Pacific Grove Garbage Disposal Buy-Back Program

Transcription

1 PROJECT OVERVIEW General Project Information Project Title: Pacific Grove Garbage Disposal Buy-Back Program Project Location: City of Pacific Grove Estimated Cost: $, Brief Project Description ( to 2 sentences): The City propsoes to buy-back kitchen garbage disposals from homeonwers in Pacific Grove. Water conservation savings and a new pilot kitchen waste collection system woudl result. Project Proponent Information Contact Name: Thomas Frutchey, City Manager Affiliation: City of Pacific Grove Address: 3 Forest Avenue, Pacific Grove, CA 939 Phone Number: (83) tfrutchey@ci.pg.ca.us Other participating and/or partner agencies/organizations (if applicable): Monterey Regional Water Pollution Controal Agency Califronia American Water Company - Monterey Division Green Waste Recovery DETAILED PROJECT INFORMATION Description Please provide a description of your project (including the location) and its purpose, what will be constructed and/or implemented, how the project will function, the area(s) and/or entities that will be affected by or will benefit from the project, and any potential obstacles to implementation. The City of Pacific Grove would support the buy-back of residential garbage disposals from individual homeowners. The use of residential kitchen garbage disposals requires an estimated, gallons per year per residence as compared to homes where they are not used. Additionally, the inclusion of solids from kitchen waste to the sewer adds to the biological load that must be removed at wastewater treatment and recycling plants. The buy-back program would typically not be cost effective. However, under the current drought conditions, the City, in collaboration with the MRWPCA, would receive the following immediate benefits: water conservation from immediate water use reduction; increased hydraulic capacity in local and regional sewer systems; and, decreased biological loading to the proposed Satellite Recycled Water Recycling Treatment Plant at Point Pinos and the Regional Treatment Plant. Grant funds would be used to capitalize the buy-back program. Additionally, GreenWaste Recovery, the City s new refuse hauler, has offered to pilot a new kitchen waste program for residential neighborhoods in Pacific Grove (still to be selected), at its own cost. Participants would have their kitchen wastes picked up for composting at no charge. These two programs would be offered to the same neighborhoods, on a pilot basis. Therefore, Garbage Disposal Buy-Back Program participants would have monetary, water conservation, and solid waste motivations for participation. The City woudl collaborate with MRWPCA for the monitoring of project effects at the pumping plants and RTP. The City would monitor program effectiveness and collaborate with California American Water Company for the monitoring of water use reduction. Page of Pacific Grove Garbage Disposal Buy-Back Program 7/2/24

2 IRWM Objectives (DWR Review Factor A) Water Supply (WS) Assists region to meet WS- Bonus Points = Assists region to meet WS-2 WS-. Meet existing water supply replacement needs of the Carmel River system and Seaside Groundwater Basin.** Enter the number in the appropriate category. Do not choose more than one category. Larger water supply quantities yield more points up to total of 3 normalized points. up to 9 AFY at least 9 AFY (%) at least 8 AFY (2%) at least 27 AFY (3%) at least 36 AFY (4%) at least 4 AFY (%) at least 4 AFY (6%) at least 63 AFY (7%) at least 72 AFY (8%) at least 8 AFY (9%) at least 9 AFY (%) WS-2. Maximize use of recycled water.** Enter the number in each category.as appropriate (up to 4 raw points; 3 normalized points) provides recycled water to one or more properties within the region provides recycled water from a package plant or provides source water to either CAWD or MRWPCA expands output of recycled water from either CAWD or MRWPCA all possible recycled water [currently estimated to be 4,8 AFY, including up to 3 AFY from CAWD WWTP and 4, AFY from MRWPCA WWTP] WS-3, then Score --> WS-4, then Score --> WS-, then Score --> WS-3. Seek long-term sustainable supplies for adopted future demand estimates. WS-4. Optimize conjunctive use of surface and groundwater. WS-. Evaluate, advance, or create water conservation throughout the Region in compliance with the State s 2x22 Water Conservation Plan. Page 2 of Pacific Grove Garbage Disposal Buy-Back Program 7/2/24

