CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY COASTAL WATER PROJECT

Transcription

1 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY COASTAL WATER PROJECT Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No Prepared for California Public Utilities Commission March 24, 2010

2 CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY COASTAL WATER PROJECT Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No Prepared for California Public Utilities Commission March 24, Bush Street Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA Los Angeles Oakland Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS CalAm Coastal Water Project Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report Page 1. Introduction Project Background Purpose of the Addendum Errata to the FEIR Additional Responses to Comments Introduction Comment Letters 3-2 G_LanWat2 Land Watch 3-3 NA_Emers Frank Emerson 3-5 S_CDPH2 California Department of Public Health 3-7 S_NAHC Native American Heritage Commission 3-9 S_SCH State Clearinghouse 3-10 S_SLC1 State Lands Commission 3-12 S_SLC2 State Lands Commission Responses to Comments 3-18 G_LanWat2 Land Watch 3-18 NA_Emers Frank Emerson 3-19 S_CDPH2 California Department of Public Health 3-20 S_NAHC Native American Heritage Commission 3-20 S_SCH State Clearinghouse 3-21 S_SLC1 State Lands Commission 3-21 S_SLC2 State Lands Commission 3-21 CalAm Coastal Water Project i ESA / Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report March 2010

4 SECTION 1 Introduction 1.1 Project Background On September 20, 2004, California-American Water Company (CalAm) filed Application No seeking a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the Coastal Water Project (CWP) from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or Commission). On January 30, 2009, the CPUC, acting as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR, State Clearinghouse No ) analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the Coastal Water Project as submitted by CalAm, as well as the potential environmental impacts of two alternative project proposals. The CPUC received and analyzed public comments on the DEIR, and issued a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) on October 30, On December 17, 2009, in CPUC Decision No , the CPUC, as the lead agency under CEQA, certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). 1.2 Purpose of the Addendum This Addendum serves two purposes: it lists minor corrections/errata to the published FEIR, and it includes responses to several comment letters not captured in the published FEIR. The document is organized into three sections, as follows: Section 1, Introduction: States the purpose and organization of the document, and gives a brief background of the project. Section 2, Errata to the FEIR: Lists the errata discovered in the text of the FEIR since the document s October 2009 publication. None of the errata recommend or involve any changes to the project or to the level of significance of impacts or to mitigation measures. Section 3, Additional Responses to Comments: Presents seven comment letters that were inadvertently omitted from the published FEIR (one of the letters was received after the close of the extended comment period) and provides responses to all comments contained in these letters. None of the letters or responses have raised or identified any issues that would require changes to the FEIR as published. CalAm Coastal Water Project 1-1 ESA / Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report March 2010

5 2. Errata SECTION 2 Errata This section includes certain minor changes that correct or clarify the text of the Final EIR. None of the revisions alter the level of impacts or change the mitigation measures required. By issuing this addendum, the text of the Final EIR is revised as indicated below. 1. Under Impact 4.1-4, subheading North Marina Project, subheading Salinity, the fourth full paragraph was incorrectly edited. In the Final EIR it was published as: The semi-empirical method assumes lower dilution, higher maximum plume salinity at the seafloor, and higher percentage above ambient salinity. According to both modeling methods, for the North Marina Project, the discharge plume would have a maximum salinity at the seafloor that is within 10 percent of the ambient salinity. Based on these model results, the salinity impact from the brine discharge for the North Marina Project would be less than significant. The first portion of the first sentence should not have been struck. The Final EIR is corrected to read as follows: The semi-empirical method assumes lower dilution, higher maximum plume salinity at the seafloor, and higher percentage above ambient salinity. According to both modeling methods, for the North Marina Project, the discharge plume would have a maximum salinity at the seafloor that is within 10 percent of the ambient salinity. Based on these model results, the salinity impact from the brine discharge for the North Marina Project would be less than significant. 2. One row in Table 5-2, Components of the Phase 1 Monterey Regional Water Supply Program, was incorrectly edited. The row header of Total Potable Supply should have been struck in its entirety. The Final EIR is corrected so that Table 5-2 reads as follows: CalAm Coastal Water Project 2-1 ESA / Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report March 2010

