components that would be owned and operated by Cal-Am. Because these elements are common to all projects, these are known as "common" components, or the Cal-Am only facilities.
36. The North Marina alternative consists of much of the same infrastructure described for the Moss Landing Project.
37. The North Marina alternative would be owned and operated by Cal-Am, but the desalination plant would be sited on 10 acres at the Armstrong Ranch and sized to produce 11 mgd of desalinated water.
38. The North Marina alternative utilizes a seawater intake system consisting of six new subsurface beach slant wells, an open-water brine discharge system through the existing Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency outfall, a project water conveyance and storage infrastructure, including several miles of pipeline and an aquifer storage and recovery system, as described above. The main differences between the Moss Landing Project and the North Marina alternative are location and size of the desalination plant, the intake technology, and the outfall.
39. The North Marina alternative would produce 8,800 afy of desalinated water in non-drought years (and 10,900 afy in drought years) that would be delivered to Cal-Am customers. The desalination plant is larger, because any source water that originated from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin would be returned to the Basin through deliveries to the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project.
40. Because groundwater modeling indicates that source water pumped from the slant wells over the long term could include a small amount of intruded groundwater from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, the North Marina alternative includes a provision for excess desalinated water to be returned to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin via the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project's storage pond. Thus, desalinated water would be delivered to the Cal-Am Terminal Reservoir for distribution to its customers and to the storage pond for distribution to the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.
41. The Regional Project analyzed in the environmental documents was developed after extensive public input through the establishment of several community-based working groups, in a process initiated by DRA and now known collectively as the Water for Monterey County Coalition.
42. The Regional Project has been envisioned as having two phases, and Phase 1 is analyzed at a level of detail consistent with the proposed project and the North Marina alternative.
43. Due to the legal constraints on diversions from the Carmel River and the Seaside Basin, Phase 1 of the Regional Project would provide "regulatory replacement" water supply of 15,200 afy (12,500 afy to Cal-Am customers and 2,700 afy of water supply to the Ord Community); therefore, Phase 1 is the first priority for project implementation.
44. Phase 1 of the Regional Project includes previously analyzed and permitted water supply projects that will be undertaken whether or not the Coastal Water Project is implemented. These projects include the Sand City desalination plant, the Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project, and two existing aquifer storage and recovery wells, as well as potential demand offset of up to 1000 afy from conservation.
45. New aspects of Phase 1 of the Regional Project that were analyzed in the environmental documents include a 10-mgd desalination plant, to be owned and operated by MCWD and six vertical intake wells to provide source water. The desalinated water (8,800 afy in non-drought years and 10,900 afy in drought years) would be delivered to the Cal-Am Terminal Reservoir system for distribution to its customers and to the MCWD system (approximately 1,700 afy in non-drought years) for distribution to its customers. We refer to these new components as the Regional Project in this decision.
46. Phase 2 of the Regional Project has been studied at a more general or programmatic level, consistent with the information that is available at this time. As explained in the FEIR, the components of Phase 2 of the Regional Project have been included for context and for informational purposes; they would not function as an alternative that would meet the project objectives and are not subject to our approval at this time.
47. The CEQA Findings of Fact are attached as Appendix B, and accurately reflect the independent analysis contained in the FEIR, the Commission's policy decisions, as well as other information in the record, and are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
48. As to the Cal-Am portion of the Regional Project, we find that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Regional Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the FEIR.
49. As to the non Cal-Am portions of the Regional Project, we find that the applicable and feasible mitigation measures described in the CEQA Findings can and should be (and in most cases, already have been) imposed as conditions of approval by MCWD, MCWRA and/or MRWPCA on the Regional Project.
50. We further find that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives that are not required in, or incorporated into, the Regional Project.
51. Implementation of the No-Project Alternative would eliminate all of the impacts for the three projects analyzed in the FEIR. However, the resulting water supply deficit would lead to severe rationing and likely water shortages. These conditions, in turn, would likely have significant effects on the local economies within the Monterey Peninsula.
52. The No-Project Alternative would fail to meet any of the Coastal Water Project objectives, including the objective to protect the local economy from the effects of an uncertain water supply.
53. The alternatives considered in the FEIR include several basic elements: a desalination plant, a water intake mechanism, a brine outfall mechanism, desalinated water conveyance and storage infrastructure, and aquifer storage and recovery.
54. In selecting the environmentally superior alternative, the FEIR considered the environmental impact of each project, which of the projects evaluated in the FEIR had the fewest significant-and-unavoidable impacts, and which, if any, of the proposed alternatives would lessen or eliminate any significant-and-unavoidable or potentially-significant-but-mitigable impacts.
55. The FEIR has identified the North Marina Alternative as environmentally superior to the Moss Landing Project in terms of the scope of the environmental effects.
56. The North Marina Alternative and the Regional Project are nearly equal in their level of environmental impacts. There are two impacts that factor into the determination of the environmentally-superior alternative: operation-related greenhouse gas emissions and construction-related particulate matter greater than 10 microns (PM10).
57. Because Marin Coast Water District and Monterey County Water Resources Agency would implement the Regional Project and because these Public Agencies are not under this Commission's jurisdiction, the FEIR reasonably concludes that we cannot ensure compliance with the mitigation efforts to ensure that the outcome would result in less-than-significant impacts.
58. The FEIR classifies the greenhouse gas emissions and the construction-related particulate matter impacts as significant and unavoidable, and also concludes that if the Public Agencies agree to implement all of the mitigation measures, the Regional Project, would be the environmentally superior alternative.
59. Because of the Cease and Desist Order, we find that time is of the essence, in terms of developing a new water supply to replace unauthorized withdrawal of water from the Carmel River.
60. The Marina Coast Water District has certified that it has considered the FEIR pursuant to §§ 15050(b) and 15096(f) of the CEQA Guidelines and has issued a Statement of Overriding Considerations, because the need for water overrides potentially significant, unavoidable impacts related to air quality from construction and greenhouse gas emissions from operation of the MCWD facilities for the Regional Project.
61. The Monterey County Water Resources Agency has issued a Statement of Overriding Considerations with respect to the following environmental impacts: 1) the emission of criteria pollutants during construction activities; 2) the net increase of particulate matter greater than 10 microns associated with construction activities; and 3) potential conflict with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with the requirements of AB 32 (Stats. 2006, ch. 488), and covering cumulative air quality and noise impacts.
62. Because we have determined that the mitigation measures for construction-related particulate matter greater than 10 microns for any of the projects are infeasible due to the urgency of the need for a new water supply, we consider only the greenhouse gas emissions in considering the environmentally superior project.
63. On balance, we concur with the FEIR's identification of the North Marina Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative, albeit by a very narrow margin, because of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with operations of the desalination plant.
64. As required by CEQA, we cannot approve the proposed project or an alternative unless we find that the project has been modified to mitigate or avoid each significant effect on the environment or that specific considerations make the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the FEIR infeasible; and specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment.
65. We find that the Regional Project is the most feasible alternative that provides a viable solution to the water constraints on the Monterey Peninsula, given the adverse social and economic consequences associated with taking no action or delayed action, in the timeframe imposed by the State Water Resource Control Board's Cease and Desist Order, meets the restrictions on ownership of a desalination plant in Monterey County, and satisfies the prohibitions on exporting water from the Salinas Basin, and certain technological factors.
66. Because we are approving the Regional Project and do not have jurisdiction over The Marina Coast Water District or the Monterey County Water Resources Agency, this Commission cannot guarantee that the Public Agencies involved will comply with the mitigation measures adopted in this decision.
67. Significant and unavoidable environmental impacts will result from operation of the Regional Project; however, the Commission has adopted all feasible mitigation measures, as set forth in Appendix C.
68. The FEIR includes the Addendum to the FEIR, issued on March 24, 2010, and received into evidence on June 14, 2010.
69. The Addendum was issued to address errata in the text of the FEIR. None of the errata recommend any changes to the project or to the level of significance of impacts or to mitigation measures. The Addendum also presents and responds to seven additional comment letters that were inadvertently omitted from the published FEIR. None of the letters or responses have raised or identified any issues that would require changes to the FEIR as published.
70. The benefits of the Regional Project outweigh and override its significant and unavoidable impacts, for the reasons set forth in the statement of overriding considerations in the CEQA Findings.
71. The Marina Coast Water District and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency recognize the importance of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR and acknowledge their intention that development, construction, and operation of the Regional Project must occur in accordance with the mitigation measures adopted by their respective agencies.
72. The Settlement Agreement states that the Regional Project provides the most expeditious, feasible and cost-effective alternative to address the water supply constraints on the Monterey Peninsula.
73. The Settling Parties maintain that time is of the essence, both because of the pending Cease and Desist Order and because there are financing opportunities that may be lost if the Regional Project is delayed.
74. The Monterey County Water Resources Agency will construct, own, operate, and maintain the brackish source water wells that will provide the feedwater for the desalination facility, as well as the conveyance pipeline to the desalination facility.
75. The Marina Coast Water District will construct, own, operate, and maintain the desalination plant and transport the desalinated water to a delivery point within its service territory. At that point, the Marina Coast Water District will receive a portion of the water and Cal-Am will receive a portion of the water.
76. Cal-Am will construct, own, maintain, and operate three large diameter conveyance pipelines, two distribution storage reservoirs, and aquifer storage and recovery facilities; all of these facilities will provide the infrastructure to serve its customers with the desalinated water (also known as product water).
77. The brine from the desalination plant would be discharged through the outfall owned and operated by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency.
78. The Marina Coast Water District has exercised an option which it held, and acquired 224 acres of land on the Armstrong Ranch north of Marina, adjacent to the regional wastewater treatment plant operated by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and the regional landfill operated by the Monterey Regional Waste Management District shown in the FEIR as the proposed location for the desalination plant for the Regional Project.
79. Because the source water cannot be exported from the Salinas Valley, this factor becomes a critical component to the Regional Project.
80. The Monterey County Water Resources Agency must satisfy the requirements of the Agency Act and protect the farmers and agribusinesses that participate in and fund the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project, Castroville Seaside Intrusion Project, and the Salinas Valley Water Project.
81. The Settlement Agreement includes two implementing agreements: a Water Purchase Agreement and an Outfall Agreement. The Water Purchase Agreement provides extensive detail as to each parties' rights and responsibilities, and addresses the design, construction, and permitting of the components of the proposed Regional Project.
82. The Water Purchase Agreement has an initial term of 34 years, and, in accordance with its terms, 6 automatic renewal terms of 10 years each.
83. The Water Purchase Agreement requires the construction of test wells, the data from which will be analyzed by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency to ensure compliance with the Agency Act.
84. The Marina Coast Water District and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency will endeavor to secure cost-effective financing for the Regional facilities, including low-cost SRF loans, as well as grants, where available, which, if obtained, will lower the cost of the Regional Project. Cal-Am will provide shortfall financing for the project, if necessary.
85. Pursuant to the Outfall Agreement, the Marina Coast Water District will connect and use capacity in the ocean outfall components of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency's regional treatment plant to carry the reject water and brine discharged from the desalination plant.
86. Costs related to the construction of a connection from Marina Coast Water District's facilities to a brine receiving facility that connects to Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency's outfall facilities are included in the costs of the Regional Project, to the extent they are attributable to and used for the discharged brine from the Regional Project.
87. The Outfall Agreement also provides for a one-time capacity charge, an annual usage fee, a reimbursement for fair and reasonable operation and maintenance costs attributable to the use of the brine-receiving facility and the outfall discharge, as well as capital repair and replacement costs. Costs incurred by the Marina Coast Water District under the Outfall Agreement are included in calculating the cost of the Regional Project's desalinated product water.
88. The term of the Outfall Agreement is 34 years, with 6 automatic 10-year renewals.
89. Whether the facilities are owned and operated by the Public Agencies or Cal-Am, the majority of the costs of the entire project are expected to be borne by Cal-Am ratepayers.
90. The Marina Coast Water District's and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency's costs of constructing and operating their portions of the Regional Project facilities will be included in the calculation of the costs of the desalinated water (or product water), which will be charged to Cal-Am under various provisions of the Water Purchase Agreement.
91. All costs incurred by the Marina Coast Water District under the Outfall Agreement that directly pertain to the Regional Project facilities will be included in the cost of the product water.
92. Costs for the Regional Project include capital costs, financing costs, costs of obtaining indebtedness, a reserve fund for needed replacements, contingency costs, and operations and maintenance costs.
93. Cal-Am will include costs related to the construction of its facilities in rate base, either as Construction Work in Progress or Utility Plant in Service. Settling Parties propose that all project costs will earn a return on the carrying costs for the project as AFUDC until such time as they are allowed in rate base.
94. As proposed, each entity is responsible for the permitting, design, and construction of the facilities they will own.
95. In order to ensure coordination, the parties plan to jointly select and hire a project manager to manage the permit, design, engineering, and construction process, and to ensure that the proper coordination takes place.
96. As proposed in the Water Purchase Agreement, Cal-Am, Marina Coast Water District and Monterey County Water Resources Agency will form an Advisory Committee to ensure coordination with respect to the permitting, design, and construction of the Regional Project.
97. The Settling Parties request that the Commission approve a capital cost cap of $297.47 million (escalated to mid-2012 $) that excludes interest during construction and any debt service coverage required to obtain financing for the Regional Project.
98. We concur that the bidding selection, procurement process, and evaluation of proposals described in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the Water Purchase Agreement and the additional cost management features described in Section 4.3 are reasonable provisions that will help ensure that the Regional Project is as cost-effective as possible.
99. The Settling Parties have agreed to hire a certified value engineer to review plans at particular points. As defined, value engineering is a specialized cost control technique in which the owner or operators meet and confer with a certified value specialist to conduct a systematic and creative analysis of the functions of a project or operation to determine how best to achieve the necessary function, performance, and reliability of the project at the minimum life cycle cost.
100. In addition to the detailed contracting provisions and cost management goals, the Water Purchase Agreement provides a detailed roadmap for hiring of a project manager, preparing preliminary design documents, obtaining required permits, and establishing milestones for each of the facilities. Section 4 also provides for a Constructability Review (§ 4.6) and Inspection and Audit Rights (§ 4.11).
101. Under the Water Purchase Agreement, the cost of the desalinated water will have two components: the debt service associated with financing the capitalized costs of the facilities owned by the Public Agencies (including design, permitting, construction, and pre-effective date costs) and the costs of operating and maintaining these facilities.
102. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Cal-Am will fund these costs through an escrow account and will then recover the costs through the Modified Cost Balancing Account - essentially a balancing account already established to record and recover in rates the costs of purchased water.
103. Based on the record before us, we cannot find that a $2,200 per-acre-foot cost cap is reasonable or would serve the public interest, because the evidence does not demonstrate that DRA included all necessary costs associated with desalination plants in developing its estimated cost cap.
104. Because of the public financing opportunities, we find that the Public Agencies bring benefits to the Regional Project that would not be achieved by Cal-Am ownership of either the Moss Landing Project or the North Marina Project; in addition, litigation related to private ownership of the desalination plant and compliance with the Agency Act could ensue with either the Moss Landing Project or the North Marina Project.
105. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that MCWD does not need the desalinated water now, nor is it clear when it may be needed in the future. We find that there are reasonable checkpoints built into the WPA to ensure that Cal-Am will receive its needed allocation of water, including requirements to notify Cal-Am and the Advisory Committee regarding the planned water supply and deliveries of water.
106. The $297.5 million proposed capital cost cap represents the Settling Parties' approximation of the various cost components of the Regional Project facilities, assuming that slant wells are used as source water intake facilities.
107. The costs of the various components have been assessed and analyzed in various forums and that parties - while perhaps not agreeing - have had the opportunity to understand and debate the derivation of the cost components.
108. Article XIII, § 6, subd. (b) of the California Constitution establishes the requirements for setting rates and charges by local governments.
109. As public agencies, MCWD and MCWRA are subject to the requirements of the Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950 et seq.) and the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250 et seq.).
110. MCWRA must comply with the Monterey Water Resources Agency Act (Chapter 52 in the California Water Code Appendix), which requires public hearings prior to adopting a budget.
111. MCWD and MCWRA have existing procedures to provide for public participation and input in the establishment of their budgets and the setting of rates.
112. The $297.5 million cost cap proposed by Settling Parties, and adopted in this decision, represents the estimated upper cost limit for the Regional Desalination Project.
113. The Settling Parties acknowledge that a financing package is not finalized and explain that they are evaluating several options for obtaining a financing package that will reduce the costs of indebtedness, including accessing State Revolving Fund financing and federal grants.
114. It is our understanding that Cal-Am, Marina Coast Water District, and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency each intend to analyze the final financing package within 120 days of the Effective Date of the Water Purchase Agreement and will advise their respective governing Boards to approve a package based on the total amount of funding, cost of the funding (including interest rate, term, and reserve requirements), flexibility, and any restrictions imposed by particular financing alternatives.
115. Use of low-interest SRF loans and federal grants would reduce the cost of indebtedness. Any financing alternative that reduces the cost of Project indebtedness will flow through to ratepayers by reducing the cost of the desalinated water.
116. While use of SRF loan and grant opportunities are not guaranteed, Cal-Am would not have the ability to access such funding opportunities. This is a potential benefit to ratepayers that we cannot ignore.
117. Depending on the length of the construction period and the financing plan that is eventually in place, the Regional Project may not necessarily be the least-cost alternative, but it is the most feasible project that will ensure a replacement water source in a timely manner, i.e., prior to the enactment of the water restrictions in the Cease and Desist Order.
118. While the Settling Parties have stated concerns that establishing a capital cost cap could impact the competitive bidding process and could also impact the cost of financing, they acknowledge that a capital cost cap is one way to ensure that the Settlement Agreement is in the public interest.
119. We concur that a capital cost cap is required and find that adopting a capital cost cap of $297.5 million will provide the proper motivation to ensure that the Regional Project facilities are as cost-effective as possible.
120. We encourage parties to thoroughly assess cost allocation and rate design methodologies that can be considered to protect Cal-Am's customers.
121. Because a significant increase in rates may well affect demand, Phase 3 of this proceeding will be the appropriate forum to consider elasticity of demand and various protections that must be put into place.
122. While capital costs, annual operating costs, and financing costs, as well as the number of acre-feet of water purchased, must all be considered in calculating the unit cost of water, we are not persuaded that setting a very low per-acre foot cost cap will appropriately protect ratepayers.
123. Even the lowest-cost scenario developed jointly by the parties estimate a unit cost of $2,600 per acre-foot (excluding Cal-Am facilities, but including the cost of delivery to the Cal-Am receiving point); this scenario is based on a capital cost of $204.3 million (which assumes a project cost of $227 million and then deducts $22 million from MCWD buy-in fees) and is still $400 per acre-foot over the amount proposed by DRA.
124. The $297.5 million capital cost that we adopt today will yield a per-acre-foot cost of approximately $6,300 (excluding Cal-Am facilities), assuming that the Settling Parties can obtain the low-cost SRF financing that is planned.
125. Given these scenarios, we do not find that the per-acre-foot cost cap proposed by DRA is viable. If we were to adopt DRA's proposal, Cal-Am would soon be before us with a new application seeking relief and it is unlikely that the project could go forward in a timely way.
126. Cal-Am ratepayers should only be responsible for costs exceeding the cost cap ceiling if these costs are due to extraordinary circumstances. Requests for recovery above the cost cap ceiling will be subject to a heighten level of scrutiny and review.
127. The Parties to the Water Purchase Agreement plan to finance all costs included in the project facility estimated costs, including initial capital costs, pre-effective date costs and expenses, preconstruction development, permitting fees and expenses, and pre-acceptance defense costs.
128. If there is not a less costly method of obtaining financing of any shortfall, the Water Purchase Agreement provides that Cal-Am or an affiliate will loan up to $17.5 million to the Public Agencies. In addition, Cal-Am or an affiliate will make available a credit line of $8 million to manage short-term financial liquidity needs of the Public Agencies.
129. The Water Purchase Agreement provides that to the extent the costs of the loan or credit line provided by Cal-Am are not recovered in the price of the Product Water, the principal and interest shall be recoverable in rates, i.e. the Public Agencies will repay the loans, but the costs of such repayment will be passed onto Cal-Am's ratepayers.
130. Because the Water Purchase Agreement is structured such that Cal-Am essentially commits future cash flows to funding the debt committed to the Regional Project, it is possible that the Water Purchase Agreement may be considered either a capital lease or a take-or-pay contract by its external auditors and that rating agencies may impute debt and consider such leveraging in their analysis and rating of Cal-Am.
131. While DRA does not object to the use of least-cost financing, DRA is concerned that any advantages that the Public Agencies may obtain by accessing lower cost financing tools may be eroded by a premature assertion that the Commission will guarantee Cal-Am's financial viability.
132. The low-cost financing opportunities that the Public Agencies may be able to access are at the core of the benefits of the Regional Project.
133. Based on the Unified Financing Model the parties jointly developed, Exhibit 113 considers the impact of a single issuance of private activity bonds, issuance of tranches of private activity bonds, and the interaction of such bonds with SRF loans and federal grants.
134. It is premature to weigh in on the debt equivalence issue at this time; because we must balance the needs of ratepayers and shareholders, we will consider the issue of debt equivalency when we can develop a full record, as we believe the Settling Parties have acknowledged.
135. We find that no modifications are required with regard to the debt equivalency issue. When Cal-Am files the appropriate pleading, we will address the debt equivalency issue in detail.
136. As contemplated by the Settling Parties and set forth in Section 6 of the Water Purchase Agreement, the Advisory Committee would consist of a representative of Cal-Am, MCWD, and MCWRA, each of whom would have full decision-making authority because they are defined as Parties under the Water Purchase Agreement.
137. The WPA also provides for a "Municipal Advisor" to serve on the Advisory Committee. Under the WPA, the Municipal Advisor will be two representatives appointed by the Cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, and Seaside.
138. The Municipal Advisor is an advisory role and will have not decision-making authority for purposes of the WPA.
139. Consensus would be sought, but to the extent that differences could not be resolved, the participants on the Advisory Committee have the right to seek dispute resolution by a neutral third-party.
140. The purpose of the Advisory Committee is to provide a formal means for the parties to coordinate the design, permitting requirements, construction, operations, maintenance, repairs, and replacement of the various components of the Regional Project, in consultation with the selected project manger.
141. Providing the Monterey Peninsula Cities with a meaningful advisory role on the Advisory Committee provides adequate ratepayer protection.
142. There is no need for duplicative roles. Elected Peninsula City officials will coordinate on the appointment of the Municipal Advisor and there is some overlap of governance between the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the Monterey County Board of Supervisors.
143. The Settling Parties have stated their willingness to provide regular, detailed status reports to the Commission and these should be provided on a quarterly basis to the Executive Director and the Director of the, DWA and a copy should be provided to the Director of DRA.
144. Cal-Am has agreed to meet quarterly with DRA and DWA staff should be included in these meetings. Detailed information should be provided as to progress on the Regional Project, particularly with regard to financing plans, construction bids, and permitting, as is contemplated in the Water Purchase Agreement.
145. Transparency is essential; therefore, there is no reason that information provided in these reports and meetings should be confidential unless there is a particular and specific reason for requesting confidentiality.
146. Based on the Settling Parties' agreement to have Cal-Am provide a copy of the detailed quarterly status reports to DRA and because we are directing Cal-Am to meet with DRA and DWA on a quarterly basis, we are satisfied with the status report arrangements.
147. A major component of the Settlement Agreement and the Water Purchase Agreement is the provision that the Settling Parties will maximize the intake of seawater on a cost-effective basis in a way that ensures compliance with the requirements of the Agency Act.
148. Because a relatively small amount of source water is expected to be pumped from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, that water cannot be exported from the Salinas Valley.
149. Maximizing the seawater content assists as a proxy for determining whether source water is seawater or groundwater, based on salinity or Total Dissolved Solids, but we must also consider the volume of groundwater in the basin.
150. Because of seawater intrusion, according to the FEIR, we can assume that the salinity of the seawater and the salinity of the brackish groundwater are approximately equal.
151. The water to be desalinated is water which has a TDS concentration high enough to make it unsuitable for human consumption or agricultural use unless it is treated. This is the brackish source water, which will be produced by new wells to be owned by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency.
152. The Monterey County Water Resources Agency is charged with taking the necessary steps to both comply with the Agency Act and to deliver brackish source water to the desalination plant sufficient to produce up to 10 of desalinated water.
153. The 10-mgd plant will be operated to produce 10,500 afy of desalinated water, which would then provide 8,800 afy to Cal-Am and up to 1,700 afy to Marina Coast Water District.
154. Marina Coast Water District requires 2,700 afy from Phase 1 of the Regional Project. The permanent allocation of 1700 AFY to MCWD from the desalination plant would be supplemented with the 1,000 afy of recycled water provided to Marina Coast Water District by the Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project.
155. The 10 mgd-capacity plant could provide Cal-Am's peak needs of 10,900 afy in a drought year, and still meet the simultaneous Marina Coast Water District demand of 1,700 afy, when that permanent allocation is required, because Marina Coast Water District could rely on its groundwater well pumping capacity to meet its own peak needs.
156. The desalination plant could produce up to 11,200 afy assuming operation at full capacity.
157. The calculations of the amounts of product water that are estimated to be delivered to Cal-Am and to MCWD are based on groundwater and hydrologic modeling, and parties recognize that some variance will occur.
158. Based on modeling, Settling Parties have determined that the Marina Coast Water District "agreed allocation" will be calculated by multiplying the amount of desalinated water produced by the desalination plant during a calendar year by the average percentage of the amount of Salinas Basin Water included in the Brackish Source Water.
159. For each calendar year, Marina Coast Water District's annual allocation of the desalinated water shall be the greater of either the "agreed allocation" or the permanently allocated water.
160. For purposes of determining the Marina Coast Water District "agreed allocation" the average percentage of Salinas Basin water in the source water will be deemed not to exceed 15% during the first five years of operation of the Regional Project.
161. This averaging approach allows Cal-Am to receive an average of 8,800 afy of water from the desalination plant. The Settling Parties also recognize that Cal-Am requires additional water during peak periods and in critically dry years. After the first five years of operation, the calculation of annual allocations and agreed allocations will be derived according to the formulas in Exhibit E of the Water Purchase Agreement.
162. Permanently allocated product water refers to the quantity of water needed to satisfy Marina Coast Water District customers' demand that cannot be satisfied by potable groundwater limits. This term refers to the limits for the withdrawal of water from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin imposed on Marina Coast Water District for the development of the former Fort Ord. As provided for in Section 9.4(d) of the Water Purchase Agreement, Marina Coast Water District is required to notify Cal-Am when it requires permanently allocated product water.
163. Section 8.2(a) of the Water Purchase Agreement requires that at least one vertical test well and one slant well be drilled to obtain more precise data regarding the operation of the wells and the salinity of the water extracted from the wells.
164. If test well development reveals that Cal-Am will not be able to receive its full allocation of desalinated water, Monterey County Water Resources Agency must prepare a written report; parties are to meet and confer to develop a plan of action; and Cal-Am may seek additional Commission approval, to the extent that expenditure of additional funds are required. If necessary, a contingency plan would be prepared by a mutually-acceptable engineer.
165. The Advisory Committee is to meet at least every quarter to review the prior quarter's quantity of pumped brackish source water, the average TDS and chloride concentrations, and the elevation of the Salinas Basin, and to discuss and recommend the current quarter's pumping and delivery of source water to ensure that both Cal-Am and Marina Coast Water District receive the proper allocations of desalinated water. The Advisory Committee will also meet quarterly to plan deliveries of product water that ensures that the allocations are fully met, recognizing Cal-Am's need for the full allocation of product water during its peak demand period.
166. The Settling Parties have recognized the need for accurate measurement of the volume of brackish source water deliveries from the wells to the desalination plant and of product water deliveries from the desalination plant to the Marina Coast Water District meter and the Cal-Am meter, and have spelled out details in the Water Purchase Agreement to ensure precise measurement of these quantities.
167. If feasible, DRA states that slant wells should be used because this technology could minimize the potential that Cal-Am won't receive the water its customers are paying for, could reduce costs associated with compliance with the Agency Act, and could avoid more costly energy costs associated with vertical well operation.
168. DRA and Monterey Peninsula Water Management District maintain that limiting the amount of groundwater that must remain in the basin subject the Regional Project to potential failure and risk of litigation.
169. There is little practical experience with slant wells, and drilling and operating both a vertical test well and a slant test well should provide important information.
170. We will not require the modification of the Settlement Agreement or the Water Purchase Agreement to require the use of slant wells, because we find that the test well approach that is carefully outlined in the Water Purchase Agreement is adequate.
171. Groundwater pumping for municipal and irrigation supply has led to a drop in groundwater levels and concomitant seawater intrusion.
172. Seawater has been migrating gradually into the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin since the 1940s and was first documented by the Department of Water Resources in 1946.
173. Parties have elected to use salinity as a proxy for determining the amount of source water that is seawater and the amount of water that is groundwater, but we cannot consider the salinity calculation in isolation.
174. Parties have elected to use salinity as a proxy for determining the amount of source water that is seawater and the amount of water that is groundwater, but we cannot consider the salinity calculation in isolation. As described in the Water Purchase Agreement, and in order to comply with the Agency Act, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency will monitor levels of Total Dissolved Solids in the source water, by taking into account the salinity of the seawater, the salinity of the brackish water, and the amount of brackish water supplied from the brackish water source wells, in order to determine the average percentages of seawater and Salinas Basin water delivered to the plant as feed water.
175. Based on the analysis of hydrology and groundwater modeling in the FEIR, we are persuaded that the volume of water available for desalination and delivery to Cal-Am will not be diminished, although the water that originates from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin may well become purer, because pumping the wells (whether vertical or slant wells) will not only draw seawater towards the coast, but the saline-intruded groundwater will also be drawn towards the coast, which in essence reverses the seawater intrusion dynamic, and reduces the salinity of the groundwater portion of the intake supply but does not change the volume.
176. Based on the analysis of hydrology and groundwater modeling in the FEIR, we are persuaded that the volume of water will not be diminished, although the water that remains in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin may well become purer, because pumping the wells (whether vertical or slant wells) will not only draw seawater towards the coast, but the saline-intruded groundwater will also be drawn towards the coast, which in essence reverses the seawater intrusion dynamic and reduces the salinity of the groundwater portion of the intake supply.
177. The existing Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project also reduces demand on groundwater and will help to stabilize groundwater pumping.
178. The Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project distributes recycled water through the Salinas Valley Recycling Project to agricultural users in the northern Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin and also helps to alleviate groundwater extraction in those areas.
179. The Salinas Valley Water Project (which consists of modifying the Nacimiento Dam spillway and reoperating the storage and release schedules of the Nacimiento and San Antonio reservoirs) and the Salinas River Diversion Facility will direct Salinas River water for delivery to Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project customers to replace the current use of groundwater that is delivered with the recycled water. The Salinas River Diversion Facility became operational in 2010. All of these projects and redistribution of water resources help to provide a form of "in-lieu" groundwater recharge, according to the FEIR analysis.