3 Water Quality (WQ) Assists region to meet WQ- Points, below) Assists region to meet WQ-2 WQ-. Improve ocean water quality, including Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), by minimizing pollutants in stormwater discharges.** Enter the number in each category as appropriate (up to a total of 9 raw points; 3 normalized points): implements regional monitoring or contributes to statewide water quality monitoring assists in defining "natural ocean water quality" for one or more ASBS removes trash from storm water eliminates or reduces soil erosion in watersheds discharging to the ocean eliminates or reduces the risk of a source of non-storm water discharge implements low impact development (LID) measures within existing developed areas reduces pollutant load during design storm events from one or more storm water point source by 9% compared to 2-22 reduces pollutant load during design storm events from 2 or more stormwater point sources by 9% compared to 2-2 achieves Table B Instantaneous Max. Water Quality Objectives in Ch. II of the Ocean Plan on average WQ-2. Improve inland surface water quality for environmental resources (e.g. steelhead) and potable water supplies.** Assists region to meet WQ-3 Points, below) WQ-4, then Score --> Flood Protection & Erosion Prevention (FP) Enter the number in each category as appropriate (up to a total of 6 raw points; 3 normalized points): increases regional monitoring or contributes to statewide water quality monitoring assists in meeting Basin Plan TMDLs or NPDES permit limits removes trash from storm water eliminates or reduces soil erosion, contaminant sources eliminates or reduces the risk of a source of non-storm water discharge implements low impact development (LID) features, techniques, and practices within existing developed areas WQ-3. Protect and improve water quality in groundwater basins.** Enter the number in each category as appropriate (up to a total of 2 raw points; 3 normalized points): increases groundwater basin monitoring or contributes to statewide water quality monitoring. prevents, reduces, or minimizes groundwater quality degradation through reduction in pollutant loads, remediation, reclamation and reuse, or through enhancement of groundwater levels/volumes thereby reducing the potential for seawater intrusion. WQ-4. Meet or exceed water quality standards established by regulatory agencies and stakeholders. Page 3 of Pacific Grove Garbage Disposal Buy-Back Program 7/2/24

4 Assists region to meet FP-a Assists region to meet FP-b Points, below) FP-2, then Score --> FP-3, then Score --> FP-4, then Score --> FP-a. Develop regional projects and plans necessary to protect existing infrastructure from flood damage, in particular, along the southern Monterey Bay shoreline and Carmel Valley.** Enter the number in the appropriate category. Do not choose more than one category. Removal of more properties from the floodplain yields more points up to total of 3 normalized points. removes at least one () property from a -year flood zone removes at least five () properties from the -year flood zone removes at least 2 properties from a -year flood zone removes at least properties from a -year flood zone removes at least properties from a -year flood zone FP-b. Develop regional projects and plans necessary to protect existing infrastructure and sensitive habitats from erosion (including erosion exacerbated by sea level rise).** Enter the number in each category as appropriate (up to a total of 3 raw points; 3 normalized points): implements one or more measures from the document: Evaluation of Erosion Mitigation Alternatives for Southern Monterey Bay (Alternatives Study) (ESA-PWA, May 22) implements one or more components of region-wide, outreach, public education, or other program aimed at systematic changes to land management (i.e., Forest Management, agricultural lands management) eliminates or reduces soil erosion in watersheds through implementation of erosion control improvements to streams, creeks, and rivers. FP-2. Develop approaches for adaptive management that minimize maintenance and repair requirements (sustainable flood management systems). FP-3. Protect quality and availability of water while preserving or restoring ecologic and stream function. FP-4. Provide community benefits beyond flood protection, such as public access, open space, recreation, agricultural preservation, and economic development. Environmental Protection and Enhancement (EV) EV-, then Score --> EV-2, then Score --> EV-3, then Score --> EV-4, then Score --> EV-, then Score --> EV-. Protect and enhance sensitive species and their habitats in the regional watersheds; promote the steelhead run. EV-2. Identify opportunities to assess, protect, enhance, and/or restore natural resources, including consideration of climate change, when development water management strategies and projects. EV-3. Minimize adverse environmental effects on biological and cultural resources when implementing strategies and projects. EV-4. Identify opportunities for open spaces, trails and parks long streams and other recreational areas in the watershed that can be incorporated into projects. EV-. Identify and integrate elements from appropriate Federal and State species protection and recovery plans. Page 4 of Pacific Grove Garbage Disposal Buy-Back Program 7/2/24