6 2. Errata TABLE 5-2 COMPONENTS OF THE PHASE 1 MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROGRAM Component Supply (afy) Normal weather year Supply (afy) Critically dry weather year Notes Conservation Potential demand offset Water conservation efforts represent a potential demand reduction on the Monterey Peninsula. While it does not produce additional supply or yield, it is an important component of the analysis and was supported by public stakeholders. CalAm and MPWMD have proposed a conservation program that identified up to 1,000 AF of savings. Sand City Water Supply Project Reverse osmosis desalination plant and water conveyance pipelines. EIR certified and project currently under construction. Carmel River via Seaside Basin ASR Long-term Average of 1,300 Long-term Average of 1,300 Consists of diverting excess water from the Carmel River and injecting it into the Seaside Groundwater Basin for later recovery during dry periods. EIR certified for 2 injection/extraction wells (totaling 920 afy) which are completed and project is anticipated to begin implementation in Two additional injection/extraction wells would be constructed as a part of Phase to add 380 afy for a total of 1,300 aft. Supply shown is long-term average with higher supply available to divert to storage during wet years than during dry years, whereas relatively less water would likely be withdrawn during wet years than dry years. Regional Desalination Facility CalAm Service Area Subtotal 8,800 10,900 Reverse osmosis desalination plant with six vertical seawater intake wells. Other components include distribution pumping and transmission pipelines. 10,400 12,500 RUWAP 1,000 1,000 Delivery of recycled water from the MRWPCA Salinas Valley Reclamation Plant for urban irrigation uses. EIR certified and currently in design phase. Regional Desalination Facility 1,700 0 Groundwater See note a 1,700 In peak critically dry periods MCWD would rely on groundwater. This would be balanced, and prevent MCWD from exceeding its groundwater allocation, by non peak periods when CalAm would reduce use of the desalination plant production (as shown above) and MCWD would use 1,700 afy of desalinated plant production rather than groundwater. MCWD Service Area Subtotal 2,700 2,700 TOTAL 13,100 15,200 a During normal weather years, no groundwater would be used to meet the MCWD component of the Regional Project, which would be met by recycled water from the RUWAP and the desalination plant, as shown in the table. MCWD relies on groundwater to meet other portions of its demand, apart from the Regional Project. CalAm Coastal Water Project 2-2 ESA / Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report March 2010

7 2. Errata 3. Two rows in Table , Summary of Potential Public Services and Utilities Impacts, were incorrectly edited. The two rows are the rows labeled Outfall: Moss Landing Project under both the Moss Landing Site and the North Marina Site. The first of these two rows, under the Moss Landing Site portion of the table, lists the wrong level of significance for Impact The text of Section 4.11 indicates that there would be a significant but mitigable impact associated with this project component. The second of these two rows, under the North Marina Site portion of the table, contains two errors. The row should be headed as Outfall: North Marina Project rather than Outfall: Moss Landing Project. Also, this row again lists the wrong level of significance for Impact The text of Section 4.11 indicates that there would be a significant but mitigable impact associated with this project component The Final EIR is corrected so that Table reads as follows: TABLE SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES IMPACTS Facility Impact Impact Impact Impact Moss Landing Site Plant: Moss Landing Project SM SM SM SM Intake: Moss Landing Project - SM SM - Outfall: Moss Landing Project - SM SM SM Transmission Main North: Moss Landing Project SM SM SM - North Marina Site Plant: North Marina Project SM SM SM SM Intake: North Marina Project SM SM SM - Outfall: North Marina Project SM SM SM SM Transmission Main South SM SM SM - Aquifer Storage and Recovery Facilities SM SM SM - Terminal Reservoir Site SM SM SM - Valley Greens Pump Station SM SM SM - Monterey Pipeline SM SM SM - Moss Landing Project SM SM SM SM North Marina Project SM SM SM SM SM Significant Impact, can be Mitigated SU Significant Impact, Unavoidable LTS Less-than-significant Impact No Impact CalAm Coastal Water Project 2-3 ESA / Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report March 2010

8 2. Errata 4. Under Impact 6.9-1, subheading Mitigation Measures, Mitigation Measure 6.9-1a should have been deleted from the Final EIR since it was superseded by the revised versions of Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1e. Mitigation Measure 6.9-1a is hereby deleted so that the subheading text reads as follows: Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures 4.9-1a through 4.9-1e. See discussion for Impact Significance after Mitigation: All construction impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, with the exception of the Terminal Reservoir site, which was found to be less than significant without mitigation. CalAm Coastal Water Project 2-4 ESA / Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report March 2010