180. We are satisfied that the volume of water retained in the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin will be adequate to ensure that Cal-Am receives its full water allocation, even if vertical wells are ultimately determined to be the best source water technology.
181. We see no reason to modify the language in the Water Purchase Agreement that describes the test well approach and we see no reason to require the use of slant wells - an admittedly more expensive and untested technology - at this time.
182. We are satisfied that Settling Parties will ensure that a Water Contingency Plan is developed, to the extent that both slant wells and vertical wells prove to be infeasible.
183. Because of the Municipal Advisor, and because of the status reports we require, and because of the community outreach that is built into the Settlement Agreement and the Water Purchase Agreement, the Settling Parties are -as they should be - fully accountable to develop the source wells. If the Monterey County Water Resources Agency determines that this is not feasible for some reason, we will be duly informed. Based on the requirements of the Cease and Desist Order, we have no doubt that Cal-Am will petition for additional relief, if the Regional Project appears to be infeasible.
184. The parties estimate total annual O&M costs at $12.9 million, while DRA estimates that the annual costs will be $14.270 million (based on a start date of 2015).
185. The parties will have a greater understanding of the O&M costs as the desalination plant is permitted and constructed.
186. If Cal-Am elects not to take its full allocation of water, MCWD would have the right of first refusal of that water, but would pay full price for that excess water, pursuant to the WPA.
187. Although DRA objects to Cal-Am ratepayers funding the costs of a partial second pass reverse osmosis technology, it is not unreasonable to exceed the current minimum legal requirements for this major infrastructure investment.
188. It is not clear that additional pilot plant testing would not provide additional information that cannot be ascertained from the test wells, and would add delay and expense to the process.
189. A 12-month pilot test was previously conducted for the Moss Landing project, as all parties have acknowledged, and we see no reason to delay this project any further, despite the potential differences in groundwater chemistry from the seawater that was tested at MLPP.
190. Given the sensitivity analysis in DRA's testimony, it is evident that a delay in the construction period will add to the costs of the project and we are not convinced that implementation costs will be correspondingly reduced.
191. Although we are not requiring specific changes to the Settlement Agreement or the Water Purchase Agreement regarding technical issues, given BOR's experience with desalination projects, it is reasonable that Settling Parties consider their recommendations carefully, and address the recommendations in their quarterly status reports to the Commission.
192. The Cal-Am facilities consist of three large diameter conveyance pipelines (the Transfer Pipeline, the Seaside Pipeline, and the Monterey Pipeline, which also includes the Valley Greens Pump Station)two distribution storage reservoirs (the Terminal Reservoirs), and aquifer and storage recovery facilities.
193. After the permitting and design process, assuming there are no unexpected delays in the permitting of the Regional Project, actual construction of the Cal-Am facilities is anticipated to begin in late 2011 and would be completed by summer of 2014.
194. The estimated capital costs for the Cal-Am facilities range from $82.61 million to $118.75 million, with the most probable cost estimated at $95 million.
195. The Settling Parties recommend a capital cost cap of $106.875 million for Cal-Am facilities, while DRA proposes $8.4 million in cost reductions based on the most probable estimate of $95 million.
196. Based on the estimates before us, it is reasonable to adopt the Settling Parties' cost cap estimate for the Cal-Am facilities, in order to provide certainty for ratepayers and investors.
197. We do not agree that DRA's proposed reduction of $3.25 million to the aquifer storage and recovery facilities should be based on the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's actual costs to establish the Phase 1 aquifer storage and recovery facilities, because of differences in wells and design criteria.
198. The Settling Parties and DRA appear to agree that contingencies will be adjusted as the Regional Project becomes more certain, which is standard practice and provided for in Sec. 6.4(j) of the Water Purchase Agreement.
199. Any status report provided to the Commission by Cal-Am should contain the most complete and updated information available, including the updated construction budget for the Regional Project, and revised and updated components and contingency factors..
200. No party raises significant objections to the Settlement Agreement's proposed approach to treating the Cal-Am facilities (other than the transfer pipeline) as used and useful as soon as they are constructed; while this approach is unusual, we see no reason to modify the Settlement Agreement.
201. Under the Water Purchase Agreement, the cost of the desalinated water will have two components: the debt service associated with financing the capitalized costs of the Public Agency-owned facilities (including design, permitting, construction, pre-effective date costs) and the costs of operating and maintaining the facilities.
202. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, we agree that the costs of the product water would be recovered through the Modified Cost Balancing Account - essentially a balancing account already established to record and recover in rates the costs of purchased water.
203. We must consider the rate applied to AFUDC in connection with the risks incurred by Cal-Am and the amount of time its funds will be used.
204. Because we are not altering the semi-annual approach to rate recovery for the Cal-Am facilities and because we have adopted a capital cost cap without requiring a reasonableness review, we find that Cal-Am has little risk of disallowance.
205. Cal-Am should only be compensated for its actual carrying costs.
206. The proposed AFUDC rates on the record do not reflect the current economic environment and would likely result in an over- or under-collection.
207. It is reasonable to adopt an initial AFUDC rate that is more representative of current rates, and allow this rate to be trued-up to reflect actual carrying costs.
208. It is reasonable to allow Cal-Am to file Tier 2 advice letters as proposed in the Water Purchase Agreement.
209. We agree with Cal-Am and the Settling Parties that it is reasonable to allow semi-annual advice letter filings and that a true-up process is reasonable. This approach will provide some certainty as to cash flow, and can be adjusted to the extent any costs are disallowed, as Cal-Am recognizes.
210. Cal-Am has agreed to proceed in the most cost-effective manner in constructing its own facilities, and to provide a summary of costs and detail the expenditures made in the prior quarter. Cal-Am should also file a progress report and timeline that provides a detailed report on the permitting, construction, budget, timeline and progress report on each component of the Cal-Am facilities.
211. DWA staff has the discretion to compare progress made on the Regional Project with the planned budget and to consider whether sufficient progress is being achieved on the Cal-Am facilities. Cal-Am should also provide workpapers that delineate the competitive procurement process, the contracting terms, project management goals, and milestones achieved for each aspect of the project. MCWD must provide detailed workpapers to demonstrate that all costs associated with its desalination plant project were reasonably incurred and are relevant to the Regional Project. These should be provided in the Status Reports.
212. Assuming that Cal-Am adheres to the Settling Parties' estimated capital cost cap, we will not require a backward-looking reasonableness review of these costs.
213. It is reasonable to require Cal-Am to update DRA and DWA staff on the design and refined cost estimates of the Cal-Am only facilities, because this approach will help to ensure that Cal-Am explains and justifies the project costs that are included in each Tier 3 advice letter. Cal-Am should meet with DRA and DWA on a quarterly basis.
214. The ratemaking approach we authorize today eliminates the need for the Special Request 2 Surcharge authorized in D.06-12-040.
215. No party disagrees that the Regional Project is the preferred project, and no party disagrees that the Public Agencies are required participants in the Regional Project.
216. We find that the Public Agencies' participation in the Regional Project is vital to the success of this project, and therefore, the pre-effective costs incurred to date, including the legal costs, should be recoverable.
217. The pre-effective date costs are included as a line item in the calculation of the most probable estimated cost included in Exhibit C to the Settlement Agreement, and are not expected to exceed $14 million., with approximately half of those costs incurred though year-end 2009.
218. While we cannot anticipate every contingency, we would be reluctant to authorize recovery of pre-effective date costs greater than $14 million. We will carefully review such requests if Cal-Am files an application for additional capital cost recovery and will expect thorough documentation and detailed workpapers to be provided. MCWD must provide detailed workpapers to demonstrate that all costs associated with its desalination plant project were reasonably incurred and are relevant to the Regional Project. These should be provided in the Status Reports.
219. Cost allocation and rate design will be addressed in Phase 3 of this proceeding and will be coordinated with Cal-Am's next available GRC for the Monterey District.
1. Cal-Am is a Water Corporation as defined in Pub. Util. Code § 241, and may not proceed with the Coastal Water Project, or an alternative, absent our certification that the present or future public convenience and necessity require this project.
2. We have considered how the widely-recognized need may best be met by various water supply alternatives, as evaluated according to the statutory framework established by Pub. Util. Code. § 1001 et seq.
3. As the basis for granting a CPCN, the Commission must consider the need for the project, community values, recreational and park areas, historical and aesthetic values, and the influence on the environment, as set forth in Pub. Util. Code § 1002(a).
4. The review process established by CEQA is the primary vehicle for the environmental review.
5. As determined in D.03-09-022, the Commission is the lead agency for CEQA review of the Coastal Water Project.
6. CEQA precludes the lead agency from approving a proposed project or project alternative unless that agency requires the project proponent to eliminate or substantially lessen all significant effects on the environment where feasible, and determines that any unavoidable remaining significant effects are acceptable due to overriding considerations.
7. CEQA requires that, prior to approving the project or a project alternative, the lead agency must certify that the EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, that it reviewed and considered the EIR prior to approving the project or a project alternative, and that the EIR reflects our independent judgment. (Pub. Res. Code § 21082.1(c)(3), CEQA Guidelines § 15090.) Here, the final EIR was certified by the Commission in D.09-12-017.
8. If the federal agencies were to prosecute Cal-Am for "takes," under the Endangered Species Act, enforcement actions could include further reduction of the water supply and heavy fines.
9. The Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) was organized in 1960 and operates in accordance with the County Water District Law (Water Code §§ 30000 et seq.). MCWD is governed by five directors elected at-large from within MCWD's jurisdictional boundaries.
10. The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) is a public agency, which was created by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act (Agency Act), as codified in Chapter 52 in the California Water Code Appendix.
11. Pursuant to the Agency Act, no groundwater from the Salinas Basin may be exported for use outside the basin, with limited exceptions for Fort Ord, and MCWRA may obtain an injunctive relief from the court prohibiting the exportation of such groundwater.
12. The Monterey County Board of Supervisors is ex officio the Board of Supervisors of MCWRA. The Board of Supervisors appoints a nine-member Board of Directors for MCWRA. Each of the five supervisors of Monterey County appoints one director and the other four are appointed by majority vote of the supervisors from nominees submitted by various agricultural groups.
13. The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) is governed by a Board of Directors, consisting of a Monterey County Supervisor, a director of MCWD, mayors and city council members of various cities served by the Pollution Control Agency, and members of various sanitation districts.
14. The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) was created in 1977 for purposes of managing and regulating the use, reuse, reclamation, conservation of water, and financing public works projects.
15. MPWMD is governed by a seven member board of directors. Five of the directors are elected directly, one member is an elected Monterey County Supervisor, and one member is a member, councilmember, or city manager appointed by the mayors of the six cities within the boundaries of the MPWMD: Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Sand City, and Seaside.
16. In D.09-07-021, we have ordered Cal-Am to reduce leaks and to carefully account for previously-unaccounted for water and to explore the use of non-potable water to serve non-agriculture landscaping needs.
17. The timing associated with water supply constraints has become more critical with the issuance of the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) WR 2009-0060, its final Cease and Desist Order, issued on October 20, 2009.
18. SWRCB Order WR 2009-0060 requires Cal-Am to undertake additional measures to reduce its diversions from the Carmel River and to terminate all such diversions no later than December 31, 2016. A court order temporarily stayed the Cease and Desist Order, but the Superior Court of Santa Clara County lifted the stay on April 22, 2010.
19. Pursuant to Rule 13.9, which provides that "[o]fficial notice may be taken of such matters as may be judicially noticed by the courts of the State of California pursuant to Evidence Code section 450 et seq.," it is reasonable to grant Cal-Am's uncontested request for official notice of SWRCB Order WR 2009-0060 and the Superior Court's Order dissolving the stay.
20. Based on the mandatory cumulative annual reductions, the estimated operational yield from the ASR project, the estimated afy supplied by the Sand City desalination plant, and the estimated Coastal Water Project output, the Cease and Desist Order finds that the total amount diverted from the Carmel River must not exceed Cal-Am's water rights of 3,376 afy by the 2016-17 water year.
21. Because permitting and building the approved desalination plant and associated infrastructure will take a significant amount of time, it is reasonable to approve the Regional Project without delay in order to ensure that the required water supply is available to the Monterey Peninsula by the 2016-17 water year, as required by the SWRCB.
22. We concluded in D.09-12-017 that the FEIR for the Coastal Water Project complied with CEQA, and found that the FEIR is the competent and comprehensive informational tool that CEQA requires it to be.
23. Because we determined that the FEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, that the FEIR has been presented to the Commissioners (the decision-making body of the Commission), and has been reviewed, considered, and applied prior to action on the project, and that the FEIR reflects the Commission's independent judgment and analysis, we certified the FEIR on December 17, 2009 in D.09-12-017.
24. The No-Project Alternative would not satisfy the requirements of Order 95-10, would not protect the Seaside Basin, would not result in a drought-proof water supply, and would not protect the listed species in the riparian and aquatic habitat below the San Clemente dam; therefore the No-Project Alternative is not a tenable option.
25. Because of the lengthy history of the Coastal Water Project, the FEIR alternatives analysis entailed consideration of many alternatives in the context of several different proposed projects and various related documents, including the New Los Padres Dam and Reservoir EIR (originally proposed by the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District in 1989 and defeated by voters in 1995), the Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project (considered in A.97-03-052, precluded by AB 1182, and dismissed in D.03-09-022), and the Commission's Water Supply Contingency Plan Evaluation and Coastal Water Project EIR (prepared in response to AB 1182 and known colloquially as Plan B).
26. It is reasonable to require Cal-Am to implement the mitigation measures set forth in Appendix C as a condition of the approval of its participation in the Regional Project and as a condition for issuing the CPCN.
27. Pursuant to Rule 12.1(d), the Commission must ensure that a settlement is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with the law, and in the public interest.
28. According to the provisions of Monterey County Code Chapter 10.72.30(B), private ownership of a desalination plant is prohibited.
29. The Outfall Agreement commits sufficient capacity in the existing Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency's outfall such that Marina Coast Water District can discharge the brine, but does not require approval by this Commission.
30. It is reasonable to set the capital cost cap at the highest estimated cost, including a 25% cost contingency factor, because this approach to capital cost recovery strikes a fair balance that will allow certainty in project financing and protection for Cal-Am ratepayers.
31. We do not agree with DRA's assertion that only a per-acre-foot cost cap will allow us to approve just and reasonable rates.
32. The Commission's determination that the costs associated with the Regional Desalination Project are just and reasonable is conditioned upon MCWD's and MCWRA's full compliance with the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and the Water Purchase Agreement and with the current law and practices.
33. The infrastructure associated with the Regional Project is required to ensure that Cal-Am can continue to provide adequate water supplies and service to its customers, consistent with the requirements of Pub. Util. Code § 789.1(c).
34. In D.05-11-026 and D.05-12-040, the Commission's decisions considering the steam generator replacements for the Diablo Canyon and SONGS nuclear plants, respectively, the Commission adopted cost caps for these major infrastructure projects, determined that a reasonableness review would be conducted, to the extent that PG&E and SCE sought recovery of costs over the authorized cost cap, and also determined that there was an absolute ceiling beyond which the Commission would not authorize ratepayer recovery.
35. It is reasonable to require Cal-Am to file and serve the financing plan in this proceeding, once that plan is final.
36. The Commission must retain its authority to ensure that Cal-Am ratepayers are paying cost-based rates related to the Regional Project, and we must have the discretion to verify that these costs are appropriate, are project-based, and do not include any costs that would otherwise be paid by the Public Agencies in the normal course of business. The Public Agencies have their own transparent processes and procedures. To the extent that these agencies, in exercising their duties to be accountable to their constituencies, find that particular aspects of the Regional Project are not reasonable and cost-effective, it is reasonable to require Cal-Am to bring this issue to the Commission for its review and consideration, by filing the appropriate pleading.
37. It is reasonable to approve the Advice Letter filing procedures proposed in the Water Purchase Agreement.
38. We intend to fully consider the debt equivalence issue when Cal-Am files an application addressing this issue; however, we are fully cognizant of the need for the investor-owned utilities we regulate to remain financially viable, as set forth with particularity in Pub. Util. Code § 727.5(e).
39. While the Commission must consider the Settlement Agreement as a whole, we must also ensure that the various provisions of the Settlement and the Water Purchase Agreement are in the public interest.
40. On balance, it is reasonable to add a Municipal Advisor to the Advisory Committee.
41. As Public Agencies, both the Marina Coast Water District and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency are subject to the requirements of the Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950 et seq.) and the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250 et seq.).
42. We do not find that the Advisory Committee must be subject to these same requirements. The procedures we have adopted today, along with the procedures that the Public Agencies must adhere to, provide sufficient information for the public and adequate avenues for public participation.
43. Because the Marina Coast Water District is located within the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, it will take an annual allocation of desalinated water for distribution within its service territory; this approach allows the Regional Project to comply with the Agency Act.
44. Compliance with the Agency Act is within the Monterey County Water Resources Agency's jurisdiction and it is reasonable that this agency would determine the particular types of wells to drill based on analysis of the data and after consultation with the Marina Coast Water District and Cal-Am.
45. It is reasonable that the Monterey County Water Resources Agency would also determine whether the Marina Coast Water District's "agreed allocation" (i.e., up to 1,700 afy based on the assumption of an average of 15% groundwater in the brackish source water) can be delivered and still meet the requirements of the Agency Act. Given the importance of the water allocation issue, it is reasonable to require Cal-Am to submit a report after the first five-year period, and with every GRC filing thereafter, that provides updated information on the water supply obligations and deliveries addressed in Section 9 of the Water Purchase Agreement. Cal-Am must submit this report to DRA and DWA, and serve all parties in this proceeding.
46. For the Cal-Am facilities, it is reasonable to determine that, once constructed, the conveyance, pumping, and reservoir facilities will be designated as used and useful for ratemaking purposes, even if the Regional Project is delayed for some reason.
47. The transfer pipeline used to deliver desalinated water downstream from the delivery point to the Cal-Am facilities throughout its distribution system will not be deemed used and useful until the Regional Project is completed.
48. The Commission has continuing jurisdiction over Cal-Am to ensure that rates are just and reasonable.
49. Cal-Am should be required obtain authorization from the Commission before it may give its consent or approval of O&M costs under the Water Purchase Agreement.
50. We do not consider the Commission's ongoing oversight of Cal-Am to ensure just and reasonable rates to be a material change to the Water Purchase Agreement.
51. For an infrastructure project of this magnitude, the Commission must be apprised of the impact on rates and must have the ability to understand and monitor the costs involved; therefore, we will hold the Settling Parties accountable to the provisions outlined in the Settlement Agreement and the Water Purchase Agreement, as set forth in Section 4.3, Cost Management.
52. Because we adopt the Settling Parties' proposed cost cap of $106.875 million cost cap for the Cal-Am facilities, recovery of costs greater than $106.875 million will only be approved for ratepayer recovery upon a showing that these costs were the result of extraordinary circumstances and subject to a heightened level of scrutiny.
53. Any sale of excess product water should inure to the benefit of Cal-Am ratepayers, who are providing the vast majority of the funding for this Regional Project and should correspondingly benefit from any sales of the product water.
54. It is reasonable and consistent with the public interest that the Water Purchase Agreement requires use of a partial second-pass reverse osmosis technology in order to protecting public resources and the health and well-being of humans and plants.
55. We must consider overall feasibility of the project, including the Cal-Am facilities, in our assessment of the Regional Project. A project of this magnitude will require substantial time for permitting and review by local authorities. Given the exigencies of the Cease and Desist Order, it is not reasonable to place additional permitting constraints on the Cal-Am facilities.
56. While we do not assert jurisdiction over the Public Agencies, we must retain our non-delegable constitutional duty to ensure that the rates eventually established are just and reasonable.
57. It is reasonable to adopt an initial AFUDC rate of 4.00% to compensate Cal-Am for its carrying costs and allow for a true-up to reflect actual carrying costs. The Settlement Agreement should be so modified.
58. As we determined in D.07-08-031, effective regulatory oversight and the magnitude of this infrastructure investment deserves thoughtful consideration by the full Commission, as costs are rolled into rates.
59. The Special Request 2 Surcharge authorized in D.06-12-040 should be eliminated.
60. It is reasonable to require the Public Agencies to repay the portion of the pre-effective date costs that are addressed in the Reimbursement Agreement approved in D.10-08-008.
61. It is reasonable to find that the Settlement Agreement and Water Purchase Agreement are reasonable in light of the entire record, in compliance with the law, and in the public interest. We agree with the Settling Parties: time is of the essence to ensure that the Regional Project can be permitted, financed, and constructed.
62. The Settlement Agreement and the Water Purchase Agreement we approve today have far-reaching consequences. While we cannot bind future Commissions, we are guided by the Commission's findings in D.06-09-040.
63. Commission precedent establishes that we cannot bind the actions of future Commissions; however, we believe the settlement is a fair, just, and reasonable compromise of the many long-standing, difficult, and costly issues involved in solving the water supply constraints on the Monterey Peninsula and ensuring that the restrictive water reductions set forth in the State Water Resources Control Board Cease and Desist Order can be avoided if the Regional Project is built.
64. It is reasonable to state our intent that all future Commissions recognize and give full consideration and weight to the fact that this settlement and implementing agreements, as modified, have been approved based on the expectations and reasonable reliance of the parties and this Commission that all its terms and conditions will be implemented by future Commissions.
65. Because of the timing of the State Water Resources Control Board Cease and Desist Order, this decision should be effective today, in order to allow the Regional Project to be financed, permitted, and constructed as soon as practicable.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Settlement Agreement and Implementing Agreements, filed on April 7, 2010, and updated by the Settling Parties on August 31, 2010, are approved.
2. Beginning January 15, 2011, California-American Water Company shall submit quarterly status reports on the permitting, financing, design, bidding, and construction of the Regional Project to the Executive Director and to the Director of the. California-American Water Company shall meet quarterly with Division of Ratepayer Advocates and staff. No modification to the Settlement Agreement is required to effectuate this requirement. The Marina Coast Water Management District must provide detailed workpapers to demonstrate that all costs associated with its desalination plant project were reasonably incurred and are relevant to the Regional Project and shall provide these workpapers to California-American Water Company, which shall include them in the Status Reports.
3. To the extent that the Public Agencies, in exercising their duties to be transparent and accountable to their constituencies, find that particular aspects of the Regional Project are not reasonable and cost-effective, then California-American Water Company must bring this issue to the Commission for its review and consideration, by filing the appropriate pleading.
4. Within 60 days after the first five-year period of the Water Purchase Agreement, and with every General Rate Case filing thereafter, California-American Water Company shall submit a report that provides updated information on the water supply obligations and deliveries addressed in Section 9 of the Water Purchase Agreement. California-American Water Company must submit this report to Division of Ratepayer and Advocates and Division of Water and Audits, and serve all parties in this proceeding.
5. California-American Water Company shall submit regular filings as to the adequacy of the water received and any issues with respect to adequate ratepayer representation. These filings shall be served on the Director of the Division of Ratepayer and Advocates and the Director of the Division of Water and Audits, as well as all parties in this proceeding.
6. California-American Water Company shall file a Tier 2 Advice Letter seeking authorization to consent to O&M costs prior to giving its consent or approval under the Water Purchase Agreement. Rate recovery for any O&M expenditures will not be authorized absent prior Commission authorization.
7. We approve the Regional Project and issue a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to California-American Water Company for the following components of the Regional Project: the Transfer Pipeline, the Seaside Pipeline, the Monterey Pipeline, including the Valley Greens pump station, the Terminal Reservoirs, and the Aquifer Storage and Recovery facilities, subject to California-American Water Company complying with all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final Environmental Report and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program contained in Appendix C of this decision.
8. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Appendix C is adopted herein.
9. The California Environmental Quality Act Findings of Fact for the Regional Project in Appendix B accurately reflect the independent analysis contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report and are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, and are incorporated as findings herein.
10. We certify the Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report issued on March 24, 2010 and received into evidence on June 14, 2010.
11. The Special Request 2 Surcharge authorized in Decision 06-12-040 is no longer applicable.
12. Marina Coast Water District and the Monterey County Water Resources Agency shall repay to California-American Water Company the portion of the pre-effective date costs included in the Reimbursement Agreement approved in Decision 10-08-008, as provided for in that Reimbursement Agreement.
13. Application 04-09-019 remains open to address other issues, including but not limited to cost allocation and rate design, intervenor compensation, and pending petitions for modification.
This order is effective today.
Dated December 2, 2010, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
JOHN A. BOHN
TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON
NANCY E. RYAN
Commissioners
I reserve the right to file a dissent.
/s/ DIAN M. GRUENEICH
Commissioner
Appendix A
List of Acronyms
A Application
AB Assembly Bill
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
AFUDC Allowance for Funds Used During Construction
AFY of afy Acre-feet per year
ALJ Administrative Law Judge
ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery
BOR Bureau of Reclamation
Cal-AM or CAW California American Water Company
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CPCN Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
CSIP Castroville Seaside Intrusion Project
CWP Coastal Water Project
D Decision
DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DRA Division of Ratepayer Advocates
DWA Division of Water and Audits
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
MCWD Marina Coast Water District
MCWRA Monterey County Water Resources Agency
mg/L Milligrams per Liter
mgd Million gallons per day
MLPP Moss Landing Power Plant
MPWMD Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
MRWMD Monterey Regional Waste Management District
MRWPCA Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
NOAA National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
O&M Operations and Maintenance
PAB Private Activity Bonds
PEA Proponent's Environmental Assessment
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PPHs Public Participating Hearings
PM10 Particulate Matter greater than 10 Microns
Pub. Res. Code Public Resource Code
Pub. Util. Code Public Utilities Code
REPOG Regional Plenary Oversight Group
RT Reporters Transcript
RUWAP Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project
SCE Southern California Edison Company
SONGS San Onofre Nuclear Generation Station
SRDF Salinas River Diversion Facility
SRF State Revolving Fund
SVRP Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant
SVWP Salinas Valley Water Project
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWTP Surface Water Treatment Plant
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Water Purchase Agreement Water Purchase Agreement
(END OF APPENDIX A)
APPENDIX B
CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
I. INTRODUCTION
This document contains the CEQA findings, as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081, to support the decision of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on the proposed regional desalination water facility and associated infrastructure (Regional Project), addressing each significant impact associated with the Regional Project, the feasibility of alternatives to the Regional Project and the myriad benefits of the Regional Project that support approval and outweigh any remaining environmental impacts.
The California-American Water Company (CalAm) has been ordered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to cease diverting more than its legal right to 3,376 acre feet of water per year (AFY) from the Carmel River on or before December 31, 2016. As a result, CalAm must secure replacement supplies of 8,498 AFY. In addition, in California American Water v. City of Seaside et al., a case adjudicating water rights of various parties who use groundwater from the Seaside Basin, the Monterey County Superior Court Case issued a final decision requiring CalAm to find 2,975 AFY in replacement supplies that it currently draws from the Seaside Basin. To provide replacement water supplies, CalAm applied to the CPUC for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for a desalination water facility known as the Coastal Water Project (CWP). In general, the CWP consists of several basic elements: a desalination plant, a water intake mechanism, a brine outfall mechanism, desalinated water conveyance and storage infrastructure and aquifer storage and recovery.
CalAm originally proposed to implement the CWP through construction and operation of a desalination plant co-located with the Moss Landing Power Plant, and the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared by the CPUC fully examined this option as the Moss Landing Alternative. The FEIR also analyzed the option of a CalAm owned and operated desalination plant at the North Marina location, denoted the North Marina Alternative.
The preferred project now under consideration is a public-private partnership identified as the Regional Project and includes a new desalination facility capable of producing up to 10 million gallons per day (mgd) of desalinated water to be located on the North Marina site. Construction of the regional desalination facility is scheduled to begin in late 2011 and would be completed by the summer of 2014. The Regional Project described in the FEIR consists not only of the regional desalination plant and all associated infrastructure, but also other water supply projects approved by other agencies, some of which are currently in the process of being constructed. This overall group of regional water supply projects (including the regional desalination components) is referred to herein as the "Phase 1 Regional Project," while the regional desalination plant and associated facilities is referred to merely as the "Regional Project." In addition to the proposed desalination plant, the Phase 1 Regional Project includes previously analyzed and permitted water supply projects that will be undertaken whether or not the CWP is implemented. These projects include the Sand City desalination plant, the Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP), two existing aquifer storage and recovery wells, as well as potential demand offset of up to 1,000 AFY from conservation. The various components of the Phase 1 Regional Project would, taken together, provide replacement water supply of 15,200 AFY: 12,500 AFY to CalAm customers and 2,700 AFY of water supply to the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD). As noted above, other components of the Phase 1 Regional Project have already been approved by other agencies and some are in the process of being constructed. Thus, the only portions of the Phase 1 Regional Project that the CPUC is considering, and that are therefore addressed by these Findings, are the proposed regional desalination plant and associated infrastructure (i.e., intake, pipelines, aquifer storage and recovery facilities, reservoirs, transmission mains and use of an existing outfall).
As to the proposed desalination plant, the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) would own, construct, operate and maintain the six vertical source water wells and raw water conveyance facilities to a centralized location where the source water would then be delivered to the desalination plant. MCWD would own, construct, operate, and maintain the portion of the raw water conveyance facilities from the centralized location to the desalination plant, the desalination plant itself and the product water conveyance facilities to the delivery point, which then becomes CalAm's intake point. CalAm would own, construct, operate, and maintain the pipeline, conveyance, and pumping facilities necessary to deliver water to its customers. Specifically, CalAm seeks a CPCN from the CPUC for the following aspects of the Regional Project: Transmission Main South, Terminal Reservoir, the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Facilities and the Monterey Pipeline, including the Valley Greens Pump Station. The Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Authority (MRWPCA) would own, operate, and maintain the outfall for the return of the brine to the sea. The parties have filed a motion with the Commission to approve a Settlement Agreement providing for the development, construction and operation of the Regional Project. The portions of the Regional Project proposed to be constructed, owned and operated by CalAm are hereinafter referred to as the "CalAm Facilities." The portions of the Regional Project proposed to be constructed, owned and operated by other agencies are hereinafter referred to as the "Non-CalAm Facilities."
In 1996, CalAm proposed the Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project (CRDRP) as a means to comply with the SWRCB order to cease unlawful diversions from the Carmel River. In response, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 1182, requiring the CPUC, in consultation with CalAm, the State Department of Water Resources, and other affected interests, to conduct a long-term contingency plan describing the program or combination of programs that CalAm would pursue if the CRDRP were not to proceed. The plan was completed in 2002 and concluded that a combination of desalination and aquifer storage and recovery could produce the estimated replacement water supply needs of CalAm. In 2003, the CPUC issued a decision that dismissed CalAm's CRDRP application, ordered CalAm to file a new application for the CWP and determined that the CPUC would be the lead agency for environmental review of the CWP under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CalAm submitted an application for the Moss Landing Alternative, and preparation of the FEIR began. A regional project concept was described in the Notice of Preparation for the FEIR and was discussed at the scoping meetings for the FEIR. The Regional Project currently described in the FEIR evolved as a result of continued stakeholder participation and input. Thus, the notion of a regionally-focused project entailing participation from multiple other public entities was envisioned at the outset of the CEQA process and the CPUC, as lead agency for the FEIR, assisted in sponsoring development of the Regional Project. Since the CPUC is approving a settlement agreement and related Water Purchase Agreement that governs all of the Regional Project and will later act under its rate-making authority on the entire Regional Project, the CPUC is the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15051(b). Thus, the CPUC has always been, and remains, the appropriate lead agency for the FEIR. Furthermore, no interested party challenged either the 2003 decision declaring the CPUC to be the lead agency or the 2009 CPUC decision certifying the FEIR in its lead agency capacity.