5 Climate Change (CC) CC-, then Score --> CC-2, then Score --> CC-3, then Score --> Regional Communication and Cooperation (RCC) Assists region to meet RC- Points, below).2 Assists region to meet RC-2 RC-3, then Score --> RC-4, then Score --> CC-. Evaluate adaptation measures and mitigative solutions to climate change effects. CC-2. Support increased education, monitoring and research to increase understanding of long-term impacts of climate change in the region. CC-3. Support efforts to increase education, research and use of energy conservation measures and alternatives to fossil fuel and non-renewable resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with water and wastewater facility operations and IRWM projects. RC-. Identify cooperative, integrated strategies for protecting both infrastructure and environmental resources, including from climate change impacts.** Enter the number in each category as appropriate (up to a total of raw points; 3 normalized points): Partnerships The project is proposed by a partnership of multiple organizations enabling use of shared expertise and resources. Resource Management Strategy The project includes a RMS that is not already being implemented in the region thereby would provide diversification of strategies. Beneficial Uses The project supports several different beneficial uses (see CCRWQCB, Basin Plan Chapter 2, 2) Geography The project implements a watershed-scale, regionalscale, or inter-regional project. Hydrology The project addresses multiple watershed functions within the hydrologic cycle. RC-2. Foster collaboration among regional entities as an alternative to litigation. ** Enter the number in each category as appropriate (up to a total of raw points; 3 normalized points): PROVIDED INFORMATION early in project development to the public to assist in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions CONSULTED & OBTAINED FEEDBACK from all regional agency and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) regarding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions CONSULTED & OBTAINED FEEDBACK from the public regarding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions INVOLVED & WORKED DIRECTLY WITH two or more regional agency and/or NGO stakeholders regarding the problem, alternatives, opportunities, and/or solutions COLLABORATED WITH, OR MADE PARTNERSHIPS with two or more agencies or NGOs on each aspect of the decision RC-3. Identify and pursue additional opportunities for public education, outreach, and communication on water resource management and climate change, including to disadvantaged communities and stakeholders with interests in water management issues. RC-4. Build relationships with State and Federal regulatory agencies and water forums and agencies. Page of Pacific Grove Garbage Disposal Buy-Back Program 7/2/24

6 Total Points for IRWM 6.2 Objectives = Resource Management Strategies (DWR Review Factor B) Score one point for any Resource Management Strategies (RMS) that the proposed project will address. CWP Outcome Category : Reduced Water Demand Agriculture Water Use Efficiency Urban Water Use Efficiency * Crop Idling for Water Transfers Irrigated Land Retirement Rainfed Agriculture CWP Outcome Category 2: Improve Operational Efficiency and Transfers Conveyance Regional/Local * System Reoperation Water Transfers * Waterbag Transport/Storage Technology * CWP Outcome Category 3: Increase Water Supply Conjunctive Management & Groundwater Storage * Seawater or Brackish Water Desalination * Precipitation Enhancement Recycled Municipal Water * Surface Storage Regional/local * Dewvaportation or Atmospheric Pressure Desalination Fog Collection CWP Outcome Category 4: Improve Water Quality Drinking Water Treatment and Distribution * Groundwater Remediation/Aquifer Remediation Matching Quality to Use Pollution Prevention * Salt and Salinity Management Urban Runoff Management * CWP Outcome Category : Improve Flood Management Flood Risk Management * CWP Outcome Category 6: Practice Resources Stewardship Agriculture Lands Stewardship Economic Incentives Ecosystem Restoration * Forest Management * Recharge Area Protection Water-Dependent Recreation * Watershed Management * Total RMS Points = 4 Score one additional point for each additional CWP Outcome category, above one, from which the project is implementing a RMS. (Max: points) Page 6 of Pacific Grove Garbage Disposal Buy-Back Program 7/2/24