9 SECTION 3 Additional Responses to Comments 3.1 Introduction This section presents seven comment letters that were inadvertently omitted from the published FEIR (one of the letters was received after the close of the extended comment period) and provides responses to all comments contained in these letters. None of the letters or responses have raised or identified any changes to the FEIR as published. Section 3.2 contains the comment letters and Section 3.3 contains the responses to comments. The following letters are dealt with in this section: Organization Individual Letter Code LandWatch Amy L. White, Interim Executive Director G_LanWat2 --- Frank Emerson NA_Emers California Department of Public Health, State of California Health and Human Services Agency Natalia E. Deardorff, CDPH Environmental Review Unit S_CDPH2 Native American Heritage Commission Katy Sanchez, Program Analyst S_NAHC State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, Governor s Office of Planning and Research California State Lands Commission, Division of Environmental Planning and Management California State Lands Commission, Division of Environmental Planning and Management Terry Roberts, Director Gail Newton, Chief Gail Newton, Chief S_SCH S_SLC1 S_SLC2 CalAm Coastal Water Project 3-1 ESA / Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report March 2010

10 3. Additional Responses to Comments 3.2 Comment Letters CalAm Coastal Water Project 3-2 ESA / Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report March 2010

11 3-3 Comment Letter G_LanWat2

12 3-4 Comment Letter G_LanWat2

13 3-5 Comment Letter NA_Emers

14 3-6 Comment Letter NA_Emers

15 3-7 Comment Letter S_CDPH2

16 3-8 Comment Letter S_CDPH2

17 3-9 Comment Letter S_NAHC

18 3-10 Comment Letter S_SCH

19 3-11 Comment Letter S_SCH

20 3-12 Comment Letter S_SLC1

21 3-13 Comment Letter S_SLC1

22 3-14 Comment Letter S_SLC1

23 3-15 Comment Letter S_SCL2

24 3-16 Comment Letter S_SCL2

25 3-17 Comment Letter S_SCL2

26 3. Additional Responses to Comments 3.3 Responses to Comments LandWatch, Amy L. White, Interim Executive Manager, 04/24/09 The publication of the Draft EIR on January 30, 2009, marked the beginning of a 60-day review period, scheduled to conclude on April 1, At the request of several reviewers, the comment period was extended to April 15, This comment letter was received on April 24, G_LanWat2-01 This comment asserts that in order to comply with CEQA, the FEIR must evaluate potential off-site measures to mitigate significant and unavoidable adverse impacts associated with greenhouse gases. The Draft EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts for the Moss Landing Project, the North Marina Project, and the Regional Project associated with the generation of GHG emissions. The Draft EIR disclosed that implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.8-1c (Idling Restrictions), 4.8-5a (Aerodynamic Efficiency for Trucks), and 4.8-5b (Low SF6 Leak Rate Circuit Breaker and Monitoring) would reduce short-term construction and long-term operations emissions of GHG; however, these measures would not reduce indirect emissions associated with the project-related energy usage (i.e., the primary source of the project s GHG emissions) to a less than significant level. At the time that the Draft EIR was prepared, there appeared to be no feasible mitigation measures available that could reduce GHG emissions that would be associated with indirect energy usage to less than significant levels without fundamentally altering the project. However, subsequent to the release of the Draft EIR, additional research was conducted, which confirmed that feasible mitigation is available that could reduce the projects GHG emissions to a level that would be considered to be less than significant. Based on the additional research, it appears that the significant impacts that would be associated with the Moss Landing or North Marina Projects GHG emissions could be reduced to less than significant levels with the implementation of an additional mitigation measure that was not identified in the Draft EIR (Measure 4.8-5c). However, as the FEIR states in Impact 6.8-5, this mitigation measure may not be feasible for the Regional Project, because of the multiple jurisdictions involved. Therefore, the impact conclusion for GHG emissions for the Regional Project remains significant and unavoidable. Please see Master Response 13.8, Greenhouse Gases, as well as response to comment G-CalAm-279. CalAm Coastal Water Project 3-18 ESA / Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report March 2010