In accordance with CEQA, the CPUC prepared and published a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the CWP. The DEIR analyzed at an equal project-level of detail the following three alternative scenarios for implementing the CWP: the Moss Landing Alternative, the North Marina Alternative, and the Phase I Regional Project. The CPUC received and responded to comments received on the DEIR. On December 17, 2009, the CPUC certified the FEIR for the CWP. References herein to the FEIR includes the DEIR, revised to reflect the comments received on the DEIR, as well as the comments and the responses to the comments themselves, and the March 2010 Addendum to the FEIR, which addresses errata in the text of the FEIR and includes responses to comment letters that had inadvertently been omitted from the FEIR. The FEIR concludes that most of the environmental impacts of the Regional Project can be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of specified mitigation measures. Although certain of the Regional Project's impacts related to construction air quality and operation-related greenhouse gas (greenhouse gas) emissions could potentially be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of specific mitigation measures, the FEIR conservatively concludes that these impacts would be significant and unavoidable because they would require implementation and cooperation by other agencies not under the CPUC's jurisdiction or control and due to feasibility concerns further enumerated below.
With this background in mind, the CPUC makes the following findings concerning the significant environmental impacts of the Regional Project, the feasibility of alternatives to the Regional Project and the statement of benefits of the Regional Project that outweigh its significant unavoidable environmental impacts.
II. FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The FEIR identified the following potential impacts on the environment as significant. Except for certain impacts described below related to construction air quality and operational greenhouse gas emissions, the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures will reduce the potential impacts of the Regional Project to a less than significant level. The Findings address all significant impacts identified by the FEIR, including both impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant level and impacts that cannot be and thus are significant and unavoidable. The CPUC finds that all other impacts would be less than significant in accordance with the conclusions of the FEIR.
In the case of the CalAm Facilities, the applicable and feasible mitigation measures described below have been imposed by the CPUC as conditions of approval on the Regional Project. In the case of Non-CalAm Facilities, the applicable and feasible mitigation measures described below can and should be (and in most cases, already have been) imposed as conditions of approval by MCWD, MCWRA and/or MRWPCA on the Regional Project. To make the mitigation measures specific to the Regional Project, minor revisions have been made to the text of certain mitigation measures imposed by the CPUC, described herein and set forth in full in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), as compared to the text of those measures in the FEIR.
As to the CalAm Facilities, the CPUC finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Regional Project which avoid or substantially lessen most of the significant environmental effects identified in the FEIR. As to the Non-CalAm Facilities, the CPUC finds that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the CPUC and that such changes have been, or can and should be, adopted by such other agencies. The CPUC further finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives that are not required in, or incorporated into, the Regional Project.
As described below, after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the Regional Project will have a significant unavoidable impact in the area of construction air quality (both at a project level and cumulatively) and operational greenhouse gas emissions.
A. Surface Water Resources
1. Impact 6.1-1: Project construction activities would cause erosion and increase stormwater runoff resulting in an adverse water quality impact.
a. Impact. Construction of the Intake Facilities would involve drilling a series of wells into the seawater intruded portion of the 180-foot Aquifer and also would involve earthmoving activities such as excavation, grading, soil stockpiling, and backfilling. The construction activities would generate loose, erodible soils that, if not properly managed, could be washed into surface water by rain or by water used during grading operations. Soil erosion could cause excess sediment loads and affect the water quality of any nearby ditch or water body. Construction activities would involve use of fuel and other chemicals that, if not managed properly, could be washed off into the stormwater, resulting in a significant water quality impact.
b. Mitigation. In accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.1-1, the project sponsors are subject to the SWRCB General Construction Permit requirements, which require development and implementation of a monitoring program. The program will require the contractor to conduct inspections of the construction site prior to anticipated storm events and after actual storm events. During extended storm events, the inspections will be conducted after every 24 hours. The inspections will be conducted to identify areas contributing to stormwater discharge, to evaluate whether measures to reduce pollutant loadings identified in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) are adequate and properly installed and functioning in accordance with the General Construction Permit, and to determine whether additional control practices or corrective maintenance activities are needed.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 will reduce Impact 6.1-1 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.1-1 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non Cal-Am Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non Cal-Am Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
2. Impact 6.1-2: Excavation during construction could require dewatering of shallow groundwater. The water discharge, if contaminated, could adversely affect surface water.
a. Impact. Excavation during project construction may intercept shallow or perched groundwater, requiring temporary localized dewatering to facilitate construction. Groundwater encountered during excavation would be pumped and discharged to the local drainage system. Water from dewatering operations could contain materials used during typical construction activities such as silt, fuel, grease or other chemicals. The discharge from construction dewatering could thus contaminate downstream surface water. This could be a significant impact, however it would be localized and temporary. The discharge would be subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements.
b. Mitigation. Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 requires project sponsors to notify the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) prior to discharge of extracted groundwater and provide the results of required water quality tests performed. It also requires project sponsors to conduct treatment of the extracted groundwater as required under the applicable permit issued by the RWQCB (e.g., waiver, site-specific permit or permit for low threat discharges).
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 will reduce Impact 6.1-2 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non Cal-Am Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non Cal-Am Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
3. Impact 6.1-4: The project discharge associated with the proposed Regional Desalination Facility could adversely affect water quality in Monterey Bay.
a. Impact. The project discharge from the proposed desalination facility, including any wastewater generated from the Surface Water Treatment Plant, could affect the water quality in Monterey Bay at varying degrees depending upon the parameter of concern. The analysis includes potential impacts related to salinity, temperature, treatment chemicals, potential contaminants in source water, and dissolved oxygen content of the project discharge. The potential impacts due to elevated salinity, temperature, treatment chemical and source water contaminants would be less than significant. The project discharge would reduce the dissolved oxygen levels in Monterey Bay by approximately 3.11 percent to 4.41 percent at the maximum estimated source-water dissolved oxygen concentration of 2.0 milligrams/liter (mg/L). Even with a dissolved oxygen concentration of 0.5 mg/L in the source water, the decrease in dissolved oxygen in the diluted discharge would be approximately 5.19 percent and 5.51 percent for ambient concentrations in Monterey Bay of 4.25 mg/L and 8.00 mg/L. The percentage decrease in dissolved oxygen would be less than 10 percent for all scenarios. The ambient dissolved oxygen concentration in Monterey Bay, near the MRWPCA outfall, may be as low as 4.5 mg/L. The Basin Plan for the RWQCB states that the dissolved oxygen concentration in Monterey Bay shall not be reduced below 5.0 mg/L at any time. Consequently, when ambient dissolved oxygen is less than or equal to 5.0 mg/L, any decrease in dissolved oxygen could be significant.
b. Mitigation. In accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.1-4c, the project sponsor shall develop and implement an aeration system capable of providing dissolved oxygen in the discharge of 5.0 mg/L or higher. The CPUC shall review the aeration system prior to implementation.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-4c will reduce Impact 6.1-4 to a less than significant level. This impact does not affect the CalAm Facilities. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.1-4c can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD on the regional desalination facility.
B. Groundwater Resources
1. Impact 6.2-1: Components of the Regional Project may violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
a. Impact. The construction and development of ASR injection/extraction wells and/or desalination water supply wells may cause short-term changes in groundwater quality or violate waste discharge requirements. Well drilling and construction could degrade groundwater quality while discharge of well development water to the ground surface or waters of the State, such as local streams or the Pacific Ocean, could degrade receiving water quality by introducing foreign matter, increasing turbidity, or altering water chemistry beyond Basin Plan limits. The discharge of development water would vary in duration, water quality and volume depending on the type of well (ASR or vertical, or angled extraction well). Degradation of groundwater and/or surface water through the process of well drilling and development would be considered a significant impact.
b. Mitigation. Per Mitigation Measure 4.2-1, prior to pumping development water from all groundwater wells constructed as part of the project, the project sponsor shall consult with RWQCB to determine the appropriate discharge permitting for the well development discharge. The permitting requirements will differ depending on the duration of the discharge, the quality of the water to be discharged, and the discharge location. Based on RWQCB consultation, the proper Application/Report of Waste Discharge shall be prepared for the waste discharge requirements or NPDES Permit. If a Report of Waste Discharge is required, it shall include, at a minimum, a characterization of the discharge water, estimates of discharge rates and volumes, characterization of the discharge area and determination of the potential impact to groundwater, soils, surface water, runoff, and flooding.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 will reduce Impact 6.2-1 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 on the pertinent CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWRA on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities under that agency's jurisdiction.
C. Marine Biological Resources
1. Impact 6.3-1: The project discharge from the Regional desalination facility could result in degradation of marine habitat and species.
a. Impact. This impact relates to the reduction in dissolved oxygen levels in Monterey Bay as a result of the project discharge. See, Impact 6.1-4.
b. Mitigation. Implement Mitigation Measure 4.1-4c. In accordance with this measure, the project sponsor shall develop and implement an aeration system capable of providing dissolved oxygen in the discharge of 5.0 mg/L or higher.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-4c will reduce Impact 6.3-1 to a less than significant level. This impact does not affect the CalAm Facilities. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.1-4c can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities under that agency's jurisdiction.
D. Biological Resources
1. Impact 6.4-1: Construction and operation of the new facilities associated with the Regional Project may adversely affect species identified as rare, threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive or other special status by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
a. Impact. Construction of the subsurface intakes and pipelines could affect species identified as rare, threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive, or other special status by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Trenching and other soil disturbance has the potential to cause direct mortality of special status plants and their seed accumulated in the soil. Special status animals could be killed by vehicles and equipment, their burrows or other retreats could be crushed, or they could be killed if they fall into trenches or pits and cannot escape. Trenching and other surface-disturbing activity could dry out streams, wetlands or seasonal ponds in which aquatic animals live, or pools in which the larval stages of amphibians are developing. Sediment or other pollutants could cause mortality to aquatic animals in streams at and below the construction areas.
b. Mitigation. Per Mitigation Measure 4.4-1, the project proponent shall carry out the following measures (either directly or through provisions incorporated into the contract specifications for the Regional Project) for those facilities and pipeline reaches identified as potentially supporting special-status species.
(i) Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a: Avoid harm or harassment of special-status invertebrates (Smith's Blue Butterfly). Smith's blue butterflies could occur in several portions of the project area where their host plant occurs, including near the sourcewater intake facilities adjacent to coastal dunes. Focused surveys for Host Buckwheat Plants shall be conducted by a qualified biologist before responsible agencies charged with regulating and permitting for species. Maps depicting the results of these surveys shall be prepared. Construction of project elements will be planned to avoid mapped habitat for Smith's blue butterfly. If impacts to host plants are unavoidable, surveys shall be conducted to determine if Smith's blue butterflies are present, following USFWS's guidelines. If no butterflies are found, no further mitigation is required. If Smith's blue butterflies are found, consultation will be required with the USFWS to determine the necessary level of compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation may include removal and safe relocation of host plants.
(ii) Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c: Avoid harm or harassment of California red-legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, and Santa Cruz long-toed salamanders. These species could occur in aquatic habitats in the project area, including the desalination plant site, sourcewater intake facilities and return flow pipelines. Construction in and around aquatic habitats could result in direct take of individuals (e.g., being crushed by heavy machinery) and loss of habitat by changing composition. To determine whether any special-status aquatic species would be affected by any given project element, surveys shall be conducted at the specific project site (following standard USFWS protocol in the case of red-legged frogs and salamanders). If it is determined that any of these federally listed species is present, formal consultation with the USFWS would be necessary. Construction of project elements shall be planned to avoid habitat for special status aquatic species such as the California red-legged frog. If construction will occur adjacent to potential habitat, impacts would be avoided or minimized as follows:
· Prior to any construction activities, the boundaries of construction areas will be clearly delineated with orange plastic construction fencing to prevent workers or equipment from inadvertently straying from the construction area. All construction personnel, equipment, and vehicle movement shall be confined to designated construction areas and connecting roadways. Movement of construction and personal vehicles shall be prohibited outside designated construction areas or off established roadways.
· Prior to the onset of any ground-disturbing activities, exclusion fencing will be established around areas of potentially occupied habitat, as determined by a qualified biologist. Exclusion fencing shall consist of silt-fencing or similar material at least 36 inches in height that is buried at least six inches in the ground to prevent incursion under the fence. This fence shall be surveyed each morning before construction to verify that no frogs or other special status aquatic species have entered the construction site.
· Before any construction activities begin, a biologist approved by the USFWS shall conduct a training session with construction personnel to describe the red-legged frog and its habitat, the specific measures being implemented to minimize effects on the species, and the boundaries of the construction area.
· All food-related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and removed daily from the project site to discourage the concentration of potential predators in habitat potentially occupied by California red-legged frogs.
(iii) Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Avoid direct mortality and/or disturbance of special-status plant populations. Floristic surveys of all suitable habitat for special status plants shall be conducted prior to the permitting phase of the project. Maps depicting the results of these surveys shall be prepared for use in final siting design. Sensitive plant species are widespread and could occur at various sites associated with the different project components.
Project facilities shall be sited to avoid impacts on special status plants and their required habitat constituent elements, when reasonably feasible. Unavoidable impacts on listed plant species require formal consultation with the USFWS and the CDFG. Impacts on non-listed species would likely involve informal consultation.
Special-status plant occurrences located within temporary construction areas shall be fenced or flagged for avoidance prior to construction, and a biological monitor shall be present to ensure compliance with off-limits areas. Seasonal avoidance measures (i.e., limited operating periods based on timing of annual plant dormancy), combined with topsoil salvage and site restoration, may be acceptable in some cases. Compensation for permanent loss of special-status plant occurrences, in the form of land purchase or restoration, must be provided to the level acceptable to the resource agencies.
Compensatory measures will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the lead agency in consultation with the USFWS and the CDFG. Compensation for loss of special-status plant populations typically involves the purchase and permanent stewardship of known occupied habitat or the restoration and reintroduction of populations in degraded, unoccupied habitat. Restoration or reintroduction may be located on- or off-site. In the latter case, a Site Restoration Plan shall be required to be prepared by the applicant and approved by USFWS and/or CDFG, as appropriate. It shall include the following:
(1) The location of areas to restore lost plant populations;
(2) A description of propagation and planting techniques to be employed in the restoration effort; plants to be impacted shall have their seeds collected so that the seeds can be planted within the restoration areas;
(3) A time table for implementation of the restoration plan, including pilot-phase studies;
(4) A monitoring plan and performance criteria (Performance criteria may vary across sites and species, but is intended to provide proof of restoration success. This is normally a majority of the plants surviving a minimum of five years.);
(5) A description of remedial measures to be performed if initial restoration measures are unsuccessful in meeting the performance criteria; and,
(6) A description of the site maintenance activities to follow restoration activities; these may include weed control, irrigation, and control of herbivory by livestock and wildlife. Site maintenance activities shall be altered or intensified when necessary to meet performance criteria.
(iv) Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e: Avoid Construction Impacts on Burrowing Owls. Burrowing owl habitat may occur at the following project locations: Regional Project Desalination Plant, Transmission Main South, Regional Project Sourcewater Pipelines, and ASR Facilities. Preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls shall be completed in potential habitat in conformance with CDFG protocols, and no more than thirty days prior to the start of construction. If no burrowing owls are located during these surveys, no additional action would be warranted. However, if breeding or resident owls are located on or immediately adjacent to the site, a 250-foot buffer, within which no new activity is permissible, shall be maintained between project activities and nesting burrowing owls. This protected area shall remain in effect until August 31 or, at the discretion of the CDFG and based upon monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging independently. If construction will directly impact occupied burrows, eviction outside the nesting season may be permitted pending evaluation of eviction plans and receipt of formal written approval from the CDFG authorizing the eviction. No burrowing owls shall be evicted from burrows during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31).
(v) Mitigation Measure 4.4-1f: Avoid Construction Impacts on Other Special-Status Birds. Special status birds typically nest in California between March 1 and September 1. If construction-related work is scheduled outside of this nesting season, nesting birds will not be impacted and no mitigation is necessary.
If construction must occur during the breeding season (March 1 to September 1), a qualified ornithologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys no more than fifteen days prior to the initiation of disturbance wherever suitable habitat occurs for special-status birds. If active nests are found to be present within or adjacent to work sites during the breeding season, a construction-free buffer around the active nests shall be established. For raptors, this buffer is typically 250 feet; for other birds it may be as narrow as 20 feet. An ornithologist in consultation with the CDFG shall determine the width of the buffer. This buffer shall be maintained until nesting has been completed and the young have fledged.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a, 4.4-1c, 4.4-1d, 4.4-1e and 4.4-1f will reduce Impact 6.4-1 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.4-1d through 4.4-1f on the pertinent portions of the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a, 4.4-1c, 4.4-1d, 4.4-1e and 4.4-1f can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and, to the extent applicable, these measures have already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
2. Impact 6.4-2: Construction and operation of the new facilities associated with the Regional Project may adversely affect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
a. Impact. Construction of the subsurface intakes and pipelines could affect sensitive natural communities. Sensitive habitats, including maritime chapparal, central dune scrub, coast live oak woodland, riparian woodland and scrub, salt marsh, and northern brackish marsh, are well distributed in the project area and comprise most of the areas with natural vegetation except for non-native grassland. They would be at risk of temporary and permanent impacts during the construction or long-term operation of the project.
b. Mitigation. Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b requires the avoidance of construction impacts on Sensitive Upland Habitats. Sensitive Upland Habitat, predominantly Central Maritime Chaparral, has been identified at the following project locations: ASR Facilities and Terminal Reservoir and Transmission Main South. Construction activities, facilities, and conveyance systems shall be sited in a manner that avoids upland habitats to the maximum extent feasible. Sensitive upland habitats shall be preserved where possible through facility siting within degraded or non-native vegetation. Sensitive areas shall be flagged for avoidance to minimize the possibility of inadvertent encroachment during construction. Construction staff shall be educated on the sensitive habitats located within and adjacent to the project's footprint, and a biological monitor shall be present to ensure compliance with off-limits areas.
When avoidance is not feasible during construction activities, sensitive upland habitats temporarily disturbed during construction activities shall be quantified and appropriate restoration strategies shall be set forth in a Habitat Restoration Plan, which shall be developed in consultation with the USFWS and the CDFG and submitted to the CPUC and the resource agencies. The Plan shall include the following elements: specific location of restoration site, details on soil preparation, seed collection, planting, maintenance, monitoring, and quantitative success criteria. At minimum, temporarily disturbed areas shall be restored by the project applicant to the natural (preconstruction) conditions, which may include the following actions: salvage and stockpiling of topsoil from maritime chaparral, central dune scrub, and oak woodland; regrading of disturbed sites with salvaged topsoil; and revegetation with native, locally collected species.
When restoration is not feasible (i.e., the impact is permanent), the project applicant shall purchase and/or preserve similar undisturbed habitat off-site, or restore nearby disturbed areas at a ratio to be determined by the USFWS, CDFG, and other responsible resource agencies with jurisdiction over the project area.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b will reduce Impact 6.4-2 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b on the pertinent CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities under that agency's jurisdiction.
3. Impact 6.4-3: Construction and operation of the new facilities associated with the Regional Project may adversely affect federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
a. Impact. Construction of the subsurface intakes and pipelines could affect wetlands.
b. Mitigation. Per Mitigation Measure 4.4-3, the Applicant shall implement the following measures for those facilities sited on or adjacent to wetlands. The project shall avoid areas of potentially jurisdictional wetland habitats to the maximum extent feasible through project siting and construction avoidance. The project shall implement Best Management Practices during construction to minimize impacts associated with erosion and sediment deposition into wetland and aquatic habitats. Temporary disturbance and/or permanent loss of wetlands or other waters of the U.S. require permits from both the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and (for areas within the Coastal Zone) the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as well as the RWQCB.
A wetland delineation per the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual, and using the one- parameter approach in areas within the Coastal Zone, shall be conducted prior to construction.
A delineation report shall be prepared and submitted to the USACE and CCC for verification, and to the CPUC for its approval. Through this process, final calculations of wetland area present in the project area would be obtained from responsible agencies charged with regulating and permitting for species. In addition, plans for proposed alteration to any watercourse shall be submitted to the CDFG for review.
The wetland habitat that would be lost under any given project element shall be functionally replaced as part of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan required for permit issuance by the responsible agencies charged with regulating and permitting for species. The Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and any relevant permit document or implementation plans will be submitted for review and approval to the relevant responsible agencies. In-kind and on-site replacement of lost wetland habitats must be done where possible. If multiple impacts on wetlands occur from the construction of facilities, larger wetland mitigation areas shall be created that provide greater functions and values than numerous small mitigation sites. The determination of wetland impacts and the subsequent location and design of potential mitigation sites shall be determined by qualified biologists in coordination with resource agency personnel. Mitigation and Monitoring Plans shall require the following of the project sponsor:
(1) Replacement of lost acreage and functions of wetland habitat;
(2) Identification of the restoration opportunities, complete with an analysis of the technical approach to create high quality wetlands;
(3) Prior to construction of any project element that may impact wetland habitats, obtaining any necessary permits from the USACE, RWQCB or the CCC;
(4) Preparation of detailed plans for wetland mitigation construction that include excavation elevations, location of hydrologic connections, planting plans, and soil amendments, if necessary; preparation of maintenance and monitoring plans in consultation with a qualified habitat restoration specialist; monitoring of any mitigation wetlands for a period of 5 years, during which the site will achieve the target jurisdictional acreage by Year 5; and determination of specific performance criteria and monitoring for site success; provision of annual monitoring reports to the appropriate resource agencies.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 will reduce Impact 6.4-3 to a less than significant level. This impact does not affect the CalAm Facilities. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.4-3 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWRA on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities under that agency's jurisdiction.
4. Impact 6.4-5: Construction and operation of the new facilities associated with the Regional Project could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
a. Impact. For many Regional Project elements, tree removal may be required during construction, either for the elements themselves or as part of access needs.
b. Mitigation. Per Mitigation Measure 4.4-5, a comprehensive survey shall be performed to identify, measure, and map trees subject to County tree removal ordinances (oak trees greater than 6 inches in diameter) and North County Area Plan and Carmel Valley Master Plan ordinances (all native trees greater than 6 inches in diameter), as well as landmark trees. Prior to the removal of protected trees, the project sponsor shall obtain tree removal permits or approvals for lost native and landmark trees and arrange mitigation with appropriate resource agencies. The standards for tree replacement shall be stipulated in the tree permits reviewed and approved by the pertinent local agencies.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 will reduce Impact 6.4-5 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
E. Geology, Soils and Seismicity
1. Impact 6.5-1: Large earthquakes would be expected to damage the proposed facilities, impairing and/or disrupting their intended operations if not engineered to withstand such ground shaking.
a. Impact. The potential exists for large magnitude earthquakes to result in high intensity ground shaking. Intense ground shaking and high ground acceleration would affect the entire Regional Project area. The intensity of such an event would depend on the causative fault and the distance to the epicenter, the moment magnitude, and the duration of shaking. Intense ground shaking and high ground accelerations would affect the entire area around the proposed facilities and associated pipelines. The primary and secondary effects of ground shaking could damage structural foundations, distort pipelines and other water conveyance structures, and cause failure of concrete. Damage to these features would cause temporary service disruption and possibly loss of water due to leakage and pipe rupture. Pumps could be rendered inoperable. The most severe impacts of this type would result from liquefaction of the soil, which could induce both vertical and lateral displacement of the soil that would bend, weaken and break conveyance structures and structural foundations. Broken pipelines could result in soil washout and sinkholes. However, modern standard engineering and construction practices include design criteria to mitigate potential damage from an earthquake, and any potential interruption of service would likely be temporary in nature. While these practices would not completely eliminate the potential for damage to the facilities, they would ensure that the resultant improvements will have the structural fortitude to withstand anticipated groundshaking without significant damage.
b. Mitigation. Per Mitigation Measure 4.5-1, a California licensed geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist will conduct geotechnical investigations of all project facilities and pipeline alignments prior to the final design and prepare recommendations applicable to foundation design, earthwork, backfill and site preparation prior to or during the project design phase. The investigations will specify seismic and geologic hazards including potential ground movements and co-seismic effects (including liquefaction). The recommendations of the geotechnical engineer will be incorporated into the design and specifications in accordance with California Geological Survey Special Publication 117 and shall be implemented by the construction contractor. The construction manager will conduct inspections and certify that all design criteria have been met in accordance with the California Building Code as well as applicable City and County ordinances.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 will reduce Impact 6.5-1 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
2. Impact 6.5-2: Proposed pipelines and facilities could incur damage as a result of underlying soil properties (subsidence, high shrink-swell potential, and corrosivity).
a. Impact. The potential exists for facilities and pipelines to incur damage as a result of underlying soil properties. The soil types vary along the proposed pipeline routes and at the proposed facility sites. In general, throughout the project study area, there are soils that likely possess characteristics that could limit development of building structures or other facilities. These limitations include compressibility, shrink-swell capability (expansive behavior) and corrosivity. One or more of these soil properties could adversely affect portions of the proposed project.
Unless properly mitigated, shrink-swell soils could exert additional pressures on buried pipelines, producing shrinkage cracks that allow water infiltration and compromise the integrity of backfill material. Depending on the depth of the buried pipeline, soil in expansion or contraction could lead to undue lateral pipeline stress and stress of structural joints. Lateral stresses could, over time, lead to pipeline rupture or leaks in the coupling joints. Shrinkage cracks could form in native soils adjacent to the pipeline trench or in backfill material if expansive soils are used. If shrinkage cracks extend to sufficient depths, groundwater can infiltrate into the trench, causing piping (progressive erosion of soil particles along flow paths) or settlement failure of the backfill materials. Settlement failure can also occur if expansive soils are used in backfill and undergo continued expansion and contraction. Over time these soils could settle, resulting in misalignment or damage to buried pipelines.
The effects of shrink-well soils could damage foundations of aboveground structures, paved service roads, and concrete slabs. Surface structures with foundations constructed in expansive soils would experience expansion and contraction depending on the season and the amount of surface water infiltration. The expansion and contraction could exert enough pressure on the structures to result in cracking, settlement, and uplift.
The conductivity of soils may be high enough in the project area to corrode underground metal pipes and electrical conduits. Over time, pipe corrosion could lead to pipeline failure, resulting in localized surface flooding of water or localized settlement of surface soils in the location of the failure. Failed subsurface electrical conduits could result in electrical short-circuiting. This would temporarily reduce power to the facility and possibly result in temporary shutdown of operations.
b. Mitigation. Per Mitigation Measure 4.5-2, all project elements and pipeline facilities will comply with applicable policies and appropriate engineering investigation practices necessary to reduce the potential detrimental effects of expansive soils, and corrosivity. Appropriate geotechnical studies will be conducted by California licensed geotechnical engineers or engineering geologists using generally accepted and appropriate engineering techniques for determining the susceptibility of the sites to unstable, weak or corrosive soils in accordance with the most recent version of the California Building Code. A licensed geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist will prepare recommendations applicable to foundation design, earthwork, and site preparation prior to or during the project design phase. Recommendations will address mitigation of site-specific, adverse soil and bedrock conditions that could hinder development. Project engineers will implement the recommendations and incorporate them into project specifications. Geotechnical design and design criteria will comply with the most recent version of the California Building Code (CBC) and applicable local construction and grading ordinances. Once appropriately designed and subsequently constructed, in accordance with local and state building code requirements, the resultant improvements will have the structural fortitude to withstand the potential hazards of expansive soils or corrosivity without significant damage.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 will reduce Impact 6.5-2 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
3. Impact 6.5-4: Potential injury and/or damage resulting from earthquake-induced landslide.
a. Impact. The majority of the Regional Project components are located in low lying coastal dune, Salinas River Valley, and rolling inland hill areas with a low susceptibility to earthquake-induced landsliding. Proposed components in the southern portion of the proposed project area are located on variable topography that includes the relatively flat bottom of Canyon del Rey, gently sloping terraces near Ragsdale Drive, and the steep slopes and narrow canyons in the mountainous areas. The proposed southern alignment of project pipelines and facilities crosses areas mapped as moderately to highly susceptible to earthquake-induced landsliding. The facilities susceptible to earthquake-induced landsliding include Transmission Main South, Terminal Reservoir and ASR Facilities.
b. Mitigation. Per Mitigation Measure 4.5-4, during the design phase for all project components that require ground-breaking activities, the project sponsor will perform site-specific design-level geotechnical evaluations which will include slope stability conditions and provide recommendations to reduce and eliminate any potential slope hazards in the final design and if necessary, throughout construction. For all pipelines located in landslide hazard areas, appropriate piping material with the ability to deform without rupture (e.g., ductile steel) will be used. For all other facilities, a geotechnical evaluation will be conducted and the geotechnical evaluations will include detailed slope stability evaluations, which could include a review of aerial photographs, field reconnaissance, soil testing, and slope stability modeling. Facilities design and construction will incorporate the slope stability recommendations contained in the geotechnical analysis conducted by California licensed geotechnical engineers or engineering geologists. Final slope stabilization measures, determined by the licensed geotechnical engineers or engineering geologists in accordance with CBC requirements, may include, without limitation, one or more of the following:
· Appropriate slope inclination (not steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical)
· Slope terracing
· Fill compaction
· Soil reinforcement
· Surface and subsurface drainage facilities
· Engineered retaining walls
· Buttresses
· Erosion control measures
Slope stabilization measures included in the geotechnical report will be incorporated into the project construction specifications and become part of the project.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-4 will reduce Impact 6.5-4 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measure 4.5-4 on the pertinent CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.5-4 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
4. Impact 6.5-5: Potential facility damage resulting from a major earthquake in areas susceptible to liquefaction.
a. Impact. Figure 4.5-2 of the FEIR identifies potential liquefaction hazards associated with project sites evaluated at a project-level of detail. The designations (High, Moderate, Low and Variable) are based on liquefaction susceptibility analysis presented in the County of Monterey General Plan. Project elements that are located in areas assigned Moderate or High designations are assumed to be within a zone susceptible to liquefaction and thus could result in a potentially significant impact to liquefaction. These areas include the following: Monterey Pipeline, Intake Facility and Source Water Pipeline.
b. Mitigation. Implement Mitigation Measures 4.5-1. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 requires that a licensed engineer or geologist investigate all project facilities and pipeline alignments prior to the final design and prepare recommendations applicable to foundation design, earthwork, backfill and site preparation, which shall be incorporated into the project design and specifications and implemented by the construction contractor.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 will reduce Impact 6.5-5 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
F. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
1. Impact 6.6-1: Excavation and grading for the project could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to hazardous materials that may be present in excavated soil or groundwater.
a. Impact. All of the components of the Regional Project involve excavation, trenching, tunneling or grading for the construction of water conveyance pipelines, building footings and utilities. Properties with soil and/or groundwater contamination located on or within ¼ mile of project facilities have the potential to have impacted subsurface conditions at project locations. The typical contaminants anticipated are related to releases from gasoline service stations, dry cleaners, and agricultural uses such as petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, metals and pesticides. Of particular concern, construction of ASR facilities and installation of pipelines through the former Fort Ord Military facility could result in exposure to various organic substances, metals, petroleum products, and unexploded ordnance. Soil disturbance during construction could further disperse existing contamination into the environment and expose construction workers or the public to contaminants. If significant levels of hazardous materials are present in excavated soils, health and safety risks to workers and the public could occur. As to the proposed desalination facility, the proposed seawater subsurface intake locations and sourcewater pipeline alignment would be located in an undeveloped coastal dune area. Construction of these elements could encounter hazardous materials in the soil and/or groundwater.
b. Mitigation. Per Mitigation Measure 4.6-1, the following measures shall be implemented in connection with project activities.