7 Strategic Considerations (DWR Review Factor J) Does the project address inter-regional issues (such as regional monitoring of ASBS, former Fort Ord water supplies, etc.)? If so, explain. By reducing wastewater biological load, regional and planned local wastewater treatment and recycling faculities benefit in their production of recycled water. Inter-regional Points (Yes: pts; No: pts) = How many agencies and/or non-governmental organizations are partnering to implement the project? List the agencies and organization that are working together to implement the project. City of Pacific Grove Monterey Regional Water Pollution Controal Agency California American Water Company - Monterey Division Green Waste Recovery Partnerships Points (Score points if 3 or more, 2 points if 2 or more, score for no partnerships) = Does the project include monitoring and reporting components to ensure achievement of performance criteria (i.e., IRWM objectives achievement and/or relevant regulatory requirements)? Yes, monitoring woudl be done by the City for program effectiveness, with CAW for water use/conservation achievements. CAW woudl be responsible for annual monitoring and reporting as a water conservation Best Management Practice to the California Urban Water Conservation Council and in their 2 Urban Water Management Plan Update. MRWPCA would monitor for pump station flows and loading to the RTP. Performance Monitoring/Reporting Points (Yes: pts; No: pts) = Does the project integrate with local land use and water planning? Does the project increase coordination between water resruoces agencies and land use planners? Is the project consistent with land use plans and policies? Yes. CAW woudl be responsible for annual monitoring and reporting as a water conservation Best Management Practice to the California Urban Water Conservation Council and in their water demand estimates in their 2 Urban Water Management Plan Update. Land Use Integration Points (Score: points if "yes" to all three questions; 3 points if "Yes" to 2 questions; point for "yes" to one question) = DAC and Native Americans and Environmental Justice (DWR Review Factors D, E and f) Does the project provide specific benefits to disadvantaged communities and/or Native American tribal communities? If so, explain. Yes, disadvantaged communities and or Native American tribal communities recieve a payment for teh buy-back of kitchen garbage disposals, and, free kitchen waste collection services. DAC &/or Native American Points (Yes: pts; No: pts) = Does the project address any known environmental justice issues? Does the project avoid disproportionately affecting disadvantaged communities? No Environmental Justice Points (Yes for both: pts; No for either: pts) = Page 7 of Pacific Grove Garbage Disposal Buy-Back Program 7/2/24

8 Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation (DWR Review Factors K and L) Put an X next to any climate change adaptation or mitigation strategy the proposed project will contribute Adaptation Strategies X Improve water supply reliability Expand conjunctive use of multiple water supply sources X Increase water use and/or reuse efficiency X Provide additional water supply X Promote water quality protection X Reduce water demand X Advance / expand recycled water use Promote urban runoff reuse Address sea level rise Address other anticipated climate change impacts Improve flood control X Promote habitat protection Establish migration corridors Re-establish river-floodplain hydrologic continuity Re-introduce anadromous fish populations to watershed Implement one or more recommendations from the Erosion Mitigation Alternatives Enhance and protect watershed forest and meadow systems Please describe: Water cnservation is a direct result as is the improved recycling of wastewater from reduced biological strength. Water conservation reduces pressure on Carmel River and other substitute source water supplies, which also resuts in habitat protection. Greater regional and local use and development of recycled water results. Climate Change Adaptation (Score for every strategy implemented, up to max) = Mitigation Strategies X X X Increase water use efficiency or promote energy-efficient water demand reduction Improve water system energy efficiency Advance / expand recycled water use Promote urban runoff reuse Promote use of renewable energy sources Contribute to carbon sequestration Does the proposed project reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions and/or improve energy efficiency compared to alternative proposed projects meeting the same regional objectives? If so, explain how. Please describe: Reduced energy consumption for regional pumping to the RTP and reduced wastewater treatment for processing a lower strength wasteweater. Local and regional use of recycled water is enhanced. Efficiencies are improved on the water system by eliminating garbage disposals. Climate Change Mitigation (Score for every strategy implemented, up to max) = 3 Page 8 of Pacific Grove Garbage Disposal Buy-Back Program 7/2/24