27 3. Additional Responses to Comments Frank Emerson, 04/13/09 NA_Emers-01 This comment presents information on the historic and existing population of steelhead in the Carmel River. Data on steelhead populations in the River is presented in the FEIR Section discussion of the Carmel River, and FEIR Figure presents the Average Carmel River Juvenile Steelhead Population Density for the period 1973 to NA_Emers-02 This comment expresses support for the Coastal Water Project, specifically for the North Marina alternative. NA_Emers-03 This comment expresses concern about the potential for delays in implementing the Regional Project because of the additional capacity beyond the requirements of Order and the perceived growth issue. The DEIR discusses demand and growth in several sections. Chapter 2 of the DEIR presents Water Demand and Supplies. Chapter 8 presents Growth- Inducement Potential and Secondary Effects of Growth: section 8.1 presents the Approach to Analysis and section 8.2 presents the Growth Inducement Potential. Table 8-1 presents the Phase 1 Regional Project Demand and section concludes: Because the Phase 1 Regional Project consists of providing replacement water supply in the CalAm service area, replacing an existing supply in the MCWD service area, and replacing an already-approved supply project, Phase 1 would not remove an obstacle to future growth and therefore would not have a growth-inducing impact. See also Response to Comment G-CalAm-22. NA_Emers-04 The commenter states that the new water supply must be required to replace illegal pumping from the Carmel River aquifer and that an overhaul of operations must be put in practice to ensure the promised benefit of a drought proof water supply. Please see response to comment NA-Smith 4. NA_Emers-05 The commenter recommends that CalAm use desalinated water from the new plant during dry months and Carmel River water only during wet months as a way to provide the best year-round conditions for the river. The purpose of the EIR is to analyze the environmental impacts of the CWP and its alternatives, which would replace the amount of water currently diverted in excess of CalAm s legal right to 3,376 afy of Carmel River system water. The purpose of the EIR is not to evaluate how or when CalAm uses the water to which it has a legal right. Therefore, the topic addressed in this comment is outside the scope of the EIR. Please see also the response to comment F_NOAA-11. CalAm Coastal Water Project 3-19 ESA / Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report March 2010

28 3. Additional Responses to Comments California Department of Public Health; Natalia E. Deardorff, CDPH Environmental Review Unit; 02/26/09 S_CDPH2-01 This comment states and it is acknowledged that a new or amended Water Supply Permit may need to be issued for the project. Please see DEIR Table 3-14, Potential Permits and Approvals for the Project. Native American Heritage Commission, Katy Sanchez, Program Analyst, 02/10/2009 S_NAHC-01 The comment states the Notice of Completion (NOC) has been reviewed and summarizes CEQA and the lead agency s responsibilities as they pertain to historical and archaeological resources. The methodology used to assess potential cultural impacts is described in Section 4.13 of the DEIR. S_NAHC-02 The comment recommends that the appropriate regional archaeological information center be contacted for a records search. The applicant s cultural consultant completed a record search at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System in 2004 (File # ) and 2005 (File #04-674). Pacific Legacy also conducted an archaeological survey, as documented in the July 2009 Archaeological Survey for the Cal-Am Coastal Water Project, Monterey County, California (File # ) (Pacific Legacy, 2009). S_NAHC-03 The commenter states that if an archaeological inventory survey is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the finding and recommendations of the records search and field survey and that this report should be submitted to the planning department and the appropriated regional archaeological information center. An archaeological survey report was prepared for the project (Busby, 2005). The report was submitted to the Northwest Information Center and the planning department. Pacific Legacy also conducted an archaeological survey report (File # ) (Pacific Legacy, 2009). S_NAHC-04 The commenter recommends that the NAHC be contacted for a sacred lands file check and for a Native Americans contacts list. The applicant s cultural consultant prepared a sacred lands file check and received a response from the NAHC on February 14, Mitigation Measure d, provides for ongoing Native American consultation prior to and during project construction and during preparation of the Cultural Resources Treatment Plan. S_NAHC-05 The commenter states that the lack of surface evidence of archaeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence and that lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and evaluation of discovered archaeological resources, native artifacts, and human remains. Measures such as described in the comment are included in the FEIR. See Mitigation Measures and CalAm Coastal Water Project 3-20 ESA / Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report March 2010