(i) Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a. Within one year prior to construction of facilities requiring excavation of more than 50 cubic yards of soil, the contractor shall retain a qualified environmental professional to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with ASTM Standard 1527-05 to evaluate subsurface conditions that could be expected during construction. For all pipeline alignments, including Transmission Main South and the Monterey Pipeline, the contractor shall retain a qualified environmental professional to update the environmental database review to identify environmental cases, permitted hazardous materials uses, and spill sites within one-quarter mile of the pipeline alignment. Regulatory agency files will be reviewed for those sites that could potentially affect soil and groundwater quality within the project alignment.
If these preliminary environmental reviews indicate that a release of hazardous materials could have affected soil or groundwater quality at a project site, the contractor shall retain a qualified environmental professional to conduct a Phase II environmental site assessment to evaluate the presence and extent of contamination at the site, in conformance with state and local guidelines and regulations. If the results of the subsurface investigation(s) indicate the presence of hazardous materials, additional site remediation may be required by the applicable state or local regulatory agencies, and the contractors shall be required to comply with all regulatory requirements for facility design or site remediation.
(ii) Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b. Based on the findings of the analyses required by Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a, a project-specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be prepared in accordance with 29 CFR 1910 to protect construction workers and the public during all excavation, grading and construction services. The HSP shall identify the following, but not be limited to:
· A summary of all potential risks to construction workers and maximum exposure limits for all known and reasonably foreseeable site chemicals;
· Specified personal protective equipment and decontamination procedures, if needed;
· Safety procedures to be followed in the event suspected hazardous materials are encountered;
· Emergency procedures, including route to the nearest hospital;
· The identification of a site health and safety officer and responsibilities of the site health and safety officer.
(iii) Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c. The contractor shall have a site health and safety supervisor fully trained pursuant to the HAZWOPER standard (29 CFR 1910.120) be present during excavation, grading, trenching, or cut and fill operations to monitor for evidence of potential soil contamination, including soil staining, noxious odors, debris or buried storage containers. The site health and safety supervisor must be capable of evaluating whether hazardous materials encountered constitute an incidental release of a hazardous substance or an emergency spill. The site health and safety supervisor shall direct procedures to be followed in the event that a hazardous materials release with the potential to impact worker health and safety is encountered. These procedures shall be in accordance with hazardous waste operations regulations and specifically include, but are not limited to, the following: immediately stopping work in the vicinity of the unknown hazardous materials release, notifying Monterey County Health Department, Environmental Health Division, and retaining a qualified environmental firm to perform sampling and remediation.
(iv) Mitigation Measure 4.6-1d. The applicant and its contractor shall coordinate with each property owner at the time of construction and obtain a legal Right of Entry. The contractor shall comply with all provisions established in that agreement and all regulations regarding excavation, digging, and development within the former Fort Ord.
(v) Mitigation Measure 4.6-1e. A materials disposal plan shall be developed, specifying how all excavated material will be removed, handled, transported, and disposed of in a safe, appropriate, and lawful manner. The plan must identify the disposal method for soil and the approved disposal site, and written documentation that the disposal site will accept the waste. This plan shall be submitted to the CPUC for review and approval.
A groundwater dewatering control and disposal plan shall be developed specifying how groundwater impacted by hazardous substances will be removed, handled, and disposed of in a safe, appropriate, and lawful manner. The plan must identify the locations at which potential groundwater impacts are likely to be encountered, the method to analyze groundwater for hazardous materials, and the appropriate treatment and/or disposal methods. This plan shall be submitted to the CPUC for review and approval.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6-1a through 4.6-1e will reduce Impact 6.6-1 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.6-1a through 4.6-1e on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.6-1a through 4.6-1e can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
G. Traffic
1. Impact 6.7-1: Short-term increases in vehicle trips by construction workers and construction vehicles on area roadways.
a. Impact. The implications of concurrent construction pertains to the potential for construction-generated traffic for more than one project component to use the same road(s). That is, the total number of vehicle trips added to the common route(s) due to concurrent construction of multiple project components would be collectively higher than the maximum number of daily and hourly vehicle trips associated with each individual project component. The level of increased traffic generated by the collective/concurrent project construction in the central project area (e.g., a frequency of trucks as often as three every two minutes if all trucks used the same road or every three to five minutes if trucks were dispersed on roads) would be significant if all trucks used the same road and less than significant if trucks were dispersed on roads. The level of increased traffic generated by the collective/concurrent project construction in the southern project area (e.g., a frequency of trucks as often as three every two minutes if all trucks used the same road or as often as 1.5 minutes if trucks were dispersed on roads) would be significant.
b. Mitigation. Per Mitigation Measure 4.7-1, the contractor(s) will obtain, and comply with any conditions in, any necessary road encroachment permits prior to construction of each project component. As part of the road encroachment permit process, the contractor(s) will prepare a Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan (for work in the public right-of-way) in accordance with professional engineering standards and obtain approval of the plan from the agencies with jurisdiction over the affected roads. The plan will be developed on the basis of detailed project design plans and will include, at a minimum, the following:
· Develop circulation and detour plans to minimize impacts to traffic circulation.
· Control and monitor construction vehicle movements through the enforcement of standard construction specifications by periodic onsite inspections.
· Install traffic control devices where traffic conditions warrant, as specified in applicable jurisdiction's standards.
· Schedule truck trips outside of peak AM and PM peak commute hours to the extent feasible, and as needed to avoid adverse impacts on traffic flow. The frequency of truck trips (loaded or empty) shall be no greater than one every two minutes during the peak AM and PM peak commute hours.
· Post advanced warning signs of construction activities to allow motorists to select alternative routes.
· Arrange a telephone number with knowledgeable personnel to address public questions and complaints during project construction.
· Store all equipment and materials in designated contractor staging areas on or close to the worksite, in such a manner to minimize obstruction to traffic.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 will reduce Impact 6.7-1 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
2. Impact 6.7-2: Reduction in the number of, or the available width of, travel lanes on roads where pipeline construction would occur, resulting in short-term traffic delays for vehicles traveling past the construction zones.
a. Impact. The Regional Project would include installation of new pipelines in both unpaved areas and paved roadways. Impacts from construction within road pavement would include direct disruption of traffic flows and street operations, due to lane blockages or street closures. Pipeline installation within and/or across high-traffic volume arterials could have a significant adverse impact on traffic flow and operations at these locations. Traffic would be delayed as its travels past the construction zone, and the impacts would be considered significant, on all except low-volume local roads because congestion and resulting delays would be increased to a level unacceptable to the average motorist. Delays would also be experienced by drivers during off-peak hours, but because of the lower volume, fewer people would be affected by the delays during those periods.
b. Mitigation. Implement Mitigation Measure 4.7-1. Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 requires the preparation and approval of a detailed Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan to minimize impacts to traffic circulation patterns as result of construction activities. In addition, in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.7-2, the following elements shall be included in the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan prepared in compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.7-1:
· Where possible, limit the pipeline construction work zone to a width that, at a minimum, maintains alternate one-way traffic flow past the construction zone.
· If alternate one-way traffic flow cannot be maintained past the construction zone, install detour signs on alternative routes around the closed road segment.
· Publish notices of the location(s) and timing of road closures in local newspapers, and on available web sites, to allow motorists to select alternative routes.
· Limit lane closures during peak hours to the extent possible.
· Restore roads and streets to normal operation by covering trenches with steel plates outside of allowed working hours or when work is not in progress.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 will reduce Impact 6.7-2 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
3. Impact 6.7-3: Demand for parking spaces to accommodate construction worker vehicles
a. Impact. The proposed project would create a temporary parking demand for construction workers and construction vehicles as crews move along the project corridor as pipes are installed, and during work on stationary facility locations (e.g., desalination plant, water storage tanks, pump stations, wells and reservoirs). For the stationary facility locations, the worksites would generally have sufficient onsite space to accommodate a demand for up to about 88 parking spaces (assuming all personnel drive alone to each day's work location) and the impact would be less than significant. Using the same travel mode assumption, each crew installing pipeline would require up to about 85 parking spaces. Given the proposed rate of construction during pipeline installation, impacts to parking would be relatively brief at any one location throughout the project area, but could reduce the parking capacity for people currently using the displaced spaces, creating a potentially significant impact tied to the extra driving required as the displaced parkers look for alternative parking spaces.
b. Mitigation. Implement Mitigation 4.7.1. Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 requires the preparation and approval of a detailed Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan to minimize impacts to traffic circulation patterns as result of construction activities. In addition, per Mitigation Measure 4.7-3, the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan will identify locations for sufficient construction parking.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-3 will reduce Impact 6.7-3 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-3 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-3 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
4. Impact 6.7-4: Potential traffic safety hazards for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians on public roadways.
a. Impact. Heavy equipment operating adjacent to or within a road right-of-way could increase the risk of accidents. Construction-generated trucks on project corridor roadways would interact with other vehicles. Conflicts would also occur between construction traffic and bicyclists and pedestrians resulting from pipeline construction and operation of construction equipment where crossings of a bikeway or pedestrian path occur. Numerous other designated bike routes occur along roadways within the County, some of which support a designated bike lane.
b. Mitigation. Implement Mitigation Measure 4.7-1. Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 requires the preparation and approval of a detailed Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan to minimize impacts to traffic circulation patterns as result of construction activities. In addition, in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.7-4, the following elements shall be included in the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan prepared in compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.7-1:
· Comply with roadside safety protocols to reduce the risk of accidents. Provide "Road Work Ahead" warning signs and speed control (including signs informing drivers of state-legislated double fines for speed infractions in a construction zone) to achieve required speed reductions for safe traffic flow through the work zone. Construction personnel shall be trained to apply appropriate safety measures as described in the plan.
· To the extent feasible, perform construction that crosses on-street and off-street bikeways (and sidewalks and pathways for pedestrians) in a manner that allows for safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians. Alternatively, provide safe detours to reroute affected bicycle/pedestrian traffic.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-4 will reduce Impact 6.7-4 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-4 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-4 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
5. Impact 6.7-5: Access disruption to adjacent land uses and streets for both general traffic and emergency vehicles.
a. Impact. The Regional Project would include installation of new pipelines in both unpaved areas and paved roadways, and access to driveways and to cross streets along the construction route within road pavement could be temporarily blocked due to trenching and paving. This could be an inconvenience to some and a significant problem for others, particularly schools and emergency service providers (e.g. police and fire).
b. Mitigation. Implement Mitigation Measure 4.7-1. Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 requires the preparation and approval of a detailed Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan to minimize impacts to traffic circulation patterns as a result of construction activities. In addition, per Mitigation Measure 4.7-5, the following elements shall be included in the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan prepared in compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.7-1:
· Maintain access for emergency vehicles at all times. Coordinate with facility owners or administrators of sensitive land uses such as police and fire stations, transit stations, hospitals, and schools. Provide advance notification to local police, fire, and emergency service providers of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities that could affect the movement of emergency vehicles on area roadways.
· Provide flaggers in school areas at the start and end of the school day if and when pipeline installation would occur at designated school zones.
· Maintain access for private driveways to the maximum extent feasible.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-5 will reduce Impact 6.7-5 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-5 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-5 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
6. Impact 6.7-6: Disruptions to transit and railroad service on pipeline alignment routes.
a. Impact. As discussed above, construction of the Regional Project would have temporary and intermittent effects on traffic flow, which could result in delays for Monterey-Salinas Transit bus service in the vicinity of the worksites. While buses could be slowed by project construction roads used as haul routes, a greater potential effect would occur on roads in which pipeline installation is proposed. Bus routes might need to be temporarily detoured and/or bus stops temporary relocated on the following roads: La Salle Avenue (Del Monte Boulevard to Flores Street), Yosemite Street (La Salle Avenue to Broadway) and General Jim Moore Boulevard (Broadway to South Boundary Road).
b. Mitigation. Implement Mitigation Measure 4.7-1. Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 requires the preparation and approval of a detailed Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan to minimize impacts to traffic circulation patterns as result of construction activities. In addition, per Mitigation Measure 4.7-6, the following elements shall be included in the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan prepared in compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.7-1:
· Coordinate with Monterey-Salinas Transit so the transit provider can temporarily relocate bus routes or bus stops in work zones as it deems necessary.
· Provide advance notification to Union Pacific Railroad of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities that could affect the movement of trains on the tracks between Dolan Road and SR 156.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-6 will reduce Impact 6.7-6 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-6 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and 4.7-6 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
7. Impact 6.7-7: Increased wear-and-tear on the designated haul routes used by construction workers.
a. Impact. The use of trucks to transport equipment and material to and from the project work sites could affect road conditions on the designated haul routes by increasing the rate of road wear. The degree to which this impact would occur depends on the roadway design (pavement type and thickness) and the existing condition of the road. Freeways and major arterials are designed to handle a mix of vehicle types, including heavy trucks. The project's impacts are expected to be negligible on such roads. However, rural roadways and residential streets may not have been constructed to support the weight and use by construction equipment.
b. Mitigation. In accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.7-7, the applicant and the affected jurisdiction(s) shall enter into an agreement, prior to construction of project components, that will detail the pre-construction conditions for all routes that will be used by project-related vehicles, and the post-construction requirements of the rehabilitation program. Roads damaged by project construction will be repaired to a structural condition equal to that which existed prior to construction activity.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-7 will reduce Impact 6.7-7 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.7-7 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.7-7 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
H. Air Quality
1. Impact 6.8-1: Regional Project construction activities would generate emissions of criteria pollutants, including fugitive dust and equipment exhaust particulate matter.
a. Impact. Construction activities associated with the Regional Project would require the use of construction and earth moving equipment. Exhaust pollutants would be emitted during construction activities from motor-driven construction equipment, construction vehicles and workers' vehicles, and fugitive dust would be generated by ground disturbing activities as well as from truck travel on paved and unpaved roads. It is estimated that emissions associated with construction of the Regional Project would be similar to the emissions shown in FEIR Table 4.8-8 (North Marina Project- Construction Emissions) for off-road (e.g., tractors, graders, backhoes, etc.) and on-road (e.g., light duty trucks, haul trucks, etc.) exhaust sources as well as for all sources of fugitive dust (e.g., dust entrainment from travel on unpaved roads and earth moving activities such as grading and excavation). Estimated construction emissions of PM10 are approximately 597 pounds per day, which would exceed the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District's (MPUAPCD) significance threshold of 82 pounds per day of PM10, resulting in a significant impact.
b. Mitigation. The following measures shall be implemented in connection with construction activities associated with the Regional Project:
(i) Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a: Construction Fugitive Dust Control Plan. Project sponsor(s) shall require its construction contractor(s) to implement a dust control plan that shall include a minimum of the following dust control measures:
· Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
· Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials and require trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
· Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
· Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
· Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
· Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
· Enclose, cover, or water twice daily exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.)
· Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
· Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
· Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
· Post a publically visible sign that specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the MBUAPCD shall also be visible to ensure compliance with District rules.
· Wheel washers shall be installed and used by truck operators at the exits of the construction sites to the ASR well facilities and the Terminal Reservoir/ASR pump station sites.
(ii) Mitigation Measure 4.8-1b: Stabilize Dust on Access Roads. Project sponsor(s) shall require its construction contractor(s) to apply a soil stabilizer, gravel, or pave the construction access roads to the Regional Desalination Plant and the Terminal Reservoir sites. These access roads shall be stabilized prior to the commencement of construction activities at these sites.
(iii) Mitigation Measure 4.8-1c: Idling Restrictions. On road vehicle idling time shall be minimized and shall not exceed a five minute maximum. Additionally, off road engines will not idle for longer than five minutes per Section 2449(d)(3) of Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9 of the California Code of Regulations. To enforce this measure project sponsor(s) shall ensure that all construction workers are aware of vehicle idling restrictions.
(c) Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.8-1a through 4.8-1c will substantially reduce Impact 6.8-1 (i.e., lowering PM10 emission from 597 pounds per day to approximately 100 pounds per day), but not to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.8-1a through 4.8-1c on the pertinent CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.8-1a through 4.8-1c can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
The FEIR also contains proposed Mitigation Measure 6.8-1, which would require the Regional Project sponsor(s) to coordinate with one another and implement a Joint Construction Emissions Control Plan that would phase all Regional Project construction activities so that PM10 emissions during each day of construction would be reduced to a level below the daily PM10 threshold of significance. Since there was no guarantee that all relevant agencies would impose the measure as a condition of approval on the portion of the Regional Project under their jurisdiction to ensure that the emissions would not exceed the MBUAPCD's significance threshold for PM10, the FEIR concludes that Impact 6.8-1 is significant and unavoidable.
Given the urgent need to provide replacement water supplies by December 31, 2016 so as to adhere to the SWRCB's Cease and Desist Order, the CPUC finds that phasing construction activities per Mitigation Measure 6.8-1 would not be feasible from a social or economic standpoint. The measure would require coordination and phasing of construction activities, essentially metering activities so as to avoid exceeding daily maximum PM10 levels. If replacement water supplies are not provided in a timely fashion, the water supply deficit that would result would lead to severe water rationing and possible water shortages throughout the CalAm service area. This would create substantial social hardships (e.g., reduced bathing, clothes washing and waste removal) and could lead to adverse public health and safety impacts (e.g., lack of adequate water for fire protection, public health, etc.). The water supply for nearly one-fourth the population of Monterey County would be put in jeopardy and it could lead to economic losses of over $1 billion per year, including 6,000 jobs. Thus, this measure is infeasible based on the need to avoid delay providing replacement water supplies. Although the impact would be significant and unavoidable per the MBUAPCD significance threshold, the construction timeframe would be faster, thus temporally concentrating emissions. The CPUC further finds that Mitigation Measure 6.8-1 is infeasible because it relies on the coordination and joint planning efforts of agencies not under the CPUC's jurisdiction and control (i.e., MCWD and MCWRA) and these agencies in fact did not impose this measure as a condition of approval on the Regional Project and thus the basis stated in the FEIR for finding the mitigation measure infeasible has proven to be accurate. As such, the CPUC finds that specific social, economic, technological and other considerations make the imposition of Mitigation Measure 6.8-1 infeasible.
2. Impact 6.8-3: Construction activities associated with Regional Project would generate a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10.
a. Impact. The project area is designated as non-attainment for ozone and PM10. Long term operations of the project would result in negligible direct emissions, which would not be cumulatively considerable. Construction activities associated with the Regional Project would have a temporary significant impact on regional air quality through short-term increases in PM10, which could be cumulatively significant when combined with other project described in Chapter 9 of the FEIR.
b. Mitigation. Implement Mitigation Measures 4.8-1a through 4.8-1c. These measures require the implementation of a fugitive dust control plan, application of soil stabilizers to construction access roads and limitation of construction vehicle idling time.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.8-1a through 4.8-1c would reduce the Regional Project's maximum daily construction emissions of PM10, but not to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.8-1a through 4.8-1c on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.8-1a through 4.8-1c can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction. For the reasons described in Impact 6.8-1 above, the CPUC finds that specific social, economic, technological and other considerations make Mitigation Measure 6.8-1 infeasible.
3. Impact 6.8-5: Regional Project operations would conflict with the State goal of reducing greenhouse gas emission in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
a. Impact. Implementation of the Regional Project could conflict with the State goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The Regional Project could conflict with certain recommended actions identified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in its Climate Change Scoping Plan related to transportation, water and high global warming potential gases. Approximately 5,800 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2e) would be generated each year during the estimated two-year construction phase of the project. Thus, the estimated construction-related emissions would not exceed CARB's draft preliminary significance threshold of 7,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. Operational-related greenhouse gas emissions associated with the Regional Project are estimated to be approximately 11,209 metric tons of CO2e per year. These emissions primarily relate to and are directly associated with the electrical needs of the plant itself. The total estimated greenhouse gas emissions that would be associated with the operations of the Regional Project would exceed CARB's preliminary draft significance threshold of 7,000 metrics tons of CO2e per year. This is a significant cumulative impact. While the greenhouse gas emissions for the Regional Project as a whole would exceed CARB's draft preliminary significance threshold, the greenhouse gas emissions for the CalAm Facilities would be fairly minimal and would be far less than 7,000 metric tons of CO2e per year.
b. Mitigation. Implement Mitigation Measure 4.8-1c, above, which imposes limits on the idling time of construction vehicles, and also Mitigation Measure 4.8-5, which consists of the following:
(i) Mitigation Measures 4.8-5a: Aerodynamic Efficiency for Trucks. Trucks and trailers that would be used after year 2013 to haul equipment and materials to construction sites associated with the project would be required to be retrofitted with the best available aerodynamic efficiency technology and/or CARB approved aerodynamic efficiency technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel efficiency by reducing aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance pursuant to CARB's Climate Change Scoping Plan Discrete Early Action T-7.
(ii) Mitigation Measures 4.8-5b: Low SF6 Leak Rate Circuit Breaker and Monitoring. If an SF6-containing circuit breaker is required for the project substation, the project sponsor shall ensure that the circuit breaker would have a guaranteed SF6 leak rate of 0.5 percent per volume or less. The project sponsor shall provide the MBUAPCD with such documentation prior to installation of the circuit breaker. In addition, the project sponsor shall also monitor SF6-containing circuit breakers consistent with Scoping Plan Measure H-6 for the detection and repair of leaks.
(iii) Mitigation Measure 4.8-5c: Energy Minimization and greenhouse gas Reduction Plan. The project sponsor(s) shall develop and implement an Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan that documents an approach that would reduce the project's carbon footprint to below 7,000 metric tons per year. The plan may include a variety of measures to reduce the combined carbon footprint of the intake, treatment, and distribution components of the project, including the installation of premium energy efficient equipment (i.e., state of the art energy recovery systems), participation on PG&E's Climate Smart Program, LEED compliant facilities, roof-top or locally produced solar power, use of renewable energy sources, etc. The carbon footprint for all components of the approved project shall be established and reported each year using real energy usage data for the previous year and the most current PG&E power system emission factor for greenhouse gases (or other emission factor deemed reliable in the absence of a PG&E emission factor). All emission reductions that would be associated with the efficiency measures, etc., shall be substantiated in the plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the CPUC prior to the commencement of project operations.
(iv) Mitigation Measure 4.8-5d: Energy Minimization and greenhouse gas Reduction Plan. CalAm shall develop and implement an Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan to reduce the carbon footprint of the CalAm Facilities (primarily associated with pumping of water for the ASR Facilities and the Terminal Reservoir) to the extent feasible. At minimum, the plan shall require the installation of energy efficient equipment and use of renewable energy sources. All emission reductions that would be associated with efficiency measures shall be substantiated in the plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the CPUC prior to the commencement of project operations.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.8-1c and Mitigation Measures 4.8-5a, 4.8-5b and 4.8-5d would reduce Impact 6.8-5, but not to a less than significant level for the Regional Project as a whole. Mitigation Measure 4.8-5d was not in the FEIR, but it was developed by the CPUC based upon relevant portions of Mitigation Measure 4.8-5c so as to impose feasible elements of Mitigation Measure 4.8-5c on the CalAm Facilities. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.8-1c, 4.8-5a and 4.8-5d on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. Mitigation Measure 4.8-5b applies only to the desalination plant and thus not to the CalAm Facilities. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.8-1c and Mitigation Measures 4.8-5a and 4.8-5b can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and these measures have already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
The FEIR recommended implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8-5c, which would require the project sponsor(s) to jointly develop and implement an Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan to reduce the carbon footprint of all collective components of the Regional Project to below 7,000 metric tons CO2e per year. The FEIR also noted that because several components of the Regional Project would occur under the jurisdiction of other agencies, there is no way for the CPUC to require implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8-5c in connection with the Non-CalAm Facilities so as to ensure that total emissions would not exceed the significance threshold. The FEIR thus concluded that the impact was significant and unavoidable. Neither MCWD nor MCWRA, i.e., the agencies that would own and operate facilities that would generate most of the operational-related greenhouse gas emissions, imposed this measure as a condition of approval on the Regional Project. MCWD did impose a different Mitigation Measure 4.8-5c in connection with its action on the project, requiring development and implementation of an Energy Minimization and greenhouse gas Reduction Plan to reduce the project's carbon footprint "to the extent feasible." The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measure 4.8-5d set forth above (a modified version of Mitigation Measure 4.8.-5c) on the CalAm Facilities. Because several components of the Regional Project would occur under the jurisdiction of other agencies, there is no way for the CPUC to require that total emissions would not exceed the significant threshold. As such, the CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.8-5c is infeasible for social, economic, technological, and other considerations.
I. Noise and Vibration
1. Impact 6.9-1: Construction activity would violate standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances, and/or would adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors.
a. Impact. Construction activities associated with the Regional Project would occur at numerous locations throughout western Monterey County. Such activities would result in the generation of noise associated with site preparation and building of each component. The noise levels generated during construction of the project would vary during the construction period, depending upon the construction phase and the types of construction equipment used. High noise levels would be created by the operation of heavy-duty trucks, backhoes, bulldozers, excavators, front-end loaders, compactors, scrapers, and other heavy-duty equipment. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three or four minutes at lower power settings, compared to other equipment such as directional drill rigs, which tend to operate at a continuous level, or hammer bore rigs, which may emit a loud noise every few seconds. It is anticipated that noise levels within 50 feet of the construction activities would generally be in the mid-90 dBA range.
The progress rates of the various pipeline construction spreads would vary from approximately 250 feet to 500 feet per day. Therefore, maximum noise levels at any one location would be limited to a period of one to three days. However, required trenchless pipeline installation technology and well drilling activities may be required to occur continuously on a 24-hour basis. Maximum pipeline and well development construction noise levels would be as high as 90 dBA and 99 dBA, respectively. Nighttime noise from continuous well development activities associated with the Regional Project components would result in a substantial nuisance to nearby residences, as well as conflict with noise regulations identified in the City of Marina Code, the Monterey County General Plan, and the City of Seaside Municipal Code. Therefore, depending on the location of the drill sites, nighttime drilling activities would result in potentially significant impacts because they would disturb noise-sensitive uses during the nighttime.
b. Mitigation. The project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1g as detailed below:
(i) Mitigation Measure 4.9-1a: The contractor shall locate all stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Contractor specifications shall include a requirement that drill rigs located within 500 feet of noise-sensitive receptors shall be equipped with noise reducing engine housings or other noise reducing technology such that drill rig noise levels are no more 85 dBA at 50 feet, and the line of sight between the drill rig and nearby sensitive receptors shall be blocked by portable acoustic barriers and/or shields to reduce noise levels by at least an additional 10 dBA. For nighttime drilling activities within 500 feet of residences, the drill rig sites shall be equipped with noise control blankets designed to achieve a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25 or more so that noise levels 50 feet from the drilling site would be no more 60 dBA.
(ii) Mitigation Measure 4.9-1b: All non-ASR well development construction- related activities shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Saturdays, or as agreed upon by the local jurisdiction.
(iii) Mitigation Measure 4.9-1c: The contractor shall assure that construction equipment with internal combustion engines have sound control devices at least as effective as those provided by the original equipment manufacturer. No equipment shall be permitted to have an un-muffled exhaust.
(iv) Mitigation Measure 4.9-1d: Residents and other sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a construction area shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing, at least two weeks prior to the commencement of construction activities. A designated noise disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for responding to complaints regarding construction noise, determining the cause of the complaint and ensuring that reasonable measures are implemented to correct the problem. A contact number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously placed on construction site fences and included in the construction schedule notification sent to nearby residents. The notice to be distributed to residents and sensitive receptors within the City of Seaside shall first be submitted to the City of Seaside Planning and Services Manager for review and approval.
(v) Mitigation Measure 4.9-1e: The ASR well development construction contractor shall obtain approval from a City of Seaside Building Official to conduct night-time well development construction activities. In addition, the applicant shall submit to the CPUC and the City of Seaside Planning Services Manager an ASR Well Construction Noise Control Plan for review and approval, incorporating Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1d and identifying all feasible noise control procedures that would be implemented during night-time construction activities.
(vi) Mitigation Measure 4.9-1f: If the ASR well facilities are constructed adjacent to Roger S. Fitch Middle School, construction activities shall take place while classes are not in session.