9 Technical Feasibility (DWR Review Factor C) Discuss the technical feasibility of the project. If possible, cite references that contain information about the proposed project and detail the technical feasibility of the project. Recommendations by manufacturers of garbage disosals are to run water for up to 3 minutes (2. gpm x 3 min = 7. gal meal = 8,22 gal/y). Conservative estimates in the CA Pluming Code allow for gal per meal = apx, gal/y. The technical feasibility of teh program is assured becasue individual homeowners are responsible for the retrofit & removal of their disposals. The City merely tracks and provides teh $/disposal incentive. 3 points: Technical feasibility has been documented in a project-specific pilot study or previous phase or has a OR points: has the technology proposed been established as effective in similar situations? points: Are project site conditions documented (geology/soil, ecology, hydrology, land use, public utilities)? points: Do the project partners have experience with similar projects? (e.g., similar site, similar technology). Technical Feasibility Points (See above) = Project Cost and Financing (DWR Review Factor G) Total Estimated Capital Cost $7, Annual Operation & Maintenance (O&M) Cost $2, Cost Basis (Year) 24 Source(s) of Funding for Capital IRWM Grant Source(s) of Funding for O&M Cost General Fund, Sewer enterprise fund. Project Life (years) Provide link to project cost estimate, if available 2% Match Confirmed (Yes or No)? Cost and Financing Points ( points if above information provided; points if 2% or more funding match confirmed) = 2 Economic Feasibility (DWR Review Factor H) Has a benefit:cost or cost effectiveness analysis been completed for your project? If so, please cite reference and briefly summarize. If no economic analysis has been completed for the project, the project may receive zero points out of a possible 2 points for the Economic Feasibility review factor unless the project is a DAC project. If the project is not a DAC project but the B:C ratio is expected to be greater than, please provide a justification. The lack of an economic analysis may also affect the Project Status score. No Yes The City's sewer enterprise fund would fund the cost for program administration. If known, please provide the Benefit:Cost Ratio. Provide a detailed discussion of the benefits the project will provide. To the extent possible, quantify changes and benefits (e.g. water quality and water supply benefits) that will result from project implementation; otherwise, describe benefits qualitatively. A reduction of approximately.7mgy will directly result from the project. The removal of kitchen solids from 7 homes will improve the recycling of wastewater at the RTP and or the proposed Pacific Grove Local Water Project. This waste load reduction would reduce energy consumption for wastewater pumping and recycling treatment. Economic Feasibility Points (Score: points if a benefit:cost or cost effectiveness analysis has been completed or project is a DAC project; PLUS points if the benefit:cost ratio or cost-effectiveness score is acceptable, i.e., B:C > ) = Page 9 of Pacific Grove Garbage Disposal Buy-Back Program 7/2/24

10 Project Status (DWR Review Factor I) Proposed Project Start Date: 8/4/24 Estimated Project Completion Date: 8/4/2 Indicate the status (pending, in process, complete) of the following. Project Implementation Milestone Conceptual/Preliminary Plans Complete CEQA/NEPA Completed Local Cost Share Confirmed ROW/Land Acquisition/Land Owner Approval Permits Received Construction Drawings Complete & Bids Acquired Status % Complete Estimated Completion Date Started 2 7//24 Exempt file NOE 8 7//24 In Dev. 2 7//24 N/A 6/2/24 N/A 6/2/24 N/A 6/2/24 Project Status Points (4 points for each of the above that are completed) = 2 Page of Pacific Grove Garbage Disposal Buy-Back Program 7/2/24