29 3. Additional Responses to Comments References Pacific Legacy, Archaeological Survey for the Cal-Am Coastal Water Project, Monterey County, California, July State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, Governor s Office of Planning and Research; Terry Roberts, Director; 04/02/09 S_SCH-01 Comment noted. California State Lands Commission; Gail Newton, Chief, Division of Environmental Planning and Management; 02/26/09 S-SLC1-01 S-SLC1-02 S-SLC1-03 S-SLC1-04 This comment requests that the EIR provide a discussion of the impacts of elevated salinity on marine organisms, and possible mitigation for impacts that cannot be avoided. Please see response to comment S-SLC2-1. This comment requests that technical information about the existing outfalls and potential mixing patterns and salinities above ambient. Please see response to comment S-SLC2-2. This comment requests that the EIR provide conversion numbers from MWh to tonnes of CO2e in order to quantify the indirect impacts of GHGs associated with the desalination plant. Please see response to comment S-SLC2-3. The commenter requests that the EIR evaluate the impacts of the desalination facility at Moss Landing as a stand alone facility. Please see response to comment S-SLC2-4. California State Lands Commission; Gail Newton, Chief, Division of Environmental Planning and Management; 03/10/09 S-SLC2-1 This comment requests that the EIR provide a discussion of the impacts of elevated salinity on marine organisms, and possible mitigation for impacts that cannot be avoided. The FEIR addresses potential impacts to water quality (salinity) in sections 4.1 (for the Moss Landing and North Marina Projects) and 6.1 (for the Regional Project). The FEIR addresses potential impacts to marine organisms as a result of changes in water quality in sections 4.3 (for the Moss Landing and North Marina Projects) and 6.3 (for the Regional Project), and proposes mitigation. The commenter is directed first to FEIR Section 4.1, Surface Water Resources, specifically to Impacts 4.1-4: The project discharge associated with the proposed CalAm Coastal Water Project 3-21 ESA / Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report March 2010

30 3. Additional Responses to Comments desalination facility could degrade water quality in Monterey Bay. The analysis evaluated and quantified the potential effects on salinity, temperature, treatment chemicals, source water quality contaminants, and source water quality (dissolved oxygen content) potentially resulting from implementation of the Moss Landing and North Marina Projects. Impact evaluated the potential effects of the salinity on habitats and species and proposes mitigation. The commenter is also directed to DEIR Impact 6.1-4, which evaluated the potential effects of the discharge from the Regional Project and Impact 6.3-1, which evaluated the potential effects of water quality changes on habitats and species. Both sections concluded that the impact from salinity is less than significant. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed. S-SLC2-2 S-SLC2-3 This comment requests technical information about the existing outfalls and potential mixing patterns and salinities above ambient. The Moss Landing outfall is briefly described in DEIR section 3.2, and the salinities above ambient are described in Appendix C (Combined Effluent Dilution Calculations for Moss Landing Power Plant). The existing outfall at the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency and the dilution studies associated with using this outfall for the North Marina and Regional Projects are described in DEIR Appendix D (FlowScience Inc, MRWPCA Brine Discharge Diffuser Analysis). Additional analyses at the MRWPCA outfall are also described in FEIR Appendix Q. This comment requests that the EIR provide conversion numbers from MWh to tonnes of CO2e in order to quantify the indirect impacts of GHGs associated with the desalination plant. DEIR Impact statement already cites CO2e as follows: Using PG&E s GHG emission factor for its energy production portfolio, net electricity use associated with the Moss Landing Project and the North Marina Project would result in an increase of approximately 7,910 and 9,032 metric tons of CO2e each year, respectively. The EIR concludes that the GHG emission amounts would exceed the amount of CARB s preliminary draft significance threshold, and three mitigation measures are prescribed. As to the Regional Project, DEIR Impact statement cites CO2e as follows: Using PG&E s GHG emission factor for its energy production portfolio, net electricity use associated with Phase 1 of the Regional Project would result in an increase of approximately 11,209 metric tons of CO2e each year. The EIR concludes that the GHG emission amounts would exceed the amount of CARB s preliminary draft significance threshold, and three mitigation measures are prescribed. However, one of the mitigation measures may not be feasible because of the multiple jurisdictions involved. Therefore, the impact conclusion for GHG emissions for the Regional Project is determined to be significant and unavoidable. S-SLC2-4 The commenter requests the EIR evaluate the impacts of the desalination facility at Moss Landing as a stand alone facility, show how best available technology is CalAm Coastal Water Project 3-22 ESA / Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report March 2010

31 3. Additional Responses to Comments used to reduce velocities and describe potential mitigation measures to reduce the remaining impacts. Please refer to the Master Response 13.11, CEQA Evaluation of Once-Through-Cooling. See specifically the Use of Existing OTC and Possible Discontinuance of OTC subheadings. Since the proposed desalination project at Moss Landing would change the current operations of the existing intake facilities, no new impacts are identified and no mitigation is proposed. S-SLC2-5 S-SLC2-6 The comment points out that the intake and outfall facilities at Moss Landing Power Plant have been legislatively granted to the Moss Landing Harbor District. The comment is noted. The Moss Landing Project does not propose to make any physical changes to any facility west of Highway 1. This comment states and it is acknowledged that any structure to be located on the bed of the Salinas River, or attached to any existing facilities crossing the Salinas River, may require a lease from the State Lands Commission. CalAm Coastal Water Project 3-23 ESA / Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report March 2010