(vii) Mitigation Measure 4.9-1g: Temporary hotel accommodations shall be provided by the project sponsor to all residents located within 50 feet of a designated construction area where construction activity would occur on a 24-hour continuous basis. The accommodations shall be provided for the duration of the 24-hour construction activities.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1g will reduce Impact 6.9-1 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1g on the pertinent CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1g can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and, to the extent applicable, these measures have already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
2. Impact 6.9-2: Operation of the proposed desalination plant and other conveyance facilities would potentially increase existing noise levels, which could exceed noise level standards and/or result in nuisance impacts.
a. Impact. Although operational noise impacts at nearby residences would be less than significant, Monterey County's community noise exposure limits (FEIR Table 4.9-3) define noise levels to be normally acceptable at industrial facilities, such as the water treatment plant facilities, at Ldn levels up to 75 dBA. Pump noise levels at the plant are estimated to reach an Ldn level of 82 dBA. Therefore, pump noise levels at the plants could be potentially significant. Further, noise levels of wells and other stationary sources would be as high as 63 dBA at 50 feet, which would exceed Monterey County, City of Marina and City of Seaside noise standards for residences. Therefore, operational noise impacts would be potentially significant.
b. Mitigation. Per Mitigation Measure 4.9-2, all stationary noise sources (e.g., pump stations, permanent and emergency power generators, variable frequency drive motors, well heads with motors, etc.) shall be located within enclosed structures with adequate setback and screening, as necessary, to achieve acceptable regulatory noise standards for industrial uses as well as to achieve acceptable levels at the property lines of nearby residences, as determined by the applicable local jurisdiction. Noise enclosures shall be designed to reduce equipment noise levels by at least 20 dBA. Once the stationary noise sources have been installed, noise levels shall be monitored to ensure compliance with local noise standards. If project stationary noise sources exceed the applicable noise standards, an acoustical engineer shall be retained by the project sponsor to install additional noise attenuation measures in order to meet the applicable noise standards.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-2 will reduce Impact 6.9-2 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.9-2 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
3. Impact 6.9-3: Short-term construction within the Regional Project area would result in temporary vibration impacts on nearby sensitive receptors and structures.
a. Impact. Some types of construction can produce vibration levels that can cause architectural damage to structures and be annoying to nearby sensitive receptors. Vibration levels generated during construction of the Regional Project would vary, depending upon the construction phase and the types of construction equipment used at any time. Typical vibration levels for the construction equipment types that would generally result in the highest vibration levels (i.e., drill rig, large bulldozer) range from 0.006 in/sec peak particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 150 feet to 0.089 in/sec PPV at a distance of 25 feet. PPV thresholds identified by the California Department of Transportation were used in the FEIR to determine the significance of vibration impacts related to adverse human reaction and risk of architectural damage to normal buildings, which are 0.010 in/sec and 0.20 in/sec respectively. Therefore, construction activities with a drill rig/large bulldozer within 100 feet of sensitive receptors could cause potentially significant vibration annoyance impacts.
b. Mitigation. Implement Mitigation Measures 4.9-1b and 4.9-1d. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1b would limit hours of construction for all non-ASR well development construction-related activities. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1d would require notice of the construction schedule to nearby residents and designation of a noise disturbance coordinator to respond to complaints regarding construction noise, determine the cause of the complaint and ensure that reasonable measures are implemented to correct any problems.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1b and 4.9-1d will reduce Impact 6.9-3 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.9-1b and 4.9-1d on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.9-1b and 4.9-1d can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
J. Land Use, Agriculture and Recreation
1. Impact 6.10-1: Components of the Regional Project may permanently divide or temporarily disrupt an established community.
a. Impact. Operation of the Regional Project would not permanently divide an established community; however, construction of the Regional Project facilities, particularly associated with installation of pipelines, may temporarily disrupt adjacent land uses within an established community in that construction activities would generate noise, dust and traffic impacts that could affect adjacent land uses.
b. Mitigation. The project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measures 4.10-1a through 4.10-1c as specified below:
(i) Mitigation Measure 4.10-1a: Implement the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan element recommended in Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 to develop detours during construction activities to allow traffic, pedestrian, and service flow within and among existing communities.
(ii) Mitigation Measure 4.10-1b: Implement the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan element recommended in Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 to carry out construction activities in a manner that allows access along bike routes and pedestrian pathways to ensure safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists. During construction of the Regional Project, the project sponsor shall implement detours adjacent to the existing bike paths, sidewalks, and hiking trails that will be affected by construction in order to maintain access to and along paths.
(iii) Mitigation Measure 4.10-1c: Disturbed areas shall be restored after construction through repaving roads and sidewalks, replacing uncontaminated soil that was been removed, and replanting areas where vegetation was removed with the same or comparable species.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.10-1a through 4.10-1c will reduce Impact 6.10-1 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.10-1a through 4.10-1c on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.10-1a through 4.10-1c can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
2. Impact 6.10-3: Implementation of the proposed project could result in the permanent removal of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance from agricultural operation, or involve other changes that could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural sue.
a. Impact. Construction of the Regional Project, in particular the seawater intake wells, could temporarily conflict with established agricultural resources. In addition, the proposed location of the seawater subsurface intake wells could potentially affect Prime Farmland. The vertical wells would be located within an area located along the eastern edge of the beach dunes and west of Highway 1, in an area south of the Salinas River and north of Reservation Road. Land within the footprint of the proposed seawater well area and surrounding the proposed seawater intake wells is classified as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency. However, there is flexibility in placing the seawater intake wells so that permanent conversion of important farmland could be avoided during siting and design. Results of a site assessment of the seawater well study area indicate that the wells would likely be located within the southern portion of the study area, east of the coastal dunes and west of Highway 1 on lands classified as Other Land under the FMMP. The FEIR assumes that the wells would be located within the southern portion of the seawater well study area and would therefore have a less than significant impact to existing agricultural land. However, identification of Prime Farmland and avoidance of agricultural land in site selection would further limit direct effects to agricultural land.
b. Mitigation. The project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measure 4.10-3 and Mitigation Measure 6.10-3 as specified below:
(i) Mitigation Measure 4.10-3: To the extent feasible, the project sponsor shall develop a construction schedule that avoids conflict with growing seasons and rotation patterns of crops that could be impacted by construction activities for portions of the proposed alignment that cross or are adjacent to agricultural land. The project sponsor shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction to minimize dust.
(ii) Mitigation Measure 6.10-3: Identification and avoidance of prime agricultural land will occur during the design phase. Areas that contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Statewide Importance. Site selection of well sites should avoid important farmland areas and restrict construction to existing easements, right-of-ways, or agricultural roads. During implementation, construction impacts will be mitigated by practicing soil-saving techniques, replacing soils, re-vegetating disturbed areas, and siting staging areas away from areas under cultivation.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.10-3 and Mitigation Measure 6.10-3 will reduce Impact 6.10-3 to a less than significant level. This impact does not affect the CalAm Facilities. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.10-3 and Mitigation Measure 6.10-3 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under that agency's jurisdiction.
3. Impact 6.10-4: Project facilities could conflict with agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts.
a. Impact. There are two parcels protected under a Williamson Act contract that could be affected by the location of the seawater intake wells. The FEIR acknowledges, however, that there is flexibility in placing the seawater intake wells so as to avoid a significant impact to these lands. Nonetheless, identification of farmland under Williamson Act contract and proper facility siting would limit the impacts to existing Williamson Act contracts.
b. Mitigation. Implement Mitigation Measure 6.10-3. This measure requires that project facilities avoid important farmland areas and restricts construction to existing easements, rights-of-way and agricultural roads.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.10-3 will reduce Impact 6.10-4 to a less than significant level. This impact does not affect the CalAm Facilities. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 6.10-3 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWRA on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities under that agency's jurisdiction.
K. Public Services and Utilities
1. Impact 6.11-1: Potential damage to or interference with existing public utilities.
a. Impact. Construction activities could result in damage to or interference with existing water, sewer, storm drain, natural gas, electric and/or communication lines and, in some cases could require that existing lines be permanently relocated, potentially causing interruption of service. Trench construction - for source water, outfall, product water conveyance pipelines and ASR and injection well pipelines - is the project activity most likely to cause severe disruption. If specific locations of underground utilities are not located prior to construction, the utility lines could be damaged and the associated services interrupted.
b. Mitigation. The project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measures 4.11-1a through 4.11-1i. In general, these measures would require the project sponsor or it contractors to undertake the following measures prior to commencing excavation work: locate utilities, notify Utilities Service Alert, implement appropriate protective measures and notify customers in advance of planned disruption.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-1a through 4.11-1i will reduce Impact 6.11-1 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.11-1a through 4.11-1i on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.11-1a through 4.11-1i can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
2. Impact 6.11-2: Potential short-term increase in demand for police, fire, or emergency services.
a. Impact. Project construction would generate truck and employee traffic along haul routes and at the project component sites, temporarily increasing the potential for accidents in these areas. However, this increased accident potential would result in a limited, short-term demand for additional police or fire services, and only on an as-needed and emergency basis. This short-term increase in demand could be accommodated by existing resources within the project areas. In addition, construction of pipelines in or adjacent to roadways could result in partial or complete road closure and would impair local fire, police, or other emergency access during this period. Disruption of roadway access and increased accident potential could also occur in the event of a pipeline rupture or other emergency upset condition. Such an event could also temporarily increase demand for police and fire services as well as impair emergency access.
b. Mitigation. Implement Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 and Mitigation Measures 4.11-1a through 4.11-1i. Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 requires the preparation and approval of a detailed Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan to minimize impacts to traffic circulation patterns as result of construction activities. Mitigation Measures 4.11-1a through 4.11-1i specify procedures to follow in order to avoid potential damage to or interference with existing public utilities.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 and Mitigation Measures 4.11-1a through 4.11-1i will reduce Impact 6.11-2 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 and Mitigation Measures 4.4.11-1a through 4.11-1i on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 and Mitigation Measures 4.11-1a through 4.11-1i can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
3. Impact 6.11-3: Potential adverse effects on solid waste landfill capacity and/or failure to achieve state-mandated solid waste diversion rates.
a. Impact. Construction of the Regional Project desalination plant would generate approximately 200 cubic yards of construction and demolition waste over the construction period. Most of the trench spoils (i.e, excavated soil) would be stockpiled and used to backfill the trenches. However, an average of 0.9 cubic yards of soil per lineal foot of pipeline would exceed trench capacity and would be exported. Construction of six vertical intake wells for the desalination plant component would generate approximately 288 cubic yards (48 cubic yards each) of spoils. The Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD) landfill is permitted to accept 3,500 tons per day and has an expected remaining site life of approximately 100 years. Based on data from 2005 through 2007, MRWMD's current daily receipts are considerably less than it is permitted to receive, indicating that the landfill could accept a substantial increase in incoming disposal tonnage without exceeding its permitted daily tonnage or depleting substantial long-term capacity. If the solid waste generated by the Regional Project were disposed at the landfill rather than reused or recycled, it could substantially increase the disposal rates of jurisdictions in the project area and would thereby lower their diversion rates for the purpose of calculating AB 939 diversion, and could exceed the landfill's permitted daily tonnage, depending on timing of the delivery of waste loads to the landfill.
b. Mitigation. The project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measures 4.11-3a through 4.11-3c as specified below:
(i) Mitigation Measure 4.11-3a: The project sponsor shall encourage project facility design and construction methods that produce less waste, or that produce waste that could more readily be recycled or reused.
(ii) Mitigation Measure 4.11-3b: The project sponsor shall include in its construction specifications a requirement for the contractor to describe plans for recovering, reusing, and recycling wastes produced through construction, demolition, and excavation activities.
(iii) Mitigation Measure 4.11-3c: Prior to project approval the project sponsor shall demonstrate to the project sponsor that the residuals and solid waste generated by the greensand filtration process are acceptable and will be accepted for disposal at the MRWMD landfill. If the waste from the greensand process is determined by MRWMD not to be acceptable, the project sponsor shall identify the permitted waste facility to which the waste will be taken for disposal. This waste facility shall be approved for accepting the type of waste generated and have adequate capacity to accept the waste over the life of the project.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-3a through 4.11-3c will reduce Impact 6.11-3 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.11-3a and 4.11-3b on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.11-3a through 4.11-3c can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
4. Impact 6.11-4: Potential adverse effects on wastewater treatment facilities.
a. Impact. Operation of the desalination plant involves use of clean-in-place (CIP) chemical solutions. The neutralized solution from this process (referred to here as CIP backwash water) would be trucked to the MRWPCA brine ponds for eventual disposal at MRWPCA outfall. The project is estimated to produce 6,000 gallons of CIP backwash water (two truckloads) per month. The chemicals that could be used in the CIP process include sodium hydroxide and EDTA. While the project sponsor has indicated that he CIP backwash water would be neutralized prior to delivery to MRWPCA, it has not yet demonstrated that the neutralized water would meet MRWPCA criteria for acceptable waste streams. If the CIP backwash water were incompatible with MRWPCA's treatment capacity or brine ponds, the backwash could adversely impact the treatment plant's operations. The addition of 6,000 gallons of CIP backwash water also could exceed the plant's capacity. In addition, the salinity level of the brine discharged from the desalination plant could have corrosive effects on outfall components. Corrosion resulting from high salinity levels could weaken the outfall structures, leading to failure.
b. Mitigation. The project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measures 4.11-4a and 4.11-4b. In summary, Mitigation Measure 4.11-4a requires that CIP waste be neutralized, tested and logged prior to transport to the MRWPCA or discharge to the MRWPCA sewer system in accordance with all MRWPCA regulations and standards. Mitigation Measure 4.-11-4b require the project sponsor to conduct a study to evaluate whether brine salinity levels will lead to pipeline corrosion and, if so, to identify and implement appropriate corrective measures to reduce corrosion potential.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.11-4a and 4.11-4b will reduce Impact 6.11-4 to a less than significant level. This impact does not affect the CalAm Facilities. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.11-4a and 4.11-4b can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities under that agency's jurisdiction.
L. Aesthetic Resources
1. Impact 6.12-2: Permanent facilities could have an adverse effect on scenic vistas, damage scenic resources, or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
a. Impact. The Regional Project could result in significant aesthetic impacts associated with the Terminal Reservoir, Valley Greens Pump Station and the Intake Wells.
The Terminal Reservoir would consist of a 500 by 600 foot fenced area containing two 3 million gallon tanks, 33 feet in height and 130 feet in diameter. It would be built on a hill in low growing coastal scrub vegetation. Due to the height and mass of the large reservoir tanks, the Terminal Reservoir is dominant to other features in the landscape, even when viewed from a distance. Because the surrounding landscape is made up of shrubs and devoid of trees or other massive objects, the reservoir would constitute a feature that is out of context and would likely impair horizon and skyline views for traveling motorists and horizon views for nearby residents. Because the site has a moderate aesthetic resource value, the resulting visual impact would be potentially significant.
The Valley Greens pump station would be constructed near the intersection of Carmel Valley Drive and Valley Greens Drive. While specific designs have not yet been developed, the functional requirements of the pump station require a small scale facility that would be compatible with other architectural features in the area. Because the site has a moderate aesthetic resource value, the resulting visual impact would be potentially significant.
Construction of the subsurface intake wells would involve drilling of six vertical seawater wells. The exact location of individual wells is pending detailed geotechnical investigations, but would be located in a zone west of SR 1 south of the mouth of the Salinas River and north of Dunes Road. These wells are likely to be visible from SR 1 (particularly in the southbound lanes) and could detract from views of the California Coastal Zone if placed in the foreground of views of the large coastal dunes. Generally, these views are a highly valued public resource and therefore, long term operation of the wells could potentially degrade the visual quality of the site and its surroundings. In most cases, the surface well facilities would be small enough and distant enough from potential observers that the impact severity (contrast) of the facilities would be low. However, because well locations are unknown, placement could occur in foreground areas near SR-1 and coastal residences or potentially be in conflict with local policies and regulations. For these reasons, the intake wells could result in a potentially significant impact.
b. Mitigation. The project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measures 4.12-2a through and 4.12-2c as specified below:
(i) Mitigation Measure 4.12-2a: The applicant shall implement architectural features into the facility design so they complement the building styles of the community (e.g. nautical or agricultural style) and minimize visual mass. Exterior finishes should avoid reflective surfaces. Colors for larger visible tanks and structures should be darker earth tones to reduce contrast with the ground plain and increase compatibility with the visual setting. Primary structures should combine multiple complementary colors such in ranges of browns, tans, grays, greens, or other colors agreed upon with the appropriate permitting agency.
(ii) Mitigation Measure 4.12-2b: The applicant shall design fencing to be minimally intrusive to the community yet complementary to the architectural character of the facility and the community. Fencing will be coordinated with landscaping and facility design to help further enhance the local aesthetics and to blend the facility with the surrounding community and/or natural setting. Vegetative screening using native plants, trees or shrubs will be used if it is not out of character with the site setting, and walled perimeters will be avoided in natural settings to minimize the dominance of structures in the scene.
(iii) Mitigation Measure 4.12-2c: If location of facilities is flexible, structures, roads and ponds should be placed to minimize their prominence in the landscape and proximity to roads, publicly accessible viewpoints and residences. If possible, facilities should be located away from sensitive landscape units, and if necessary screened to minimize visual contrast with the surrounding setting.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.12.-2a through 4.12-2c will reduce Impact 6.12-2 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.12-2a through 4.12-2c on the pertinent CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.12-2a through 4.12-2c can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWRA on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities under that agency's jurisdiction.
2. Impact 6.12-3: Exterior lighting associated with proposed facilities would create new sources of light and glare in the surrounding areas.
a. Impact. Increased lighting and glare emanating from planned lighting locations could detract from nighttime views, particularly for nearby sensitive observers and motorists. Many project components would be constructed on undeveloped land where surrounding light sources are limited to sporadic light fixtures on farm buildings and security lighting in adjacent industrial areas. Other projects would be located within existing urban areas where additional lighting is unlikely to create a noticeable or distracting visual effect. New lighting would be necessary for site safety and security at these new and visible facilities and could create new sources of light or glare that could adversely affect day or nighttime views. Parking areas associated with the desalination and treatment plants would include minimal nighttime lighting for security purposes.
b. Mitigation. The project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measures 4.12-3a and 4.12-3b, which requires that the project's exterior lights be shielded and directed away from adjoining uses to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.12-3a and 4.12-3b will reduce Impact 6.12-3 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.12-3a and 4.13-3b on the pertinent CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.12-3a and 4.12-3b can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities under that agency's jurisdiction.
M. Cultural Resources
1. Impact 6.13-1: Project construction has the potential to affect known archaeological resources.
a. Impact. Ground disturbance associated with all physical project components could adversely impact both known and previously undiscovered important archeological resources, including two cultural resources (a fenceline and a narrow-gauge railroad grade) identified in the intake wells area. This is a potentially significant impact.
b. Mitigation. The project sponsor shall implement Mitigation Measures 4.13-1a through 4.13-1d. These measures require pre-construction surveys of cultural resources for project areas not previously surveyed. If cultural resources are discovered, the resource shall be avoided if feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the resource shall be evaluated for importance or eligibility for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). If the resource is deemed important or eligible for the CRHR, then a data recovery program must be implemented. The project sponsor is also required to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan (CRTP) for all known and newly discovered cultural resources within areas of direct impact of project activities. Construction supervisory personnel shall be notified of the existence of these resources and required to keep personnel and equipment away from these areas. Periodic monitoring of cultural resources to be avoided shall be completed by a qualified archeologist to ensure that no inadvertent damage to the resources occurs as a result of construction or construction-related activities.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.13-1a through 4.13-1d will reduce Impact 6.13-1 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.13-1a through 4.13-1d on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that 4.13-1a through 4.13-1d can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
2. Impact 6.13-2: Unanticipated archaeological discoveries may be damaged or destroyed during project construction.
a. Impact. All of the project components require ground disturbing activity that could result in the destruction of cultural resources. Unknown and potentially significant cultural resources could exist within areas of ground disturbance during construction of the project components. Destruction of potentially significant cultural resources without mitigation would be a significant impact.
b. Mitigation. In accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.13-2, prior to the initiation of construction or ground disturbing activities, all construction personnel shall be alerted to the possibility of buried cultural remains, including prehistoric and/or historic resources. During construction and operations, personnel and equipment shall be restricted to the project work site. Personnel shall be instructed that upon discovery of buried cultural materials, work in the immediate area of the find shall be immediately halted. Once the find has been identified by a qualified archaeologist, then the project sponsor shall make the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) and for the evaluation and mitigation of impacts if the find is found to be important per CEQA (Appendix K). Application of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1b (specifying that avoidance of cultural resources as the preferred mitigation measure) would be appropriate if the find can be avoided. In the case that that the find cannot be avoided, Mitigation Measures 4.13-2c-d shall be implemented.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-2 will reduce Impact 6.13-2 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.13-2 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.13-2 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
3. Impact 6.13-3: Potential to uncover human remains.
a. Impact. All of the project components require ground disturbing activities that could result in the discovery of human remains. Ground disturbing activities have the potential to uncover both historic-era and pre-historic human remains. For prehistoric resources, shellmounds in the Monterey Bay Area often contain human remains. For historic-era, there is also the potential to discover human remains outside of the boundary of an established cemetery. Discovery of human remains without mitigation would be a significant impact.
b. Mitigation. Per Mitigation Measure 4.13-3, if buried human remains are encountered during construction, work shall be immediately halted, and the project sponsor and the Monterey County coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, then the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) will be notified within 24 hours as required by Public Resources Code 5097. The NAHC shall notify designated Most Likely Descendants (MLD). The MLD is responsible for providing recommendations for the treatment of the remains within 48 hours of being granted access to the find.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-3 will reduce Impact 6.13-3 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.13-3 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.13-3 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
N. Energy
1. Impact 6.14-1: Construction of the Regional Project could result in the substantial consumption of energy such that existing supplies would be constrained and could result in the wasteful use of energy resources that are not renewable.
a. Impact. Although energy for construction activities would be consumed only during the construction period, it would represent irreversible consumption of finite natural energy resources. Construction energy expenditures would include both direct and indirect uses of energy in the form of fuel and electricity. Indirect energy use typically represents about three-quarters of total construction energy, while direct energy use represents about one-quarter of total construction energy. Direct energy use would include the consumption of petroleum for operation of construction vehicles and the use of electricity for construction equipment, such as welding machines and power tools. Energy consumed by construction power equipment would be relatively minimal, as would construction energy required for lighting and heating of trailers and operation of ancillary electrical equipment. Indirect energy use would include the consumption of energy for the extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, and transportation to make materials used in the construction of the proposed project.
The energy consumption for construction would represent a less than significant impact as construction activities would not result in long-term depletion of non-renewable energy resources and would not permanently increase reliance on energy resources that are not renewable. Nor would construction activities reduce or interrupt existing electrical or natural gas services due to insufficient supply. Because project construction would not interrupt existing local PG&E service and project-related construction energy demands would not have significant effects on PG&E's energy resources, energy consumption by construction activities would not constitute a significant impact. Nonetheless, the emissions of air pollutants associated with Regional Project construction, including emissions from vehicle and equipment exhaust pollutants, may result in a potentially significant impact.
b. Mitigation. Implement Mitigation Measures 4.8-1c. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.8-1c would ensure that fuel energy consumed in the construction phase would not be wasted by requiring idling restrictions.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8-1c will reduce Impact 6.14-1 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 4.8-1c on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measures 4.8-1c can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
2. Impact 6.14-2: Operation of the Regional Project would increase long-term consumption of electricity at the project facilities, which could result in the wasteful use of energy resources that are not renewable.
a. Impact. The Regional Project would result in the long-term consumption of electricity, which includes energy produced from non-renewable resources. Electrical power would be used to operate the desalination plan and treated water conveyance systems, and for associated conveyance systems, pumps, lighting, process controls and heating/ventilation/air conditioning systems. The peak annual electrical demand has been estimated at 6.7 megawatts. On an annual basis, the project would consume about 52,344 megawatt hours of electricity. In addition to obtaining power from the PG&E grid, the power supply needs for the project could be supplied from the MRWMD Gas Power Project, MCWRA Hydroelectric Plant, and/or from self-generation of electrical power using natural gas as the generation fuel source. Since the exact configuration and electrical energy needs and natural gas demands of these alternative supplies are unknown at this stage of project design, it is not possible to fully evaluate their potential impacts over that of obtaining electrical power from the PG&E grid. Because of this uncertainty, power supply options could have the potential to conflict with energy standards and conservation plans and thus, could represent a significant impact.
b. Mitigation. Per Mitigation Measure 6.14-1, an Energy Conservation Plan shall be prepared for the Regional Project. The plan shall evaluate the energy demands for both electrical and natural gas of the selected project power supply against the energy demands of direct use of electricity from the PG&E grid. If the Energy Conservation Plan cannot demonstrate that the proposed power supply other than PG&E grid alone represents the same or less demands on the energy supply system, then the applicant shall power the project from the PG&E grid. Cost cannot be a factor for determining infeasibility.
c. Findings. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 6.14-1 will reduce Impact 6.14-2 to a less than significant level. The CPUC has imposed Mitigation Measures 6.14-1 on the CalAm Facilities as a condition of approval of the CPCN and implementation will be monitored through the MMRP. The CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 6.14-1 can and should be imposed by other agencies with jurisdiction on the pertinent Non-CalAm Facilities and has already been imposed by MCWD and MCWRA on the Non-CalAm Facilities under those agencies' jurisdiction.
III. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
The goal under CEQA is to consider alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen a project's significant environmental impact(s) while achieving most of the basic project objectives. The project objectives here consist of the following:
· Satisfy CalAm's obligations to meet the requirements of SWRCB Order 95-10;
· Diversify and create a reliable drought-proof water supply;
· Protect the Seaside Basin for long-term reliability;
· Protect listed species in the riparian and aquatic habitat below San Clemente Dam;
· Protect the local economy from the effects of an uncertain water supply;
· Minimize water rate increases by creating a diversified water supply portfolio;
· Minimize energy requirements and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of water delivered to the extent possible;
· Explore opportunities for regional partnerships, consistent with the Administrative Law Decision (Decision 03-09-022, dated September 4, 2003); and
· Avoid duplicative facilities and infrastructure.
There is substantial evidence in the record that the alternatives identified in the FEIR: (1) would not avoid the significant unavoidable impacts to construction air quality and/or operation-related greenhouse gas emissions; (2) are not feasible; and/or (3) would fail to meet most of the basic project objectives. The reasons for rejecting each alternative are discussed below. The reasons for rejecting each alternative are independent and each reason alone is sufficient to support a determination that the alternative is infeasible.
The CPUC, in the exercise of its discretion, and after reviewing the FEIR and other relevant information in the record of proceedings, finds as follows:
A. No Project Alternative
1. Description. This alternative considered the impact of the CWP not going forward, known in CEQA parlance as the No Project Alternative. Under the No Project Alternative, water supply in the CalAm service area would be severely curtailed, in order to comply with the SWRCB Cease and Desist Order.
2. Comparison to Regional Project. Implementation of the No Project Alternative would avoid the significant impacts of the Regional Project, including the significant unavoidable impacts to construction air quality and operation-related greenhouse gas emissions. The water rationing and possible water shortages that could ensue from the No Project Alternative, however, would potentially affect a variety of other resource areas, including utilities, recreation, biological resources, air quality, land use and population and housing.
3. Findings. The No Project Alternative would fail to achieve any of the basic project objectives, notably including the objectives to meet the requirements of SWRCB Order 95-10, to create a reliable drought-proof water supply, to protect the Seaside Basin, to protect listed species in the riparian and aquatic habitat below San Clemente Dam and to protect the local economy from the effects of an uncertain water supply.
The water supply deficit that would result from the No Project Alternative would lead to severe water rationing and possible water shortages throughout the CalAm service area. In 1995, CalAm served approximately 105,000 customers in the Monterey area, supplying them with approximately 17,000 AFY. Approximately fifty percent of that supply figure (i.e., 8,498 AFY) would be eliminated if replacement supplies were not provided in accordance with the time-frames of the Cease and Desist Order. A 50% water reduction would result in severe negative consequences for CalAm customers. A reduction of this magnitude would create substantial social hardships, including reduced bathing, clothes washing, and waste removal as well as elimination of recreational and aesthetic benefits of water use. In addition, the lack of sufficient water supplies could lead to adverse public health and safety impacts associated with fire protection, bathing and hygiene, waste removal, street cleaning, and related domestic uses.
The lack of sufficient water supplies would, in turn, have potentially significant effects on the local economies within the Monterey Peninsula. A conservative quantification of the economic impact of reduced water use on residential water users is between $17 and $51 million annually. The estimated economic impact of reduced water usage on industrial water users is $261 million annually and the estimated economic impact of reduced water usage on commercial water users is $741 million annually. Thus, the economic impact of the No Project Alternative could well exceed $1 billion per year and employment losses associated with the deficit in water supplies are estimated to total 6,000 jobs.
The CPUC finds that the No Project Alternative fails to meet most of the basic project objectives and, as a separate ground, is infeasible under CEQA for the social reasons described above, and, as a separate ground, is infeasible under CEQA for the economic reasons described above. Based on the foregoing findings, the CPUC rejects the No Project Alternative.
B. Moss Landing Alternative
1. Description. Under this alternative, the desalination plant would be located on 16 acres at the Moss Landing Power Plant and would be owned and operated by CalAm. The project would include a desalination plant sized to produce 10 mgd of desalinated water. The project would also include a seawater intake system using source water supplied from the existing Moss Landing Power Plant once-through cooling water return system, an open-water brine discharge system through the Moss Landing Power Plant, and a variety of conveyance and storage facilities, including approximately 28 miles of pipeline and an aquifer storage and recovery system. The aquifer storage and recovery system would consist of two existing and two proposed injection/extraction wells. The Moss Landing Alternative would produce 8,800 AFY of desalinated water in non-drought years and 10,900 AFY in drought years that would be delivered to CalAm's Terminal Reservoir for distribution to its customers.
2. Comparison to Regional Project. The FEIR concluded that the Moss Landing Alternative would avoid the Regional Project's significant and unavoidable impacts to construction air quality and operation-related greenhouse gas emissions. The FEIR also noted that, given the Cease and Desist Order, time is of the essence in developing a replacement water supply to cease unauthorized withdrawal of water from the Carmel River and that the potential need to accelerate the construction schedule may make it unrealistic for any of the proposed alternatives to comply with the construction air quality mitigation measure that would limit daily construction activities in order to ensure that construction air quality emissions stay under the significance threshold on a daily basis. As described below, the CPUC finds that the Moss Landing Alternative would not avoid the significant unavoidable impact to construction air quality. The significant unavoidable operational-related greenhouse gas impact of the Regional Project would be mitigated to a less of less than significant with the Moss Landing Alternative.
The FEIR also noted that the Moss Landing Alternative would result in other significant impacts that would not occur as a result of the Regional Project. These include Impact 4.1-9 (the proposed project facilities could be subject to flooding due to a tsunami) and Impact 4.10-2 (components of the project may conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over the project). While these impacts can be mitigated, they still represent impacts that would not occur under the Regional Project. Further, the Moss Landing Alternative relies on once-through cooling to dilute the project discharge water. As noted below, regulation of once-through cooling is currently under scrutiny in California, and it is anticipated that once-through cooling may be eliminated within the near future. If this were to occur, the Moss Landing plant discharge would contain higher levels of contaminants and salinity due to the absence of once-through cooling flows. The undiluted brine discharge would be more concentrated and therefore could exceed the regulatory water quality objectives for Monterey Bay and/or adversely affect the receiving water quality. As explained in Impact 9-2 of the FEIR, if once-through cooling were not allowed, the Moss Landing Alternative would have a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to water quality.
3. Findings. In light of the strict time-frames imposed by the Cease and Desist Order, the CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.8-1d, like Mitigation Measure 6.8-1a, is infeasible for social and economic reasons since it would lead to delays in providing sufficient replacement water supplies to the residents of Monterey County. Although temporary in nature, these delays could lead to severe water rationing and possible water shortages throughout the CalAm service area and result in significant adverse effects on the environment and the economies of the greater Monterey area. Thus, like the Regional Project, the Moss Landing Alternative would result in a significant unavoidable impact to construction air quality on both a project level and cumulative basis.
Monterey County Code Section 10.72.030(b) prevents private entities from owning desalination plants. CalAm is a privately owned water utility. Thus, CalAm cannot legally own and operate a desalination water facility in Monterey County. To the extent that implementation of replacement water supplies were delayed as a result of litigation or legal uncertainty over this issue or the need to change pertinent law, the Moss Landing Alternative would be unacceptable for social and economic reasons similar to those described above.
In addition, the open water intake and once-through cooling design that would be utilized for the Moss Landing Alternative is environmentally controversial and subject to increasingly restrictive regulations due to the fact that it impinges and entrains numerous fish and aquatic species. For instance, section 316(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures of power plants reflect the best technology available to protect aquatic organisms from being killed or injured by impingement or entrainment. Further, on May 10, 2010, the SWRCB approved Resolution 2010-0020, adopting a Proposed Water Quality Control Policy on the Use of Coastal and Estuarine Water for Power Plant Cooling and Associated Certified Regulatory Program Environmental Analysis. In general, the goal of the adopted policy is to ensure that the owner and operator of an existing power plant can reduce impingement mortality and entrainment by either reductions in velocity, flow, or control technologies. In light of the environmental controversy and increasingly strict regulations associated with once-through cooling, the Moss Landing Alternative would likely take longer to get approved and implemented than the Regional Project. Given the strict time-frames to provide replacement supplies under the Cease and Desist Order, the potential delays associated with providing replacement water supplies and uncertainty concerning the future, continued availability of once-through cooling water to supply the desalination plant make the Moss Landing Alternative unacceptable for social and economic reasons similar to those described above.
The Moss Landing Alternative would not achieve several important policy objectives that would be advanced by the Regional Project. The failure to achieve any of these policy objectives provides a separate and independent ground on which to find the Moss Landing Alternative to be infeasible. Unlike the Regional Project, it would not satisfy MCWD's obligations to provide a water supply adequate to meet the approved redevelopment of the former Fort Ord by replacing the 2,400 AFY to have been provided by the previously approved RUWAP project. It would not maximize regional reliability of water resources by integrating the development and allocation of several water supply sources, including desalination, to address existing and projected future demands within the CalAm service area, as well as existing and future demands in other areas of northern Monterey County. Further, it would not enhance funding opportunities available through regional cooperation. Since the Moss Landing Alternative fails to meet these important policy objectives, it is deemed infeasible on social grounds.
The CPUC finds that the Moss Landing Alternative is infeasible under CEQA for the legal reasons described above, and, as a separate ground, is infeasible under CEQA for the social reasons described above, and, as a separate ground, is infeasible under CEQA for the economic reasons described above, and, as a separate ground, is infeasible under CEQA for the technological reasons described above. Based on the foregoing findings, the CPUC rejects the Moss Landing Alternative.
C. North Marina Alternative
1. Description. The North Marina Alternative consists of much of the same infrastructure as described above for the Moss Landing Alternative except for the intake technology and the outfall. Like the Moss Landing Alternative, the desalination plant proposed as part of the North Marina Alternative would be owned and operated by CalAm. Instead of being located at the Moss Landing Power Plant, however, the desalination plant would be sited on approximately 10 acres of the Armstrong Ranch in North Marina at the same location as the proposed Regional Project desalination plant site. The North Marina Alternative would use a seawater intake system consisting of six new subsurface beach slant wells, an open-water brine discharge system through the existing MRWPCA outfall, project water conveyance and storage infrastructure, including several miles of pipeline and an aquifer storage and recovery system. Similar to the Moss Landing Alternative, the North Marina Alternative would produce 8,800 AFY of desalinated water in non-drought years and 10,900 AFY in drought years that would be delivered to CalAm customers. The North Marina Alternative was designed to be slightly larger than the Moss Landing Alternative (i.e., 11 mgd instead of 10 mgd) so as to be able to produce sufficient supplies to replace groundwater drawn from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB).
2. Comparison to Regional Project. The FEIR found that the North Marina Alternative would avoid the Regional Project's significant and unavoidable impacts to construction air quality and operation-related greenhouse gas emissions. The FEIR also noted that, given the Cease and Desist Order, time is of the essence in developing a replacement water supply to cease unauthorized withdrawal of water from the Carmel River and that the potential need to accelerate the construction schedule may make it unrealistic for any of the proposed alternatives to comply with the construction air quality mitigation measure that would limit daily construction activities in order to ensure that construction air quality emissions stay under the significance threshold on a daily basis.
The FEIR concludes that the North Marina Alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative because it avoids the Regional Project's impacts to construction air quality and operation-related greenhouse gas emissions. As described below, the CPUC finds that North Marina Alternative would not avoid the significant unavoidable impact to construction air quality. Thus, the only basis on which the North Marina Alternative is environmentally superior to the Regional Project is that it would avoid the Regional Project's significant unavoidable impact to operational-related greenhouse gas emissions. The FEIR contained mitigation measures to address this impact and noted that assuming all mitigation measures were imposed and fully implemented by all pertinent approval and participant agencies, the Regional Project could be the environmentally superior alternative because:
· The Regional Project is a 10 mgd-facility, and as such would require less feedwater than the 11 mgd North Marina Alternative and would also result in less brine being discharged to the ocean;
· The Regional Project would use less energy to generate water in a drought condition;
· The Regional Project would include 6 vertical wells at 200 feet deep, as opposed to 6 slant wells at 750 feet long for the North Marina Alternative, resulting in a shorter drilling period and the need to dispose of less spoil material; and
· Implementation of the Regional Project would eliminate the need for the MCWD to develop its own 3 mgd desalination facility (as previously approved by the MCWD and examined in the RUWAP EIR), and allow for more efficient operations, while minimizing construction and operational impacts to the environment.
3. Findings. In light of the strict time-frames imposed by the Cease and Desist Order, the CPUC finds that Mitigation Measure 4.8-1d, like Mitigation Measure 6.8-1a, is infeasible for social and economic reasons due to the delays associated with providing sufficient replacement water supplies to the residents of Monterey County. Although temporary in nature, these delays could lead to severe water rationing and possible water shortages throughout the CalAm service area and result in significant adverse effects on the environment and the economies within the greater Monterey area. Thus, like the Regional Project, the North Marina Alternative would result in a significant unavoidable impact to construction air quality on both a project level and cumulative basis.
Monterey County Code Section 10.72.030(b) prevents private entities from owning desalination plants. CalAm is a privately owned water utility. Thus, CalAm cannot legally own and operate a desalination water facility in Monterey County. To the extent that implementation of replacement water supplies were delayed as a result of litigation or legal uncertainty over this issue or the need to change pertinent law, the North Marina Alternative would be unacceptable for social and economic reasons similar to those described above.
Pursuant to Section 21 of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act, Water Code Appendix, Chapter 52 (Agency Act), no groundwater from the SVGB may be exported for use outside the basin. Source water pumped from the slant wells proposed as part of North Marina Alternative would include some amount of intruded groundwater from the SVGB. After being processed by the desalination facility for domestic use, this water would be exported from the SVGB for use by CalAm customers. While the North Marina Alternative is intended to be operated so as to return desalinated water to the SVGB in an amount equal to the volume of SVGB-groundwater that is extracted from the North Marina wells, the parties have raised serious concerns about the practical and legal feasibility of this operational measure. MCWD and MCWRA, in particular, have raised significant concerns regarding the legality of this option. In contrast to North Marina Alternative's untested and unproven approach, as part of the Regional Project, MCWD, which is located within the SVGB, has agreed to take and serve to its customers, an annual allocation of desalinated water (i.e., up to 1,700 AFY) equivalent to the amount of groundwater expected to comprise the product water from the desalination facility so as to ensure that groundwater is not exported from the SVGB. The Regional Project also requires the construction of test wells, the data from which will be analyzed by MCWRA to ensure compliance with the Agency Act's restrictions on exportation of groundwater. Specifically, MCWRA will determine the particular types of wells to drill (i.e., slant or vertical) based on analysis of the data and after consultation with MCWD and CalAm. MCWRA will also determine whether the MCWD agreed-upon allocation (i.e., up to 1,700 AFY based on the assumption that the desalination facility source water will include an average of 15% groundwater) can be delivered and have the Regional Project still meet the requirements of the Agency Act. To the extent that implementation of replacement water supplies were delayed as a result of litigation or legal uncertainty over the North Marina project's ability to comply with the Agency Act or were impaired due to practical challenges associated with returning water to the SVGB, the North Marina Alternative would be unacceptable for social, economic and technological reasons similar to those described above.
Related to the Agency Act issues, the North Marina Alternative could produce insufficient water supplies for CalAm due to the difference between source water and product water. Under the North Marina Alternative, CalAm would have to return water to the SVGB on the basis of quantities of SVGB groundwater within the source water. The quantity of source water is far higher than the quantity of product water after the desalination process. With the Regional Project, the quantity of SVGB groundwater at issue is based upon product water quantities since MCWD, as an overlier of the SVGB, has the right to product water from the SVGB. As a result, less water could be available to CalAm under the North Marina Alternative than under the Regional Project. Thus, the North Marina Alternative could fail to meet the most basic project objective of providing CalAm with sufficient replacement water supplies to meet the requirements of the SWRCB orders and the Seaside Basin groundwater adjudication.
The North Marina Alternative would not achieve several of the important policy objectives that would be advanced by the Regional Project. The failure to achieve any of these policy objectives provides a separate and independent ground on which to find the North Marina Alternative to be infeasible. Unlike the Regional Project, it would not satisfy MCWD's obligations to provide a water supply adequate to meet the approved redevelopment of the former Fort Ord by replacing the 2,400 afy to have been provided by the previously approved RUWAP project. It would not maximize regional reliability of water resources by integrating the development and allocation of several water supply sources, including desalination, to address existing and projected future demands within the CalAm service area, as well as existing and future demands in other areas of northern Monterey County. Further, it would not enhance funding opportunities available through regional cooperation. Since the North Marina Project fails to meet these important policy objectives, it is deemed infeasible on social grounds.
Moreover, MWCD has exercised its option to purchase the land on which CalAm proposed to locate the North Marina plant. Thus, implementation of the North Marina Alternative by CalAm appears infeasible from a practical or technological standpoint.
The CPUC finds that the North Marina Alternative fails to meet most of the basic project objectives and, as a separate ground, is infeasible under CEQA for the legal reasons described above, and, as a separate ground, is infeasible under CEQA for the social reasons described above, and, as a separate ground, is infeasible under CEQA for the economic reasons described above, and, as a separate ground, is infeasible under CEQA for the technological reasons described above. Based on the foregoing findings, the CPUC rejects the North Marina Alternative.
D. Other Alternatives
In addition to the alternatives described above, Sections 7.6 and 7.7 of the FEIR examined four additional alternatives to the CWP. These include the Ship-Based Desalination, Regional Project Phase 1 Plus Seaside Groundwater Basin Replenishment, the CalAm Growth Project, and Regional Project Including Phase 2. In accordance with the conclusions of the FEIR, the CPUC finds that none of these alternatives would eliminate the Regional Project's significant unavoidable impacts to construction air quality and operation-related greenhouse gas emissions. Further, three of the four projects (i.e., all except the Ship-Based Desalination alternative, whose feasibility as a permitted project is uncertain without further investigation) would definitely have more potentially significant environmental impacts than the Regional Project. To implement any of these options would require additional environmental review and be subject to lengthy permitting and entitlements processes. Associated delays would preclude implementation of replacement water supplies in time to satisfy the requirements of the Cease and Desist Order. Thus, these alternatives would be unacceptable for the same social and economic reasons described above.
Section 7.5 of the FEIR also discusses various alternatives to certain project components. The CPUC finds that the design alternatives would not avoid the significant unavoidable impacts to construction air quality and operation-related greenhouse gas emissions. The CPUC further finds that these measures would likely require additional review and permitting processes that would lead to delays in making replacement water available and thus makes these measures infeasible for the same social and economic reasons described above.
IV. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
As described above, after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the Regional Project will have significant unavoidable impacts to construction air quality (on both a project and cumulative level) and operation-related greenhouse gas emissions. There are no feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to avoid or reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. See, Part II and Part III, above.
V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Overriding Considerations. The CPUC has considered the Regional Project's significant and unavoidable impacts set forth above, and weighed the benefits of the Regional Project against the significant unavoidable environmental impacts under CEQA. The CPUC hereby finds that for the reasons set forth below, the Regional Project's benefits and economic, legal, social, environmental and other considerations associated with the Regional Project outweigh and make acceptable the unavoidable impacts identified above, and the CPUC adopts and makes this statement of overriding considerations. The CPUC further finds that each benefit specified below independently provides a sufficient basis to outweigh the Regional Project's significant unavoidable impacts. The CPUC further finds that the benefits of the Regional Project outweigh the benefits of any of the other alternatives examined, including the alternatives deemed infeasible in Part III above.
B. Benefits of the Project. The expected benefits of the Regional Project are:
1. The Regional Project would provide adequate, reliable water supplies for residents of the Monterey Peninsula.
The various components of the Regional Project would result in the provision of 15,200 AFY of replacement water supplies for residents of the Monterey Peninsula. Water would be provided to serve both CalAm and portions of the MCWD service area. The 105,000 customers that CalAm serves (approximately one-fourth of the population of the County) would particularly benefit from the Regional Project. It would allow residential, commercial and industrial activities to continue to exist and flourish within the greater Monterey area. The Regional Project is designed to provide safe and reliable water supplies and avoid the complications associated with relying on surface water and groundwater supplies that led to the need for the Regional Project.
2. The Regional Project would protect and promote the Monterey economy.
Implementation of the Regional Project is estimated to save over $1 billion in economic losses associated with insufficient water supplies. This exceeds the size of the County budget for fiscal year 2009-2010, which was slightly over $950,000. The savings achieved by the Regional Project also equate to approximately one-fifth of the value of the dollars that the County received in tourism and agriculture in 2006. The Regional Project would also safeguard approximately 6,000 jobs and avoid severe water rationing and possible water shortages.
3. The Regional Project would result in significant environmental benefits to the Carmel River.
Implementation of Regional Project would result in a reduction in CalAm's pumping of river subflows from the Carmel River by as much as 8,498 AFY compared to existing conditions and by as much as 10,730 AFY compared to pre-Order 95-10 conditions. By allowing this water to remain in the Carmel River, the Regional Project will result in significant environmental benefits to federally-listed threatened steelhead and may result in benefits to other special-status species, including the red-legged frog. For instance, operation of the Regional Project will improve opportunities for upstream migration of steelhead by slightly increasing the duration of attracting flows and lengthening the duration of the migration season. The Regional Project will also reduce the risk of stranding juvenile steelhead in the lower Carmel River during summer months as well as during the Fall/Winter period. Further, implementation of the Regional Project will reduce the number of days with a risk of isolating and stranding steelhead smolts during their seaward migrations. In addition, reduced pumping of water from the Carmel River Aquifer may improve the red-legged frog's ability to mature.
4. The Regional Project can take advantage of low-cost financing options that will benefit ratepayers.
Due to the involvement of public agencies, there are low-cost financing options available to implement the Regional Project. The low cost financing opportunities that the public agencies (i.e., MCWD and MCWRA) should be able to access include low-cost State Revolving Fund loans, tax-exempt private activity bonds and various federal and state grants. These financing mechanisms are expected to lower the overall cost of the Regional Project to CalAm's ratepayers. Further, due to generally weak economic conditions, there is a favorable construction climate in California at the present time, affording project sponsors an advantage in regard to negotiating terms of any construction project, but especially a major construction project such as the proposed regional desalination water facility.
5. The Regional Project will allow for more coordinated and comprehensive planning of water supplies on the Monterey Peninsula.
The Regional Project consists of a partnership between CalAm and other regional water supply entities, and addresses water supply demands not only within CalAm's service area, but also in other areas of northern Monterey County. Shortage of water supplies has been a long-standing problem on the Monterey Peninsula. The Regional Project provides for coordination among the various entities that supply water in Monterey County and sets up a framework for current and long-term planning for the area's water needs.
6. The Regional Project will maintain the hydrologic balance of the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin by adhering to Agency Act.
The Regional Project sponsors agree to maximize the intake of seawater on a cost-effective basis in a way that ensures compliance with the requirements of the Agency Act. As such, through implementation of the Regional Project, MCWRA will satisfy the requirements of the Agency Act, thus maintaining the hydrologic balance of the SVGB. This will protect farmers and agribusiness that participate in and fund the Salinas Valley Reclamation Project, Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project, and the Salinas Valley Water Project.
7. The Regional Project obviates need for an additional desalination plant.
Implementation of the Regional Project would eliminate the need for MCWD to develop its own 3 mgd desalination facility (as previously approved by MCWD and examined in the RUWAP EIR), which would be needed if the project consisted of a CalAm-only desalination facility. Having one desalination facility instead of two would allow for more efficient operations and minimize construction and operational impacts to the environment.
VI. CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS
The CPUC is designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this decision is based. Such documents and other materials are located in the CPUC's offices located at 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102.
(END OF APPENDIX B)
APPENDIX C
MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact |
Mitigation Measure |
Applicable Site(s) |
Monitoring and Reporting Program | ||||
Monitoring and CalAm Reports On, and the |
Implementation Schedule | ||||||
TM South S of Ft Ord |
Terminal Reservoir |
ASR |
Monterey Pipeline | ||||
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES | |||||||
Impact 6.1-1: Project construction activities could cause erosion and increase stormwater runoff resulting in an adverse water quality impact. |
Mitigation Measure 4.1-1: The project applicant will implement the following: · Develop and implement a monitoring program as required under the General Construction Permit. The project applicant will require the contractor to conduct inspections of the construction site prior to anticipated storm events and after the actual storm events. During extended storm events, the inspections will be conducted after every 24-hour period. The inspections will be conducted to identify areas contributing to stormwater discharge, to evaluate whether measures to reduce pollutant loadings identified in the SWPPP are adequate and properly installed and functioning in accordance with the General Construction Permit, and to determine whether additional control practices or corrective maintenance activities are needed. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement for implementation of erosion control measures for sensitive areas, and demonstrate compliance to the CPUC. 2. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement for development and implementation of an inspection program and associated corrective actions. 3. CalAm will file annual monitoring reports with the CPUC and the RWQCB. |
1, 2. Erosion control plan and monitoring program developed prior to start of construction. 2. Inspections conducted prior to anticipated storm events, during and after the actual storm events. 3. Annually by July 1. |
Impact 6.1-2: Excavation during construction could require dewatering of shallow groundwater. The water discharge, if contaminated, could adversely affect surface water. |
Mitigation Measure 4.1-2: The project applicant shall implement the following measures: · Notify the RWQCB prior to discharge of the extracted groundwater and provide the results of the required water quality tests performed; and · Conduct treatment of the extracted groundwater as required under the applicable permit issued by the RWQCB (e.g., waiver, site-specific permit or permit for low-threat discharges). |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement to notify the RWQCB prior to discharge of extracted groundwater, and that extracted ground water will be tested and treated (as required by RWQCB permit) 2. CalAm provides the results of the tests performed to the CPUC. |
1. Prior to discharge of extracted groundwater. 2. Annually during construction period |
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES | |||||||
Impact 6.2-1: Components of the Regional Project may violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. |
Mitigation Measure 4.2-1: Prior to pumping development water from all groundwater wells constructed as part of the project, the applicant shall consult with the RWQCB to determine the appropriate discharge permitting for the well development discharge. The permitting requirements will differ depending on the duration of the discharge, the quality of the water to be discharged, and the discharge location. Based on RWQCB consultation, the applicant shall prepare the proper |
X |
1. CalAm will consult with the RWQCB about permit requirements for pumping of development water. 2. CalAm will prepare the proper Application/Report of Waste Discharge |
1. During design 2,3. Prior to construction | |||
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.2-1 (cont.) |
Application/Report of Waste Discharge for the waste discharge requirements or NPDES Permit. If a Report of Waste Discharge is required, it shall include, at a minimum, a characterization of the discharge water, estimates of discharge rates and volumes, characterization of the discharge area and determination of the potential impact to groundwater, soils, surface water, runoff, and flooding. The applicant shall provide a copy of the Application\Report of Waste Discharge to the CPUC at the time of submittal to the RWQCB and keep the CPUC updated through the RWQCB hearing process until Board approval of the waste discharge. |
3. CalAm will provide the CPUC with a copy of the Report and will keep the CPUC updated on the RWQCB process |
|||||
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES | |||||||
Impact 6.4-1: Construction and operation of the new facilities associated with the Regional Project may adversely affect species identified as rare, threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive, or other special status by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. |
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Avoid direct Mortality and/or Disturbance of Special-Status Plant Populations. Floristic surveys of all suitable habitat for special-status plants shall be conducted prior to the biological permitting phase of the Project. Maps depicting the results of these surveys shall be prepared for use in final siting design. Sensitive plant species are widespread, and could occur at the following sites: North Marina, North Marina to Terminal Reservoir Corridor, Terminal Reservoir, Aquifer Storage and Recovery Facilities, and Monterey Pipeline. Project facilities shall be sited to avoid impacts on special-status plants and their required habitat constituent elements, when reasonably feasible. Unavoidable impacts on listed plants species, including Seaside bird's-beak, Yadon's wallflower, sand gilia, Monterey spineflower, and Yadon's rein orchid, require formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Impacts on non-listed species would likely involve informal consultation. Special-status plant occurrences located within temporary construction areas shall be fenced or flagged for avoidance prior to construction, and a biological monitor shall be present to ensure compliance with off-limits areas. Seasonal avoidance measures (i.e., |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will conduct or have conducted, focused surveys, complying with CDFG protocols 2. In the event that no special-status plants are present, CalAm will document findings in a letter to the appropriate agencies and the CPUC 3. CalAm will incorporate results and recommendations of the surveys into contract specifications, as needed. 4. If special-status plants are present, CalAm consults with CDFG and or USFWS, complies with recommendations and develops compensation measures and a Site Restoration Plan (for off-site measures). |
1. Conduct surveys during design; if no special-status plants are found no further work is needed 2. Reports submitted to agencies are after surveys are done. 3. If necessary, during design, adjust siting of project elements to avoid special-status plants and incorporate protection measures in specifications. 4. If avoidance of special-status plants is not possible, implement measures to protect special-status plants before and during construction |
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.4-1 (cont.) |
limited operating periods based on timing of annual plant dormancy), combined with topsoil salvage and site restoration, may be acceptable in some cases. Compensation for permanent loss of special-status plant occurrences, in the form of land purchase or restoration, must be provided to the level acceptable to the resource agencies. Compensatory measures will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the project applicant in consultation with the USFWS and the CDFG. Compensation for loss of special-status plant populations typically involves the purchase and permanent stewardship of known occupied habitat or the restoration and reintroduction of populations in degraded, unoccupied habitat. Restoration or reintroduction may be located on- or off-site. In the latter case, a Site Restoration Plan shall be required, to be prepared by the Applicant and approved by the CPUC, USFWS, and the CDFG as appropriate. It shall include the following: (1) The location of areas to restore lost plant populations; (2) A description of propagation and planting techniques to be employed in the restoration effort; plants to be impacted shall have their seeds collected so that the seeds can be planted within the restoration areas; (3) A time table for implementation of the restoration plan, including pilot-phase studies; (4) A monitoring plan and performance criteria (Performance criteria may vary across sites and species, but is intended to provide proof of restoration success. This is normally a majority of the plants surviving a minimum of five years.); (5) A description of remedial measures to be performed if initial restoration measures are unsuccessful in meeting the performance criteria; and, |
5. CalAm will implement compensation measures, and demonstrate compliance with the CPUC. CalAm will submit annual monitoring reports to resource agencies and the CPUC that include photo documentation, planting specifications, site layout map(s) |
5. Compensatory mitigation, if needed, would be implemented before construction, if possible; site restoration activities will occur after construction. Reports filed annually. | ||||
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.4-1 (cont.) |
(6) A description of the site maintenance activities to follow restoration activities; these may include weed control, irrigation, and control of herbivory by livestock and wildlife. Site maintenance activities shall be altered or intensified when necessary to meet performance criteria. |
||||||
Impact 6.4-1: Construction and operation of the new facilities associated with the Regional Project may adversely affect species identified as rare, threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive, or other special status by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. |
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e: Avoid Construction Impacts on Burrowing Owls. Burrowing owl habitat may occur at the following project locations: · Transmission Main South · ASR Facilities Preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls shall be completed in potential habitat in conformance with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) protocols, and no more than thirty days prior to the start of construction. If no burrowing owls are located during these surveys, no additional action would be warranted. However, if breeding or resident owls are located on or immediately adjacent to the site, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented. A 250-foot buffer, within which no new activity is permissible, shall be maintained between Project activities and nesting burrowing owls. This protected area shall remain in effect until August 31 or, at the discretion of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and based upon monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging independently. If construction will directly impact occupied burrows, eviction outside the nesting season may be permitted pending evaluation of eviction plans and receipt of formal written approval from the CDFG authorizing the eviction. No burrowing owls shall be evicted from burrows during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). |
X |
X |
1.CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that pre-construction surveys be conducted 2. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement for prescribed protective measures. 3. CalAm will document compliance with the CPUC. |
1. Surveys conducted no more than thirty days prior to the start of construction; if no owls are found, no further action is needed. 2. During design. 3. Prior to conclusion of construction. | ||
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.4-1: Construction and operation of the new facilities associated with the Regional Project may adversely affect species identified as rare, threatened, endangered, candidate, sensitive, or other special status by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. |
Mitigation Measure 4.4-1f: Avoid Construction Impacts on Other Special-Status Birds. Special-Status birds (see Table 4.4-2 and Other Special-Status Bird Species, above) could occur on or near any of the sites not within developed areas. These bird species typically nest in California between March 1 and September 1. If construction-related work is scheduled outside of this nesting season, nesting birds will not be impacted and no further mitigation is necessary. If construction must occur during the breeding season (March 1 to September 1), a qualified ornithologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys no more than fifteen days prior to the initiation of disturbance wherever suitable habitat occurs for special-status birds. If active nests are found to be present within or adjacent to work sites during the breeding season, a construction-free buffer around the active nests shall be established. For raptors, this buffer is typically 250 feet; for other birds it may be as narrow as 20 feet. An ornithologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall determine the width of this buffer. This buffer shall be maintained until nesting has been completed and the young have fledged. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that pre-construction surveys be conducted 2. If active nests are found, CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement for establishing a construction-free buffer around active nests in consultation with CDFG 3. CalAm will document compliance with the CPUC |
1. If construction must occur during the breeding season (March 1 to September 1), a qualified ornithologist shall conduct preconstruction surveys no more than fifteen days prior to the initiation of disturbance wherever suitable habitat occurs for special-status birds, if no nesting birds are found no further action is needed 2. Protection measures are implemented prior to construction 3. Prior to construction |
Impact 6.4-2: Construction and operation of the new facilities associated with the Regional Project may adversely affect riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. |
Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b: Avoid construction Impacts on Sensitive Upland Habitats. Sensitive Upland Habitat, predominantly Central Maritime Chaparral, has been identified at the following project locations: · ASR Facilities and Terminal Reservoir · Transmission Main South Construction activities, facilities, and conveyance systems shall be sited in a manner that avoids sensitive upland habitats to the maximum extent feasible. Sensitive upland habitats shall be preserved where possible through facility siting within degraded or non-native vegetation. Sensitive areas shall be flagged for avoidance to minimize the possibility of inadvertent encroachment during construction. Construction staff shall be educated on the sensitive habitats located within and adjacent to the Project's footprint, |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement for measures to protect sensitive upland habitat 2. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement for pre-construction surveys, and the flagging of avoidance areas as needed 3. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that construction staff be trained to avoid sensitive habitats
|
1. Measures, including restoration plans, are included in specifications during design 2. Surveys are conducted and avoidance areas flagged prior to the start of construction. 3,4. Protection measures are put in place before construction and implemented and monitored during construction 5. Restoration Plan is developed before construction. | |
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) | |||||||
6.4-2 (cont.) |
and a biological monitor shall be present to ensure compliance with off-limits areas. When avoidance is not feasible during construction activities; sensitive upland habitats temporarily disturbed during construction activities shall be quantified and appropriate restoration strategies shall be set forth in a Habitat Restoration Plan which shall be developed in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the resource agencies. The Plan shall include the following elements: specific location of restoration site, details on soil preparation, seed collection, planting, maintenance, and monitoring, and quantitative success criteria. At a minimum, temporarily disturbed areas shall be restored by the Applicant to the natural (preconstruction) conditions, which may include the following actions: salvage and stockpiling of topsoil from maritime chaparral, central dune scrub, and oak woodland; regrading of disturbed sites with salvaged topsoil; and revegetation with native, locally collected species. Where restoration is not feasible (i.e., the impact is permanent), the applicant shall purchase and/or preserve similar undisturbed habitat off-site, or restore nearby disturbed areas at a ratio to be determined by the USFWS, CDFG, and other responsible resource agencies with jurisdiction over the project area. |
4. CalAm demonstrates to the CPUC that avoidance areas are monitored during construction. 5. CalAm demonstrates to the CPUC that restoration plans, if necessary, are developed in consultation with USFWS and CDFG. 6. CalAm implements restoration and demonstrates compliance to the CPUC |
6. Restoration plan is completed and reported to the CPUC after construction. | ||||
Impact 6.4-5: Construction and operation of the new facilities associated with the Regional Project could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. |
Mitigation Measure 4.4-5: The project applicant shall perform a comprehensive survey to identify, measure, and map trees subject to County tree removal ordinances (oak trees greater than 6 inches in diameter) and North County Area Plan and Carmel Valley Master Plan ordinances (all native trees greater than 6 inches in diameter), as well as landmark trees. Prior to the removal of protected trees, the project applicant shall obtain tree removal permits or approvals for lost native and landmark trees and arrange mitigation with appropriate public and resource agencies. The standards for tree |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm conducts or has conducted a tree survey. 2. CalAm includes tree protection and tree replacement measures in contract specifications 3. CalAm secures the necessary permits |
1. Tree survey completed during design 2.Tree protection measures incorporated in specifications during design 3. Permits acquired prior to tree removal |
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (cont.) | |||||||
replacement shall be stipulated in the tree permit reviewed and approved by the pertinent local agencies. For example, Monterey County Zoning Ordinance - Title 21 stipulates submittals including: · A site plan sufficient to identify and locate the trees to be removed, other trees, buildings, proposed buildings, and other improvements; · The purpose for the tree removal; · A description of the species, diameter two feet above ground level, estimated height, and general health of the trees to be removed. · A description of the method to be used in removing the tree(s); · A statement showing how trees not proposed for removal are to be protected during removal or construction; · Proposed visual impact mitigation measures the applicant intends to take (if appropriate). Size, location and species of replacement trees, if any, shall be indicated in the site plan. |
4. CalAm implements mitigation consistent with permit conditions and demonstrates compliance to the CPUC |
4. Any off-site mitigation acquired before construction and on-site restoration completed after construction. | |||||
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY | |||||||
Impact 6.5-1: Large earthquakes would be expected to damage the proposed facilities, impairing and/or disrupting their intended operations if not engineered to withstand such ground shaking. |
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1: A California licensed geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist will conduct geotechnical investigations of all Project facilities and pipeline alignments prior to the final design and prepare recommendations applicable to foundation design, earthwork, backfill and site preparation prior to or during the project design phase. The investigations will specify seismic and geologic hazards including potential ground movements and co-seismic effects (including liquefaction). The recommendations of the geotechnical engineer will be incorporated into the design and specifications in accordance with California Geological Survey Special Publication 117 and shall be implemented by the construction contractor. The construction manager will conduct inspections and certify that all design criteria have been met in accordance with the California Building Code as well as applicable City and County ordinances. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm conducts or has conducted, geotechnical investigations and design criteria are incorporated into construction specifications 2. CalAm conducts or has conducted, inspections to confirm design criteria have been met. 3. CalAm demonstrates compliance to the CPUC |
1. During final design of project facilities 2. Inspections during and at the completion of construction. 3. Inspection reports filed with CPUC at conclusion of construction |
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.5-2: Proposed pipelines and facilities could incur damage as a result of underlying soil properties (subsidence, high shrink-swell potential, and corrosivity). |
Mitigation Measure 4.5-2: All project elements and pipeline facilities will comply with applicable policies and appropriate engineering investigation practices necessary to reduce the potential detrimental effects of expansive soils, and corrosivity. Appropriate geotechnical studies will be conducted by California licensed geotechnical engineers or engineering geologists using generally accepted and appropriate engineering techniques for determining the susceptibility of the sites to unstable, weak or corrosive soils in accordance with the most recent version of the California Building Code. A licensed geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist will prepare recommendations applicable to foundation design, earthwork, and site preparation prior to or during the project design phase. Recommendations will address mitigation of site-specific, adverse soil and bedrock conditions that could hinder development. Project engineers will implement the recommendations and incorporate them into project specifications. Geotechnical design and design criteria will comply with the most recent version of the California Building Code (CBC) and applicable local construction and grading ordinances. Once appropriately designed and subsequently constructed, in accordance with local and state building code requirements, the resultant improvements will have the structural fortitude to withstand the potential hazards of expansive soils or corrosivity without significant damage. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm conducts or has conducted, geotechnical investigations and design criteria are incorporated into construction specifications 2. CalAm conducts or has conducted, inspections to confirm design criteria have been met. 3. CalAm demonstrates compliance to the CPUC |
1. During final design of project facilities 2. Inspections during and at the completion of construction. 3. Inspection reports filed with CPUC at conclusion of construction |
Impact 6.5-4: Potential injury and/or damage resulting from earthquake induced landslide. |
Mitigation Measure 4.5-4: During the design phase for all project components that require ground-breaking activities, the project applicant will perform site-specific design-level geotechnical evaluations which will include slope stability conditions and provide recommendations to reduce and eliminate potential slope hazards, if any, in the final design and if necessary, throughout construction. For all pipelines located in landslide hazard areas, appropriate piping material with the ability to deform without rupture (e.g. ductile steel) will be used. For all other facilities a geotechnical evaluation will be conducted and the geotechnical evaluations will include detailed slope |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm conducts or has conducted, geotechnical investigations and design criteria are incorporated into construction specifications 2. Inspections are conducted to confirm design criteria have been met. |
1. During final design of project facilities 2. Inspections during and at the completion of construction 3. Inspection reports filed with CPUC at conclusion of construction | |
GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.5-4 (cont.) |
stability evaluations, which could include a review of aerial photographs, field reconnaissance, soil testing, and slope stability modeling. Facilities design and construction will incorporate the slope stability recommendations contained in the geotechnical analysis conducted by California licensed geotechnical engineers or engineering geologists. Final slope stabilization measures, determined by the licensed geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist in accordance with California Building Code requirements, may include, without limitation, one or more of the following: · Appropriate slope inclination (not steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical) · Slope terracing · Fill compaction · Soil reinforcement · Surface and subsurface drainage facilities · Engineered retaining walls · Buttresses · Erosion control measures Mitigation measures included in the geotechnical report will be incorporated into the project construction specifications and become part of the project. |
3. CalAm demonstrates compliance to the CPUC. |
|||||
Impact 6.5-5: Potential facility damage resulting from a major earthquake in areas susceptible to liquefaction. |
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 |
X |
X |
X |
X |
See above under Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 | |
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS | |||||||
Impact 6.6-1: Excavation and grading for the project could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to hazardous materials that may be present in excavated soil or groundwater. |
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a: Within one year prior to construction of facilities requiring excavation of more than 50 cubic yards of soil, the contractor shall retain a qualified environmental professional to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with ASTM Standard 1527-05 to evaluate subsurface conditions that could be expected during construction. For all pipeline alignments, including Transmission Main South and the Monterey Pipeline, the contractor shall retain a qualified environmental professional to update the environmental database review to identify environmental cases, permitted hazardous materials uses, and spill sites within one-quarter mile of the pipeline alignment. Regulatory agency files will be reviewed for those sites that could potentially affect soil and groundwater quality within the project alignment. If these preliminary environmental reviews indicate that a release of hazardous materials could have affected soil or groundwater quality at a project site, the contractor shall retain a qualified environmental professional to conduct a Phase II environmental site assessment to evaluate the presence and extent of contamination at the site, in conformance with state and local guidelines and regulations. If the results of the subsurface investigation(s) indicate the presence of hazardous materials, additional site remediation may be required by the applicable state or local regulatory agencies, and the contractors shall be required to comply with all regulatory requirements for facility design or site remediation. In addition, the environmental professional will perform a site reconnaissance and assess the need for Phase II soil sampling at locations with the potential to have subsurface contamination identified in the RBF Hazardous Materials Assessment (2005). These locations may not be identified through a regulatory agency database search, and include stained soil near the aboveground petroleum pipeline at the plant site, the railroad right-of-way, and near Highway 1. As above, pertinent findings shall be reported to the applicable state or local regulatory agencies and additional remediation may be required based on the findings of these investigations. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm conducts or has conducted, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 2. If necessary based on results of the Phase 1 environmental site assessment, CalAm will conduct or have conducted a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. 3. If necessary, CalAm will include site remediation plans into contract specifications, and remediation shall be conducted in accordance with regulatory requirements. 4. CalAm demonstrates compliance to the CPUC. |
1. Within one year prior to construction of facilities requiring excavation of more than 50 cubic yards of soil. 2,3,4. Before the start of construction. |
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.6-1: Excavation and grading for the project could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to hazardous materials that may be present in excavated soil or groundwater. |
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1b: Based on the findings of the environmental review required by Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a, the project applicant shall prepare a project-specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP) in accordance with 29 CFR 1910 to protect construction workers and the public during all excavation, grading and construction activities. This plan shall be submitted to the CPUC for review. The HSP shall identify the following, but not be limited to: · A summary of all potential risks to construction workers and maximum exposure limits for all known and reasonably foreseeable site chemicals; · Specified personal protective equipment and decontamination procedures, if needed; · Safety procedures to be followed in the event suspected hazardous materials are encountered; · Emergency procedures, including route to the nearest hospital; · The identification of a site health and safety officer and responsibilities of the site health and safety officer |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm prepares or has prepared, a project-specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP) in accordance with 29 CFR 1910. 2. CalAm provides the HSP to the CPUC 3. CalAm demonstrates implementation of the HSP. |
1,2. Prior to excavation, grading, trenching, or cut and fill operations. 3. During applicable construction activities |
Impact 6.6-1: Excavation and grading for the project could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to hazardous materials that may be present in excavated soil or groundwater. |
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1c: The contractor shall have a site health and safety supervisor fully trained pursuant to the HAZWOPER standard (29 CFR 1910.120) be present during excavation, grading, trenching, or cut and fill operations to monitor for evidence of potential soil contamination, including soil staining, noxious odors, debris or buried storage containers. The site health and safety supervisor must be capable of evaluating whether hazardous materials encountered constitute an incidental release181 of a hazardous substance or an emergency spill. The site health and safety supervisor shall direct procedures to be followed in the event |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications, the requirement that a site health and safety supervisor trained pursuant to HAZWOPER standards be present during excavation, grading, trenching, or cut and fill operations. 2. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC and that |
1. During final design. 2. During construction and following any incident. |
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.6-1 (cont.) |
that a hazardous materials release with the potential to impact worker health and safety is encountered. These procedures shall be in accordance with hazardous waste operations regulations and specifically include, but are not limited to, the following: immediately stopping work in the vicinity of the unknown hazardous materials release, notifying Monterey County Department of Environmental Health, and retaining a qualified environmental firm to perform sampling and remediation. |
appropriate procedures were followed in the event of an incidental release. |
|||||
Impact 6.6-1: Excavation and grading for the project could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to hazardous materials that may be present in excavated soil or groundwater. |
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1d: The applicant and its contractor shall coordinate with each property owner at the time of construction and obtain a legal Right of Entry. The contractor shall comply with all provisions established in that agreement and all regulations regarding excavation, digging, and development within the former Fort Ord. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will obtain or have obtained, a legal Right of Entry for all properties requiring access 2. CalAm will include in contract specifications, any provisions established in Rights of Entry and any and all regulations regarding excavation within the former Fort Ord |
1,2. During final design. |
Impact 6.6-1: Excavation and grading for the project could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to hazardous materials that may be present in excavated soil or groundwater. |
Mitigation Measure 4.6-1e: The applicant or its contractor shall develop a materials disposal plan specifying how the applicant or its contractor will remove, handle, transport, and dispose of all excavated material in a safe, appropriate, and lawful manner. The plan must identify the disposal method for soil and the approved disposal site, and include written documentation that the disposal site will accept the waste. This plan shall be submitted to the CPUC for review and approval. The applicant or its contractor shall develop a groundwater dewatering control and disposal plan specifying how the applicant or its contractor will remove, handle, and dispose of groundwater impacted by hazardous substances in a safe, appropriate and lawful manner. The plan must identify the locations at which potential groundwater impacts are likely to be encountered (based on the |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm shall develop or have developed a Materials Disposal Plan and a Groundwater Dewatering Control and Disposal Plan for review and approval by the CPUC. 2. CPUC signs off on the Plan. 3. CalAm will file reports annually with the CPUC that document compliance with the Plans, and that soil and groundwater have been disposed of appropriately. |
1,2. Prior to the start of construction. 3. During construction. |
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.6-1 (cont.) |
results of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a), the method to analyze groundwater for hazardous materials, and the appropriate treatment and/or disposal methods. This plan shall be submitted to the CPUC for review and approval. |
||||||
TRAFFIC | |||||||
Impact 6.7-1: Short-term increases in vehicle trips by construction workers and construction vehicles on area roadways. |
Mitigation Measure 4.7-1: The following requirements will be incorporated into contract specifications for the project: · The contractor(s) will obtain any necessary road encroachment permits prior to construction of each project component and will comply with conditions of approval attached to project implementation. As part of the road encroachment permit process, the contractor(s) will prepare a Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan in accordance with professional engineering standards and submit the plan (for work in the public right-of-way) to the agencies with jurisdiction over the affected roads, as well as the CPUC, for review and approval. The specific plan will be developed on the basis of detailed design plans for the approved project, but elements of the plan will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: _ Develop circulation and detour plans to minimize impacts to local street circulation. This could include the use of haul routes that maximize truck traffic on arterials and other major roads (which conversely limits the use of local roadways to the extent possible), and the use of signing and flaggers to guide vehicles through the construction zone. _ Control and monitor construction vehicle movements through the enforcement of standard construction specifications by periodic onsite inspections. _ Install traffic control devices where traffic conditions warrant, as specified in applicable jurisdiction's standards (e.g., the Caltrans Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones). |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will prepare or have prepared a Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan for submittal, review and approval by the County and appropriate municipal public works departments. 2. CalAm shall submit the approved Plan to the CPUC. 3. CalAm shall include the Plan in contract specifications. 4. CalAm will obtain any necessary road encroachment permits and provide copies to the CPUC. 5. CalAm will document to the CPUC that the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan has been implemented. |
1. During final design 2,3,4. Before start of construction 5. Annually during construction |
TRAFFIC (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.7-1 (cont.) |
_ Schedule truck trips outside of peak AM and PM peak commute hours to the extent feasible, and as needed to avoid adverse impacts on traffic flow (i.e., if agencies with jurisdiction over the affected roads identify highly congested traffic flow during their review of the encroachment permit applications). The frequency of truck trips (loaded or empty) shall be no greater than one every two minutes during the peak AM and PM peak commute hours. _ Post advanced warning signs of construction activities to allow motorists to select alternative routes. _ Arrange a telephone number with knowledgeable personnel to address public questions and complaints during project construction. _ Store all equipment and materials in designated contractor staging areas on or close to the worksite, in such a manner to minimize obstruction to traffic. |
||||||
Impact 6.7-2: Reduction in the number of, or the available width of, travel lanes on roads where pipeline construction would occur, resulting in short-term traffic delays for vehicles traveling past the construction zones. |
Mitigation Measure 4.7-2: The following elements shall be included in the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan prepared in compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.7-1: · Where possible, limit the pipeline construction work zone to a width that, at a minimum, maintains alternate one-way traffic flow past the construction zone. · If alternate one-way traffic flow cannot be maintained past the construction zone, install detour signs on alternative routes around the closed road segment. · Publish notices of the location(s) and timing of road closures in local newspapers, and on available web sites, to allow motorists to select alternative routes. · Limit lane closures during peak hours to the extent possible. · Restore roads and streets to normal operation by covering trenches with steel plates outside of allowed working hours or when work is not in progress. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm shall include or have the required elements included in the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan (see Mitigation Measure 4.7-1). 2. CalAm shall submit the approved Plan to the CPUC. 3. CalAm shall include the Plan in contract specifications. 4. CalAm will obtain any necessary road encroachment permits and provide copies to the CPUC. 5. CalAm will document to the CPUC that the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan has been implemented. |
1. During final design 2,3,4. Before start of construction 5. Annually during construction |
TRAFFIC (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.7-3: Demand for parking spaces to accommodate construction worker vehicles. |
Mitigation Measure 4.7-3: The following element shall by included in the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan prepared in compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.7-1: · Identify locations that provide sufficient parking capacity to accommodate parking demand by construction workers (within the construction zone or, if needed, at a nearby location with transport [e.g. shuttle vans] provided between the parking location and the worksite). |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm shall include or have the required element included in the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan (see Mitigation Measure 4.7-1) 2. CalAm shall submit the approved Plan to the CPUC 3. CalAm shall include the Plan in contract specifications. 4. CalAm will obtain any necessary road encroachment permits and provide copies to the CPUC 5. CalAm will document to the CPUC that the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan has been implemented. |
1. During final design 2,3,4. Before start of construction 5. Annually during construction |
Impact 6.7-4: Potential traffic safety hazards for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians on public roadways. |
Mitigation Measure 4.7-4: The following elements shall by included in the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan prepared in compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.7-1: · Comply with roadside safety protocols to reduce the risk of accidents. Provide "Road Work Ahead" warning signs and speed control (including signs informing drivers of state-legislated double fines for speed infractions in a construction zone) to achieve required speed reductions for safe traffic flow through the work zone. Construction personnel shall be trained to apply appropriate safety measures as described in the plan. · To the extent feasible, perform construction that crosses on-street and off-street bikeways (and sidewalks and pathways for pedestrians) in a manner that allows for safe access for |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm shall include or have the required elements included in the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan (see Mitigation Measure 4.7-1) 2. CalAm shall submit the approved Plan to the CPUC 3. CalAm shall include the Plan in contract specifications. 4. CalAm will obtain any necessary road encroachment permits and provide copies to the CPUC |
1. During final design 2,3,4. Before start of construction 5. Annually during construction |
TRAFFIC (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.7-4 (cont.) |
bicyclists and pedestrians. Alternatively, provide safe detours to reroute affected bicycle/pedestrian traffic. |
5. CalAm will annually document for the CPUC that the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan has been implemented. |
|||||
Impact 6.7-5: Access disruption to adjacent land uses and streets for both general traffic and emergency vehicles. |
Mitigation Measure 4.7-5: The following elements shall by included in the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan prepared in compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.7-1: · Maintain access for emergency vehicles at all times. Coordinate with facility owners or administrators of sensitive land uses such as police and fire stations, transit stations, hospitals, and schools. Provide advance notification to local police, fire, and emergency service providers of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities that could affect the movement of emergency vehicles on area roadways. · Provide flaggers in school areas at the start and end of the school day if and when pipeline installation would occur at designated school zones. · Maintain access for private driveways to the maximum extent feasible. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm shall include or have the required elements included in the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan (see Mitigation Measure 4.7-1) 2. CalAm shall submit the approved Plan to the CPUC 3. CalAm shall include the Plan in contract specifications. 4. CalAm will obtain any necessary road encroachment permits and provide copies to the CPUC 5. CalAm will document to the CPUC that the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan has been implemented. |
1. During final design 2,3,4. Before start of construction 5. Annually during construction |
Impact 6.7-6: Disruptions to transit and railroad service on pipeline alignment routes. |
Mitigation Measure 4.7-6: The following elements shall by included in the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan prepared in compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.7-1: · Coordinate with Monterey-Salinas Transit so the transit provider can temporarily relocate bus routes or bus stops in work zones as it deems necessary. · Provide advance notification to UPRR of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities that could affect the |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm shall include or have the required elements included in the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan (see Mitigation Measure 4.7-1) 2. CalAm shall submit the approved Plan to the CPUC 3. CalAm shall include the Plan in contract specifications. |
1. During final design 2,3,4. Before start of construction 5. Annually during construction |
TRAFFIC (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.7-6 (cont.) |
movement of trains on the tracks between Dolan Road and SR 156. |
4. CalAm will obtain any necessary road encroachment permits and provide copies to the CPUC 5. CalAm will document to the CPUC that the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan has been implemented. |
|||||
Impact 6.7-7: Increased wear-and-tear on the designated haul routes used by construction vehicles. |
Mitigation Measure 4.7-7: Prior to construction of project components, the applicant and the affected jurisdiction(s) shall enter into an agreement that will detail the pre-construction conditions for all routes that will be used by project-related vehicles, and the post-construction requirements of the rehabilitation program. Roads damaged by project construction will be repaired to a structural condition equal to that which existed prior to construction activity. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm shall coordinate and enter into agreements with the County and applicable municipal public works departments regarding the conditions of existing roadways to be used by project-related vehicles, and develop a plan for post construction rehabilitation. 2. CalAm will submit the agreements to the CPUC 3. CalAm will document and provide to the CPUC evidence that the terms of the agreements have been met and roads have been repaired as per the agreements. |
1,2. Prior to construction of any project component 3. After construction |
AIR QUALITY | |||||||
Impact 6.8-1: Regional Project construction activities would generate emissions of criteria pollutants, including fugitive dust and equipment exhaust particulate matter. |
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1a: Construction Fugitive Dust Control Plan. Project applicant shall require its construction contractor(s) to implement a dust control plan that shall include a minimum of the following dust control measures: · Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. · Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials and require trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. · Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. · Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. · Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. · Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). · Enclose, cover, or water twice daily exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) · Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph. · Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. · Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. · Post a publically visible sign that specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District shall also be visible to ensure compliance with District rules. · Wheel washers shall be installed and used by truck operators at the exits of the construction sites to the ASR well facilities and the Terminal Reservoir/ASR pump station sites. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include the development and implementation of a Dust Control Plan in contract specifications. 2. CalAm will file a copy of the Dust Control Plan with CPUC. 3. CalAm will document implementation of the Dust Control Plan to the CPUC |
1,2. Prior to construction or any groundbreaking activities 3. During construction |
AIR QUALITY (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.8-1: Regional Project construction activities would generate emissions of criteria pollutants, including fugitive dust and equipment exhaust particulate matter. |
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1b: Stabilize Dust on Access Roads. Project applicant(s) shall require its construction contractor(s) to apply a soil stabilizer, gravel, or pave the construction access roads to the Regional Desalination Plant and the Terminal Reservoir sites. These access roads shall be stabilized prior to the commencement of construction activities at these sites. |
X |
1. CalAm includes in contract specifications the requirement for its construction contractor(s) to apply a soil stabilizer, gravel, or pave the construction access roads. 2.CalAm provides the CPUC with documentation of implementation. |
1,2. Prior to the commencement of construction activities at these sites | |||
Impact 6.8-1: Regional Project construction activities would generate emissions of criteria pollutants, including fugitive dust and equipment exhaust particulate matter. |
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1c: Idling Restrictions. On road vehicle idling time shall be minimized and shall not exceed a five minute maximum. Additionally, off road engines will not idle for longer than five minutes per Section 2449(d)(3) of Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9 of the California Code of Regulations. To enforce this measure project applicant(s) shall ensure that all construction workers are aware of vehicle idling restrictions. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm includes in contract specifications the requirement for its construction contractor(s) to enforce a vehicle idling time of five minute maximum. 2. CalAm provides the CPUC with documentation of implementation |
1,2. Prior to commencement of construction |
Impact 6.8-3: Construction activities associated with Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Regional Project would generate a cumulatively considerable net increase of PM10. |
Mitigation Measures 4.8-1a through 4.8-1c |
See above under Mitigation Measures 4.8-1a through 4.8-1c |
|||||
Impact 6.8-5: Conflict with the State goal of reducing greenhouse gas emission in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. |
Mitigation Measure 4.8-1c. |
See mitigation |
See mitigation measure 4.8-1c | ||||
AIR QUALITY (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.8-5: Conflict with the State goal of reducing greenhouse gas emission in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. |
Mitigation Measures 4.8-5a: Aerodynamic Efficiency for Trucks. Trucks and trailers that would be used after year 2013 to haul equipment and materials to construction sites associated with the project would be required to be retrofitted with the best available aerodynamic efficiency technology and/or CARB approved aerodynamic efficiency technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve fuel efficiency by reducing aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance pursuant to CARB's Climate Change Scoping Plan Discrete Early Action T-7. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that trucks used for construction after 2013 will be equipped with aerodynamic efficiency technology 2. CalAm provides the CPUC with documentation of implementation. |
1. During final design 2. Annually during construction |
Impact 6.8-5: Conflict with the State goal of reducing greenhouse gas emission in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. |
Mitigation Measure 4.8-5d: Energy Minimization and greenhouse gas Reduction Plan. CalAm shall develop and implement an Energy Minimization and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan to reduce the carbon footprint of the CalAm Facilities (primarily associated with pumping of water for the ASR Facilities and the Terminal Reservoir) to the extent feasible. At minimum, the plan shall require the installation of energy efficient equipment and use of renewable energy sources. All emission reductions that would be associated with efficiency measures shall be substantiated in the plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the CPUC prior to the commencement of project operations. |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will develop or have developed an Energy Minimization and greenhouse gas Reduction Plan. 2.CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement for implementation of the Plan 3. CalAm will provide the Plan to the CPUC for review and approval 4. CalAm will demonstrate implementation to the CPUC |
1,2,3. Prior to construction 4. Annually during construction | ||
NOISE AND VIBRATION | |||||||
Impact 6.9-1: Construction activity would violate standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances, and/or would adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors. |
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1a: The contractor shall locate all stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from nearby noise-sensitive receptors. Contractor specifications shall include a requirement that drill rigs located within 500 feet of noise-sensitive receptors shall be equipped with noise reducing engine housings or other noise reducing technology such that drill rig noise levels are no more 85 dBA at 50 feet, and the line of sight between the drill rig and nearby sensitive receptors shall be blocked by portable acoustic barriers and/or shields to reduce noise levels by at least an additional 10 dBA. For nighttime drilling activities within 500 feet of residences, the drill rig sites shall be equipped with noise |
X |
1. CalAm includes in contract specifications the requirements that all stationary noise-generating equipment be located away from sensitive receptors, and the listed noise metrics be met. 2. CalAm demonstrates compliance to the CPUC. |
1. Prior to construction 2. During and following construction | |||
NOISE AND VIBRATION (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.9-1 (cont.) |
control blankets designed to achieve a Sound Transmission Class (STC) rating of 25 or more so that noise levels 50 feet from the drilling site would be no more 60 dBA. |
||||||
Impact 6.9-1: Construction activity would violate standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances, and/or would adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors. |
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1b: The construction contractor shall limit all non-ASR well development construction related activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Saturdays, or as agreed upon by the local jurisdiction. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include restrictions on construction hours in contract specifications. 2. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC. |
1. Prior to construction 2. During construction. |
Impact 6.9-1: Construction activity would violate standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances, and/or would adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors. |
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1c: The contractor shall assure that construction equipment with internal combustion engines have sound control devices at least as effective as those provided by the original equipment manufacturer. No equipment shall be permitted to have an un-muffled exhaust. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include requirements for noise controls in contract specifications 2. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC |
1. Prior to construction 2. During construction |
Impact 6.9-1: Construction activity would violate standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances, and/or would adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors. |
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1d: Residents and other sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a construction area shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing, at least two weeks prior to the commencement of construction activities. The project applicant or the contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator shall determine the cause of the complaint and ensure that reasonable measures are implemented to correct the problem. A contact number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously placed on construction site fences and included in the construction schedule notification sent to nearby residents. The notice to be distributed to residents and sensitive receptors within the City of Seaside shall first be submitted to the City of Seaside Planning and Services Manager for review and approval. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm includes requirements for notification in contract specifications, (including the need for approval of the notice by the City of Seaside) 2. CalAm confirms notification has been provided and documents compliance with the CPUC. 3. CalAm confirms a noise disturbance coordinator is assigned and phone number is posted, and documents compliance to the CPUC. |
1. Prior to construction 2. At least two weeks prior to start of construction activities. 3. During construction |
NOISE AND VIBRATION (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.9-1: Construction activity would violate standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances, and/or would adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors. |
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1e: The ASR well development construction contractor shall provide the CPUC with documentation that it has obtained approval from a City of Seaside Building Official to conduct night-time well development construction activities. In addition, the Applicant shall submit to the CPUC and the City of Seaside Planning Services Manager an ASR Well Construction Noise Control Plan for review and approval. The plan shall identify all feasible noise control procedures that would be implemented during night-time construction activities. At a minimum, the plan shall require implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1d, and the construction contractor shall ensure that noise blankets, or equivalent sound attenuation devices, are used to attenuate stationary drill equipment noise during ASR well development activities that take place during nighttime hours (as defined by City of Seaside Municipal Code). The plan shall specify that only well development construction equipment that is absolutely required shall be allowed to operate during the nighttime hours. |
X |
1 CalAm will submit an ASR Well Construction Noise Plan to the City of Seaside and the CPUC for review and approval. 2. CalAm or its contractor will obtain approval from a City of Seaside to conduct night-time well development construction activities and provide documentation of approval to the CPUC. |
1,2. Prior to construction | |||
Impact 6.9-1: Construction activity would violate standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances, and/or would adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors. |
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1f: If the ASR well facilities are constructed adjacent to Roger S. Fitch Middle School, construction activities shall take place while classes are not in session. |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that ASR well facilities located adjacent to Roger S. Fitch Middle School will require construction activities to take place while classes are not in session. 2. CalAm will document compliance to the CPUC |
1. Prior to construction 2. During construction | |||
Impact 6.9-1: Construction activity would violate standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances, and/or would adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors. |
Mitigation Measure 4.9-1g: Temporary hotel accommodations shall be provided by the project applicant to all residents located within 50 feet of a designated construction area where construction activity would occur on a 24-hour continuous basis. The accommodations shall be provided for the duration of the 24-hour construction activities. |
X |
1. CalAm will provide temporary hotel accommodations to residents located within 50 feet of a 24-hour construction site. 2. CalAm will document compliance to the CPUC |
1. During construction 2. After construction | |||
NOISE AND VIBRATION (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.9-2: Operation of the proposed desalination plant and other conveyance facilities would potentially increase existing noise levels, which could exceed noise level standards and/or result in nuisance impacts. |
Mitigation Measure 4.9-2: All stationary noise sources (e.g., pump stations, permanent and emergency power generators, variable frequency drive motors, well heads with motors, etc.) shall be located within enclosed structures with adequate setback and screening, as necessary, to achieve acceptable regulatory noise standards for industrial uses as well as to achieve acceptable levels at the property lines of nearby residences, as determine by the applicable local jurisdiction. Noise enclosures shall be designed to reduce equipment noise levels by at least 20 dBA. Once the stationary noise sources have been installed, noise levels shall be monitored to ensure compliance with local noise standards. If project stationary noise sources exceed the applicable noise standards, an acoustical engineer shall be retained by the project applicant to install additional noise attenuation measures in order to meet the applicable noise standards. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will design or have stationary noise sources designed to be housed in enclosed structures. 2. CalAm will have noise levels at the stationary source locations monitored to ensure compliance with 20dBA reduction. 3. CalAm will have additional noise attenuation features implemented if needed. 4. CalAm will file results of monitoring reports and demonstrate compliance to the CPUC. |
1. During design. 2. After installation of enclosures. 3,4. Before start of full scale operations. |
Impact 6.9-3: Short-term construction within the Project area would result in temporary vibration impacts on nearby sensitive receptors and structures. |
Mitigation Measures 4.9-1b and 4.9-1d |
See above under Mitigation Measures 4.9-1b through 4.9-1d |
|||||
LAND USE, AGRICULTURE AND RECREATION | |||||||
Impact 6.10-1: Components of the Phase 1 Project and Phase 2 Project may permanently divide or temporarily disrupt an established community. |
Mitigation Measure 4.10-1a: Implement the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan elements recommended in Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 to develop detours during construction activities to allow traffic, pedestrian, and service flow within and among existing communities. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
See above under Mitigation Measures 4.7.1 | |
LAND USE, AGRICULTURE AND RECREATION (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.10-1: Components of the Phase 1 Project and Phase 2 Project may permanently divide or temporarily disrupt an established community. |
Mitigation Measure 4.10-1b: Implement the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan elements recommended in Mitigation Measure 4.7-4 to carry out construction activities in a manner that allows access along bike routes and pedestrian pathways to ensure safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists. During construction, the project applicant shall implement detours adjacent to the existing bike paths, sidewalks, and hiking trails that will be affected by construction in order to maintain access to and along paths. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
See above under Mitigation Measures 4.7.1 | |
Impact 6.10-1: Components of the Phase 1 Project and Phase 2 Project may permanently divide or temporarily disrupt an established community. |
Mitigation Measure 4.10-1c: Disturbed areas shall be restored after construction through repaving roads and sidewalks, replacing uncontaminated soil that was been removed, and replanting areas where vegetation was removed with the same or comparable species. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement for restoration of disturbed areas 2. CalAm demonstrates compliance to the CPUC. |
1. Prior to construction 2. At completion of construction |
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES | |||||||
Impact 6.11-1: Potential damage to or interference with existing public utilities. |
Mitigation Measure 4.11-1a: Prior to excavation, the project applicant or its contractor will locate overhead and underground utility lines, such as natural gas, electricity, sewage, telephone, fuel, and water lines, that may reasonably be expected to be encountered during excavation work. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that overhead and underground utilities near the work sites be located. 2. CalAm demonstrates compliance to the CPUC |
1. Prior to construction 2. Before the start of any excavation |
Impact 6.11-1: Potential damage to or interference with existing public utilities. |
Mitigation Measure 4.11-1b: The project applicant or its contractors will find the exact location of underground utilities by safe and acceptable means, including the use of hand and modern techniques as well as customary types of equipment. Pursuant to state law the project applicant or its contractor shall notify Utilities Service Alert (USA). Information regarding the size, color, and location of existing utilities must be confirmed before construction activities begin. Detailed specifications shall be prepared as part of |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm demonstrates to the CPUC that the size, color and location of underground utilities have been determined and are reported to the USA. 2. CalAm will include in contract specifications detailed procedures for the excavation, support, and fill |
1. Before the start of any excavation 2. During final design 3. Prior to construction |
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.11-1 (cont.) |
the design plans to include procedures for the excavation, support, and fill of areas around utility cables and pipes. All affected utility services shall be notified of construction plans and schedule. Arrangements shall be made with these entities regarding protection, relocation, or temporary disconnection of services. |
of areas around utility cables and pipes. 3. CalAm demonstrates to the CPUC that affected utilities have been notified, and coordination has occurred as needed. |
|||||
Impact 6.11-1: Potential damage to or interference with existing public utilities. |
Mitigation Measure 4.11-1c: The project applicant shall comply with all conditions of its utility excavation or encroachment permits and shall include such conditions in construction contract specifications. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications requirements to comply with conditions of its utility excavation or encroachment permits 2. CalAm demonstrates compliance to the CPUC |
1. During final design 2. Prior to excavation activities |
Impact 6.11-1: Potential damage to or interference with existing public utilities. |
Mitigation Measure 4.11-1d: The project applicant or its contractors will confirm the specific location of all high priority utilities (i.e. pipelines carrying petroleum products, oxygen, chlorine, toxic or flammable gases; natural gas in pipelines greater than 6 inches in diameter, or with normal operating measures, greater than 60 pounds per square inch gauge; and underground electric supply lines, conductors, or cables that have a potential to ground more than 300 volts that do not have effectively grounded sheaths) and such locations will be highlighted on all construction drawings. In the contract specifications, the project applicant will require that the contractor provide weekly updates on planned excavation for the upcoming week and identify when construction will occur near a high priority utility. On days when this work will occur, the project applicant's construction managers will attend tailgate meetings with contractor staff to review all measures-those identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and in the construction specifications-regarding such excavations. The contractor's designated health and safety officer will specify a safe distance to work near high-pressure gas lines, and excavation |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will demonstrate to the CPUC that specific locations of high-priority utilities are included in construction drawings 2. CalAm will demonstrate to the CPUC that the requirement for weekly updates and tailgate safety meetings are included in contract specifications and have been complied with. 3. CalAm will demonstrate to the CPUC that safety requirements are being followed. |
1,2,3.Prior to, during and after excavation activities |
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.11-1 (cont.) |
closer to the pipeline will not be authorized until the designated health and safety officer confirms and documents in the construction records that: (1) the line was appropriately located in the field by the utility owner using as-built drawings and a pipeline-locating device, and (2) the location was verified by hand by the construction contractor. The designated health and safety officer will provide written confirmation to the project applicant that the line has been adequately located, and excavation will not start until this confirmation has been received by the project applicant. |
||||||
Impact 6.11-1: Potential damage to or interference with existing public utilities. |
Mitigation Measure 4.11-1e: While any excavation is open, the project applicant or its contractors will protect, support, or remove underground utilities as necessary to safeguard employees. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that underground utilities in open excavations are managed to safeguard employees. 2. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC. |
1. Prior to construction 2. During construction |
Impact 6.11-1: Potential damage to or interference with existing public utilities. |
Mitigation Measure 4.11-1f: The project applicant or its contractors will notify local fire departments any time damage to a gas utility results in a leak or suspected leak, or whenever damage to any utility results in a threat to public safety. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement for leak notification. 2. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC |
1. Prior to construction 2. During construction, if any leak occurs or is suspected |
Impact 6.11-1: Potential damage to or interference with existing public utilities. |
Mitigation Measure 4.11-1g: The project applicant or its contractors shall contact utility owner if any damage occurs as a result of the project and promptly reconnect disconnected cables and lines with approval of owner. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement for utility notification if any damage occurs and prompt reconnection of disconnected cables and lines 2. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC |
1. During final design 2. During construction, if any damage occurs |
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.11-1: Potential damage to or interference with existing public utilities. |
Mitigation Measure 4.11-1h: The project applicant shall observe Department of Health Services (DHS) standards, which require: (1) a 10-foot horizontal separation between parallel sewage and water mains (gravity or force mains); (2) a 1-foot vertical separation between perpendicular water and sewage line crossings; and (3) encasement of sewage mains in protective sleeves where a new water line crosses under or over an existing wastewater main. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirements for compliance with DHS separation standards. 2. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC |
1. During final design 2. During construction |
Impact 6.11-1: Potential damage to or interference with existing public utilities. |
Mitigation Measure 4.11-1i: The project applicant or its contractors shall coordinate final construction plans and specifications with affected utilities, such as PG&E. If any interruption of service is required, the project applicant or its contractors shall notify residents and businesses in the project corridor of any planned utility service disruption two to four days in advance, in conformance with County and State standards. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement for coordination with utilities in the preparation of plans and specifications. 2. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement for notification of residents and businesses in the event of possible utility interruption 3. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC |
1,2. During final design 3. During construction |
Impact 6.11-2: Potential short-term increase in demand for police, fire, or emergency services. |
Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 and Measures 4.11-1a through 4.11-1i |
X |
X |
X |
X |
See Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 and Measure 4.11-1a through 4.11-1i above for applicable monitoring and reporting actions. | |
Impact 6.11-3: Potential adverse effects on solid waste landfill capacity and/or failure to achieve state-mandated solid waste diversion rates. |
Mitigation Measure 4.11-3a: The project applicant shall encourage project facility design and construction methods that produce less waste, or that produce waste that could more readily be recycled or reused. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that facilities and construction methods are designed to minimize waste 2. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC |
1. During final design 2. During construction |
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.11-3: Potential adverse effects on solid waste landfill capacity and/or failure to achieve state-mandated solid waste diversion rates. |
Mitigation Measure 4.11-3b: The project applicant shall include in its construction specifications a requirement for the contractors to describe plans for recovering, reusing, and recycling wastes produced through construction, demolition, and excavation activities. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that the contractors prepare a waste minimization plan 2. CalAm will file a copy of the waste minimization plan with the CPUC |
1. During final design 2. During construction |
AESTHETICS RESOURCES | |||||||
Impact 6.12-2: Permanent facilities could have an adverse effect on scenic vistas, damage scenic resources, or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. |
Mitigation Measure 4.12-2a: The applicant shall implement architectural features into the facility design so they complement the building styles of the community (e.g. nautical or agricultural style) and minimize visual mass. Exterior finishes should avoid reflective surfaces. Colors for larger visible tanks and structures should be darker earth tones to reduce contrast with the ground plain and increase compatibility with the visual setting. Primary structures should combine multiple complementary colors such in ranges of browns, tans, greys, greens, or other colors agreed upon with the appropriate permitting agency. |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that architectural features complement the community styles. 2. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC. |
1. During facility design 2. Prior to construction | |||
Impact 6.12-2: Permanent facilities could have an adverse effect on scenic vistas, damage scenic resources, or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. |
Mitigation Measure 4.12-2b: The applicant shall design fencing to be minimally intrusive to the community yet complementary to the architectural character of the facility and the community. Fencing will be coordinated with landscaping and facility design to help further enhance the local aesthetics and to blend the facility with the surrounding community and/or natural setting. Vegetative screening using native plants, trees or shrubs will be used if it is not out of character with the site setting, and walled perimeters will be avoided in natural settings to minimize the dominance of structures in the scene. |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that fencing will be complementary to the community styles. 2. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC. |
1. During facility design 2. Prior to construction | ||
AESTHETICS RESOURCES (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.12-2: Permanent facilities could have an adverse effect on scenic vistas, damage scenic resources, or degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. |
Mitigation Measure 4.12-2c: If location of facilities is flexible, structures, roads and ponds should be placed to minimize their prominence in the landscape and proximity to roads, publicly accessible viewpoints and residences. If possible, facilities should be located away from sensitive landscape units, and if necessary screened to minimize visual contrast with the surrounding setting. |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that facilities be sited to minimize their prominence in the landscape. 2. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC. |
1. During facility design 2. Prior to construction | ||
Impact 6.12-3: Exterior lighting associated with proposed facilities would create new sources of light and glare in the surrounding areas. |
Mitigation Measure 4.12-3a: To ensure that the project's exterior lighting does not spill over onto the adjacent uses, all exterior light fixtures, including street lighting, shall be shielded or directed away from adjoining uses. |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that exterior lighting not spill over into adjacent uses. 2. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC. |
1. During facility design 2. Prior to construction | ||
Impact 6.12-3: Exterior lighting associated with proposed facilities would create new sources of light and glare in the surrounding areas. |
Mitigation Measure 4.12-3b: Outdoor light intensity shall be limited to that necessary for adequate security and safety. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that exterior lighting be limited to that necessary for security and safety. 2. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC. |
1. During facility design 2. Prior to construction | ||
CULTURAL RESOURCES | |||||||
Impact 6.13-1: Project construction has the potential to affect known archaeological resources. |
Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a: Pre-Construction Survey. The project applicant shall perform pre-construction surveys for any project components not yet surveyed due to lack of access or modifications in project component siting (e.g., new pipelines, staging areas, access roads, facilities). If resources are discovered during the surveys, Mitigation Measures 4.13-1b-d shall be followed. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will conduct or have preconstruction surveys conducted. If no resources are found no further mitigation is needed. If resources are found, Mitigation Measures 4.13-1b through 4.13-1d shall be followed 2. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC |
1. During final design 2. Prior to construction |
CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.13-1: Project construction has the potential to affect known archaeological resources. |
Mitigation Measure 4.13-1b: Avoidance. The project applicant will seek to avoid cultural resources as the preferred mitigation measure. Avoidance of cultural resources would result in less-than-significant levels of impacts to identified cultural resources. All design-level engineering and construction drawings will be prepared in consultation with a cultural resource specialist. Facilities, staging areas, and any activity involving ground disturbance shall be located to avoid resources. To ensure that no inadvertent damage occurs to avoided cultural resources, the cultural resource boundaries shall be marked as exclusion zones both on the ground and on construction maps. This would include resources within 30 meters of the proposed project component. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that cultural resource boundaries be marked as exclusion zones both on the ground and on maps; facility staging areas and activities involving ground disturbance be located to avoid resources; and design-level engineering and construction drawings be prepared in consultation with a cultural resource specialist. 2. CalAm will demonstrate compliance to the CPUC |
1. During final design 2. Before construction |
Impact 6.13-1: Project construction has the potential to affect known archaeological resources. |
Mitigation Measure 4.13-1c: Evaluation for California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). If avoidance is determined to be infeasible, The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the potentially significant resources for CEQA "importance" or eligibility for the CRHR. The purpose of further action will be to define a course of action to satisfy CEQA requirements for an Assessment of Effects. In the case of prehistoric archaeological sites, evaluation may be completed by examining existing records and reports, detailed recording, and/or excavation to determine data potential of the sites. Historic resource mitigation measures may include further study to evaluate the sites, detailed recording, and/or excavation. Resources found not to be "important" would require no further management. If cultural resources are considered "important" per CEQA or eligible for the CRHR, then a data recovery program shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels as required by the CEQA Guidelines. Data recovery could include excavation and detailed analysis and/or further research, depending on the nature and type of the site. Excavated materials would be curated at an appropriate facility, such as Sonoma State University or San Francisco State. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications the requirement that if cultural resources cannot be avoided, they be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist for importance or CRHR eligibility. 2. CalAm will demonstrate to the CPUC that a data recovery program has been developed for any eligible resources. Resources found not to be important or eligible for the CRHR would require no further management. |
1. During final design 2. Before construction |
CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.13-1: Project construction has the potential to affect known archaeological resources. |
Mitigation Measure 4.13-1d: Cultural Resources Treatment Plan (CRTP). The project applicant shall develop a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan (CRTP) for all known and newly discovered cultural resources within areas of direct impact of project activities, including but not limited to those detailed below. This plan will be sent to the CPUC for review and approval. · Procedures for protection and avoidance of ESAs, evaluation and treatment of the unexpected discovery of cultural resources including Native American burials; · Provisions and procedures for Native American consultation; · Detailed reporting requirements by the project Archaeologist; · Curation of any cultural materials collected during the project; and · Requirements to specify that archaeologists and other discipline specialists meet the Professional Qualifications Standards mandated by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). Avoidance. Implementation of the CRTP shall ensure that known and recorded cultural resources eligible for listing on the CRHR or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be avoided during construction and operation and maintenance if feasible. If cultural resources are considered "important" per CEQA or eligible for the CRHR or NRHP and cannot be avoided, then a data recovery program shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels as required by the CEQA Guidelines. Data recovery could include excavation and detailed analysis and/or further research, depending on the nature and type of the site. Specific protective measures shall be defined in the CRTP to reduce the potential adverse impacts on any presently undetected cultural resources to less-than-significant levels. The CRTP shall define construction procedures for areas near known/recorded cultural sites eligible for the CRHR or NRHP. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will prepare, or a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan will be prepared, and elements of the plan will be included in contract specification as needed. 2. CalAm will demonstrate to the CPUC that a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan, including required training and monitoring, has been prepared and implemented. |
1,2. Prior to construction |
CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.13-1 (cont.) |
Wherever a tower, access road, equipment, etc., must be placed or accessed within 100 feet of a recorded, reported, or known archaeological site eligible or potentially eligible for the CRHR, the site will be flagged on the ground as an ESA (without disclosure of the exact nature of the environmental sensitivity [i.e., the ESA is not identified as an archaeological site]). Construction equipment shall then be directed away from the ESA, and construction personnel shall be directed not to enter the ESA. Archaeological monitoring of project construction shall be focused in the immediate vicinity of the designated ESAs during initial mass grading operations or deep excavations such as foundation footings. Construction Personnel Training. Construction supervisory personnel shall be notified of the existence of these resources and required to keep personnel and equipment away from these areas. The project applicant -assigned qualified archeologist shall be notified prior to initiation of construction activities. Periodic monitoring of cultural resources to be avoided shall be completed by a qualified archeologist to ensure that no inadvertent damage to the resources occurs as a result of construction or construction-related activities. The timing and frequency of this monitoring shall be at the discretion of the archaeologist. During construction and operations, personnel and equipment shall be restricted to the project work site. Construction Monitoring. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered in the Monterey Bay area. Monitoring shall occur in all areas of ground disturbing activity that occur within 30 meters of a cultural resource exclusion zone during initial mass grading operations or deep excavations such as foundation footings. A Native American monitor may be required at all culturally sensitive locations. Decisions regarding the necessity of a Native American monitor shall be based on consultation with Native American groups and individuals prior to ground disturbing activities in culturally sensitive areas. |
||||||
CULTURAL RESOURCES (cont.) | |||||||
Impact 6.13-2: Unanticipated archaeological discoveries may be damaged or destroyed during project construction. |
Mitigation Measure 4.13-2: Training and Reporting. Prior to the initiation of construction or ground disturbing activities, all construction personnel shall be alerted to the possibility of buried cultural remains, including prehistoric and/or historic resources. During construction and operations, personnel and equipment shall be restricted to the project work site. Personnel shall be instructed that upon discovery of buried cultural materials, work in the immediate area of the find shall be immediately halted and the project applicant shall be notified. Once the find has been identified by a qualified archaeologist, then the project applicant shall make the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) and for the evaluation and mitigation of impacts if the find is found to be important per CEQA (Appendix K). Application of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1b would be appropriate if the find cannot be avoided. In the case that that the find can't be avoided, Mitigation Measures 4.13-2c-d shall be implemented. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include in contract specifications, the requirement that all construction personnel receive training on the potential for finding resources, and the proper reporting and handling requirements if resources are encountered. 2. CalAm documents to the CPUC that training has been conducted and any finds are reported |
1. During final design 2. Before and during construction |
Impact 6.13-3: Potential to uncover human remains. |
Mitigation Measure 4.13-3: Human Remains. If buried human remains are encountered during construction, work shall be immediately halted, and the project applicant and the Monterey County coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, then the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) will be notified within 24 hours as required by Public Resources Code 5097. The NAHC shall notify designated Most Likely Descendants. The MLD is responsible for providing recommendations for the treatment of the remains within 48 hours of being granted access to the find. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will include procedures related to the discovery of human remains in contract specifications. 2. CalAm will document to the CPUC that any discoveries of human remains are reported and treated appropriately. |
1. During final design 2. During construction |
ENERGY | |||||||
Impact 4.14-1: Construction of the project could result in the substantial consumption of energy such that existing supplies would be constrained and could result in the wasteful use of energy resources that are not renewable. Impact 6.14-1: Construction of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Regional Projects could result in the substantial consumption of energy such that existing supplies would be constrained and could result in the wasteful use of energy resources that are not renewable. |
Mitigation Measures 4.8-1c |
X |
X |
X |
X |
See Mitigation Measures 4.8-1c above for applicable monitoring and reporting actions. | |
Impact 6.14-2: Operation of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Regional Projects would increase long-term consumption of electricity at the project facilities, which could result in the wasteful use of energy resources that are not renewable. |
Mitigation Measure 6.14-1: An Energy Conservation Plan shall be prepared for the Regional Project subject to review and approval by the CPUC prior to the start of construction. The plan shall evaluate the energy demands for both electrical and natural gas of the selected project power supply against the energy demands of direct use of electricity from the PG&E grid. If the Energy Conservation Plan cannot demonstrate that the proposed power supply other than PG&E grid alone represents the same or less demands on the energy supply system, then the applicant shall power the project from the PG&E grid. Cost cannot be a factor for determining infeasibility. |
X |
X |
X |
X |
1. CalAm will prepare or have prepared, an Energy Conservation Plan for review and approval by the CPUC 2. CPUC signs-off on the Plan. |
1,2. Prior to the start of project operations |
(END OF APPENDIX C)
APPENDIX D
Evaluation of Financial Alternatives
APPENDIX D
Evaluation of Financial Alternatives
Summary
Sensitivity analysis of various financial alternatives using the Uniform Financing model indicates that the cost of water and the incremental first year revenue requirement (collectively, rate impact) are affected by (1) The type of financing used for the project; (2) The debt coverage ratio; (3) The years taken to construct the facilities; and (4) The AFUDC rate. It was noticed that for the assumptions used, lower rates of financing and the availability of State Revolving Fund monies (SRF) resulted in lower rate impact compared with the case where financing was at higher rates. Similarly, the debt coverage ratio and the years of construction had significant rate impacts. The AFUDC rate did not have a major rate impact.
Two scenarios were investigated for the Proposed Decision (PD). The first scenario (Scenario 1) assumed the Cost of the Regional Project Facilities capped at $227.3 million, and Cal-Am facilities capped at $95 million. The second scenario (Scenario 2) assumed the Cost of the Regional Project Facilities capped at $275.5 million, and Cal-Am facilities capped at $106.875 million. Scenario 1 resulted in lower rate impact compared with Scenario 2. For the assumptions used, the cost of water to Cal-Am customers ranged from $4,814 to $9,097 per acre foot (af) for Scenario 1 versus $5,437 to $10,592 per af for Scenario 2. The Revenue Requirements for 2015 without the project are estimated at $70.41 million. The range of incremental revenue requirement for 2015 after plant addition for Scenario 1 was $44.14 million to $81.86 million versus $49.88 to $95.27 million for Scenario 2.
Two "Modified Scenarios" were investigated for the Alternate Proposed Decision. The maximum cost of the Regional Project Facilities was capped at $297.5 million, debt coverage ratio of 1.25 and an AFUDC rate of 4.0% was used. Three bond issuances @ 5% and two State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding totaling $150 million were assumed. Based on these assumptions, the cost of water was $6,272 and $6,303 per acre-foot for 3.5 and 4.5 years of construction, respectively. The incremental 2015 revenue requirements for the project were $57.23 million and $57.51 million respectively. The total 2015 revenue requirement was $127.64 million and $127.92 million, respectively.
Section 1: Description
The Unified Financial Model (Model) was jointly developed by parties to the proceeding to calculate the financing needs of the project. The model can be used to calculate the amount and timing of bond issuances, the payment requirements to service the debt, cost of water for Cal-Am ratepayers and the annual Revenue Requirements.
The Model was run for various financial alternatives using combinations of debt coverage, AFUC rates and years of construction to complete the project.
a. Financing arrangements
Project may be financed using a combination of single or multiple bond issuances with and without State Revolving Funds (SRF) monies and Federal Grants. All SRF funds assume a 2.5% interest rate. The following financing alternatives were considered:
i. One bond issuance @ 8.67% and no SRF.
ii. One bond issuance @ 6% and no SRF.
iii. Two bond issuances @ 6%, without SRF.
iv. Three bond issuances @ 5%, without SRF.
v. Two bond issuances @ 6% and one SRF issuance of $150 million.
vi. Three bond issuances @ 5% and two SRF issuances of $110 and $40 million respectively.
b. Years to complete the project.
The longer the project construction time, the higher is the total project cost. Alternatives using 3.5 years and 4.5 years for project construction were evaluated.
c. Debt coverage
Debt coverage is required by the lender. Debt coverage of 1.0 and 1.25 were used in the analysis.
d. AFUDC
An AFUDC rate of 2.46 % as recommended by DRA and an AFUDC of 8.4% as recommended by Cal-Am were used.
The following were held constant for all model runs.
Revenue requirement for no plant addition case for 2015
The revenue requirements for Cal Am ratepayers without the plant addition are assumed to increase by 9% each year. Using Cal-Am's 2009 recorded revenue requirements of $41.983 million and escalating the same by 9%, the revenue requirements for 2015 without any plant addition is $70.41 million. The total revenue requirement for Cal-Am ratepayers is the sum of the revenue requirements without the plant and the incremental revenue requirements for the plant addition.
The rate impacts for the "Best" and "Worst" case scenarios is discussed in Section 2. A sensitivity analysis of the rate impact from combinations of various financial assumptions is discussed in Section 3. The rate impacts for the "Modified Scenario" are discussed in Section 4. A summary of all Model run results used in the Sensitivity analysis are reproduced in Section 5.
Section 2: Evaluation of Best and worst case scenarios
The following scenarios were evaluated for the PD:
Scenario # 1: Plant Cost capped at $227.3 million / CAW plant costs capped at $95 million. This is also referred to as the "Best Case" scenario.
Scenario # 2: Plant Cost capped at $275.5 million / CAW Plant costs capped at $106.875 million. This is also referred to as the "Worst Case" scenario.
a. Best case scenarios
The best case is Scenario1 because it yields the lowest cost of water and revenue requirements. Assuming three bond issuances @ 5% ($65.35 million on 2010, $25.0 million in 2012 and $8.64 million in 2014), two SRF funding rounds of $100 and $40 million, a coverage ratio of 1.0, AFUDC of 2.46%, 3.5 yrs of construction, the incremental 2015 revenue requirement was $44.14 million and Cost of Water was $4,814/af. The total revenue requirement was $114.55 million, an increase of 62.69% over the 2015 revenue requirement of $70.41 for the no plant case.
When the coverage ratio was increased to 1.25, assuming three bond issuances were changed to ($65.26 nil in 2010, $24.84 in 2012 and $8.58 million in 2014) and two SRF funding rounds of $100 and $40 million, the cost of water was $5,281 and revenue requirement was $48.25 million. This represents an increase of 68.5% over the 2015 revenue requirement without the additional plant case.
b. Worst case scenarios
The worst case is Scenario 2 because it yields the highest cost of water and the largest revenue requirements. Assuming a single bond issuance of $528.05 million @ 8.67%, no SRF funding, a coverage ratio of 1.00, AFUDC of 2.46%, 4.5 yrs construction, the incremental 2015 revenue requirement was $81.94 million and Cost of Water was $9,081/af. The total revenue requirement was $152.35 million, an increase of 116.35% over the 2015 revenue requirement of $70.41 million for the no plant case.
When the coverage ratio was increased to 1.25, assuming a single bond issuance of $528.05 million @ 8.67%, the incremental 2015 revenue requirement was $95.01 million and Cost of Water was $10,566/af. The total revenue requirement was $165.68 million, an increase of 135.31% over the 2015 revenue requirement of $70.41 million for the no plant case.
See Table 2 for a summary of the Best and Worst case scenarios.
Section 3: Sensitivity analysis
The Model was run for each of the two Scenarios to ascertain the impact on revenue requirements and cost of water for a range of financial arrangements, coverage ratio, years of construction and AFUDC. A total of 96 runs were made. The results are shown in Tables 1a through 4b.
a. Impact of financing arrangements
The Model was run for six different financing arrangements using various combinations of the debt coverage ratio, years of construction and AFUDC rates. Table 3 shows the range of cost of water, incremental 2015 revenue requirements and the total Revenue requirements for 2015 for each of financing arrangements considered and the number of years for construction.
It is observed that the lowest weighted average cost of debt resulted in lower revenue requirements and the corresponding cost of water to Cal-Am's customers.
b. Impact of Debt coverage and years of Construction
For Scenarios 1 and 2, the impact of Debt coverage was evaluated using a coverage ratio of 1.00 and 1.25 respectively and years of construction of 3.5 and 4.5 years. For Scenario 1, Figs. 1a and 2a are graphical representations of the cost of water and incremental revenue requirements for 3.5 and 4.5 years of construction and a coverage ratio of 1.00. Figs. 3a and 4a show the same for a coverage ratio of 1.25. Similar trends are observed for Scenario 2. For details, see Table 4.
It is observed that the debt coverage ratio has a significant impact on the cost of water and Revenue requirements as do the years of construction.
c. Impact of AFUDC rate
A graphical representation of Scenario 1 for an AFUC rate of 2.46% and an AFUDC rate of 8.4% for 3.5 and 4.5 years of construction is shown in Figs. 1a and 5a for CAW cost of water. Similar trends are seen for Revenue Requirements as shown in Figs. 2a and 6a.
It is observed that the AFUDC rate does not have a significant impact on the cost of water as well as the revenue requirements.
Section 4: Rate impacts for the Modified Scenarios
For the Modified Scenarios, the following assumptions were made: Plant Cap: $297.5 million; Total Cap for Cal-Am facilities: $106.875 million; Three bond issuances @ 5% ($83.531 million in 2010, $73.260 million in 2012 and $23.070 million in 2014) and two rounds of SRF funding of $100 and $40 million; an AFUDC rate of 4.0%; and a debt coverage of 1.25. For 3.5 yrs construction, the incremental 2015 revenue requirement was $57.23 million and Cost of Water was $6,272 per af. The total revenue requirement was $127.64 million, an increase of 81.28% over the 2015 revenue requirement of $70.41 for the no plant case. For 4.5 yrs construction, the corresponding incremental revenue requirement was $57.51 million, cost of water was $ 6,303 per af and the total revenue requirement was $127.92 million, an increase of 81.68 % over the 2015 revenue requirement for the no plant case. See Table 5 for a summary of the two cases considered in the Modified Scenarios.
Section 5: Summary of results of Model runs
A total of 96 runs were made for the sensitivity analysis using Scenarios 1 and 2. The results are summarized in tables 1a through 4b.
(END OF APPENDIX D)
APPENDIX E
************ SERVICE LIST***********
Last Updated on 19-OCT-2010 by: RC4
A0409019 LIST
************** PARTIES ************** |
Mark Fogelman |
********** STATE EMPLOYEE *********** |
Mike Miller |
Richard rauschmeier |
David P. Stephenson |
Frances M. Farina |
Nancy Isakson |
Andrew M. Bell |
Michael Warburton |
(END OF APPENDIX E)
Dissent of Commissioner Dian M. Grueneich
December 2, 2010 Business Meeting, Agenda ID# 3265, Item 41a
I support item 41, ALJ Minkin's proposed decision issuing a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the coastal water project and approving, with modifications, a settlement agreement proposed by California-American Water and its partners. I do not support Commissioner Bohn's alternate, item 41a, which approves without modification the same settlement agreement.
ALJ Minkin's proposed decision and commissioner Bohn's alternate have much in common:
· Both decisions approve the coastal water project -- including a reverse osmosis desalination plant, source water wells, and associated transmission and distribution facilities -- to address long standing water constraints on the Monterey peninsula;
· Both decisions fulfill the requirements of the California environmental quality act, advancing the most environmentally sensitive solution;
· Both decisions empower an innovative public-private partnership between Cal-American water and local public agencies.
I agree with the judgment of both decisions in these areas.
There is, however, one critical distinction between ALJ Minkin's proposed decision and Commissioner Bohn's alternate: the alternate forfeits the requirement for this commission to review the cost of financing, operating, and maintaining the coastal water project.
Because coastal water project costs are uncertain and will be paid completely by Cal-Am's Monterey district ratepayers, this critical omission means that this commission cannot fulfill its constitutional and statutory obligation to ensure that these costs are reasonably incurred and that the resulting rates are therefore, just and reasonable.
The alternate justifies its abandonment of these duties on the grounds that cal-am ratepayers are protected by procedural, contractual, and other safeguards contained in the parties' agreement and various statutes governing the public partners. I am unpersuaded by this argument. We are not at liberty to waive or delegate our legal responsibility to ensure just and reasonable rates to cal-am and it's partners; those duties rest solely with this commission. Indeed, the notion that this agency can and should delegate its oversight responsibilities to the very utilities that we are required to regulate calls into question our commitment to upholding this institution's constitutional obligations.
As such, the Commission must review the financing, operating, and maintenance costs of this project and ensure Cal-Am's ratepayers have been effectively represented.
ALJ Minkin's proposed decision appropriately requires Cal-Am to file and serve the project's financing plan for commission review and establishes a subsequent proceeding to review operating and maintenance costs. These requirements are altogether reasonable and necessary. They provide the commission an opportunity to fulfill its obligations to Cal-Am's ratepayers without imposing undue burden on the project's development.
For these reasons I support ALJ Minkin's proposed decision and oppose commissioner's Bohn's alternate proposed decision. I will reserve my right to file a dissent on item 41a.
181 An incidental release is a release of a hazardous substance which does not pose a significant safety or health hazard to employees in the immediate vicinity or to the employee cleaning it up, nor does it have the potential to become an emergency within a short time frame. Incidental releases are limited in quantity, exposure potential, or toxicity and present minor safety and health hazards to employees in the immediate work area or those assigned to clean them up.
