Maintain a system and components that are economically feasible and continue to be successfully financed.

Transcription

1 DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY MAY 2003

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Draft Feasibility Report Santa Rosa Incremental Recycled Water Program The City of Santa Rosa (City) is the managing partner for the Subregional Water Reclamation System, which comprises the cities of Santa Rosa,, Cotati, and Sebastopol. The City has undertaken the Incremental Recycled Water Program (IRWP or Program) to provide reliable treatment, recycling, and/or disposal of the existing wastewater volume affected by new regulations (California Toxics Rule) and additional flow resulting from growth anticipated in the general plans of the communities included in the system. Program Objectives The Feasibility Report develops alternatives that support the Program s objectives, as directed by the City of Santa Rosa Utilities Department staff, Board of Public Utilities (BPU), and City Council. The BPU and the City Council have adopted a Purpose and Need Statement that includes primary and secondary program objectives. The Program must accomplish the entire primary and most of the secondary Program objectives. Because alternatives may be combined to meet the Program objectives, an alternative must make a meaningful contribution toward fulfilling the objectives, but need not fulfill all objectives. The Program objectives are as follows. Primary Program Objectives Provide wastewater treatment, recycling, and disposal for the Santa Rosa Subregional Reclamation System to accommodate projected growth as indicated in the adopted general plans of each Subregional System member effective as of July Develop and operate the wastewater treatment and disposal system in ways that protect public health and safety, protect natural resources including the Russian River and its tributaries, promote use of recycled water, meet current regulatory requirements, and provide flexibility to comply with future regulatory requirements. Maintain a system and components that are economically feasible and continue to be successfully financed. Secondary Program Objectives Maximize use of recycled water. Maximize reuse opportunities where recycled water will increase the availability of potable water supplies. Dispose of reclaimed water in a manner that protects beneficial uses of receiving waters. Optimize water conservation. RDD\ (CAH2379.DOC) 1

3 DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT Maintain the level of weather-independence (as defined by Regional Water Quality Control Board [RWQCB] policy) that is provided by the addition of the Geysers Recharge Project to the Subregional Reclamation System. Maximize use of existing infrastructure. Maintain a disposal system that is manageable and reliable. Provide flexibility to accommodate use of recycled water made available by neighboring agencies as deemed appropriate by the City of Santa Rosa. Development of Program Alternatives Alternatives have been developed through a public process involving public meetings, a project website, and comments received on both the Initial Study and Scoping Report for the 2003 IRWP Program EIR being prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The nine alternatives developed during this process are shown in Table ES-1. All areas where alternatives would be implemented are within Sonoma County except for a small portion of the Geysers steamfield, which is located in Lake County. TABLE ES-1 List of Alternatives Santa Rosa Incremental Recycled Water Program Alternative Number Alternative Name 1 Indoor Water Conservation 2 Infiltration and Inflow Reduction 3 Urban Reuse 4 Agricultural Reuse 5 Industrial Reuse 6 Geysers Expansion 7 Treatment and Reuse 8 Discharge 9 No Project In 1997, the City of Santa Rosa certified the Santa Rosa Long-term Subregional Wastewater Project Environmental Impact Report (Long-term EIR), which provided project-level environmental documentation for 13 alternatives. These alternatives included discharge to the Russian River and agricultural reuse projects throughout western, southern, and central Sonoma County, and the Geysers Recharge Project. The Long-term EIR remains a valid document today, and the Subregional Water Reclamation System could implement any of the projects evaluated in that EIR. For that reason, it has not been necessary for the IWRP to duplicate evaluations of alternatives that already have been reviewed in the Long-term EIR. Feasibility of Alternatives Feasibility, or practicability, means capable of being accomplished successfully within a reasonable period, and includes technological, logistical, and economic considerations. RDD\ (CAH2379.DOC) 2

4 DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT Technology Technology criteria include constructibility (i.e., can the project be built) and reliability. Reliability represents long-term ability of an alternative to consistently perform as designed. Alternatives must be considered constructible and provide a high level of reliability to be evaluated in the Program EIR. Logistics Logistical considerations include legal considerations and the ability to obtain the approvals or rights necessary for construction and ongoing operation of the alternative within the allotted schedule. The Subregional System needs to have an approved approach to accommodating capacity needs and California Toxics Rule (CTR) compliance for the RWQCB to act favorably on the next National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit application in early 2005, less than 3 years from now. Cost The cost impact of an alternative can be represented by the following types of information: Total cost. The total cost to all project participants of constructing and operating a project. Net Cost. The cost of an alternative after the cost of benefits have been credited. User Fees. The Subregional System is funded by a combination of connection fees and monthly user rates. These fees are based on the net cost of a project to the Subregional System. Total capital and net present value (NPV) costs of alternatives have been estimated. Net costs were estimated for only the infiltration and inflow (I/I) reduction alternative to represent the tradeoff with treatment plant capacity. User fee impacts have not yet been determined for any of the alternatives. Therefore, judgment about the relationship between the current estimate of total cost and affordability of alternatives was used to screen alternatives for inclusion in the Program EIR. However, screening decisions considered that some alternatives have beneficial effects that reduce other costs borne by the member cities in the Subregional System, such as reducing the need to develop additional potable water supplies. Background and Assumptions Background The existing Subregional System consists of the following components: Sewer Collection. Water Reclamation Facility (Laguna Plant). Agricultural Reuse System. Urban Reuse System. RDD\ (CAH2379.DOC) 3

5 DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT Geysers Recharge Project (pump s, pipelines, and a tank). The Geysers injection facilities are owned by Calpine and are not part of the Subregional System. Discharge System. The City s current NPDES permit allows the City to treat, recycle, and discharge the annual flow resulting from receiving a daily average dry weather flow (ADWF) of million gallons per day (mgd) at the Laguna Plant, after the Geysers Steamfield Recharge System becomes operational. Higher winter flows that cannot be stored for agricultural or urban reuse during summer or recycled at the Geysers Steamfield are currently discharged to the Laguna de Santa Rosa and, ultimately, the Russian River. The current permit allows discharge to occur only from October 1 through May 14 of each year. Since the Geysers Recharge Project was planned, several important changes to the basis of system planning have occurred. The Subregional System partners have adopted new general plans that indicate higher population growth and resulting wastewater generation than anticipated during planning for the Geysers project. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enacted the National Toxics Rule, and the State of California subsequently enacted the California Toxics Rule (CTR). These rules and the subsequent State Implementation Plan outline a process for developing wastewater treatment plant discharge limits for 126 EPA Priority Pollutants (mostly pesticides and metals). Preliminary testing indicates that new limits will likely be imposed for the Laguna Plant discharge that could be very difficult to meet without additional treatment. Effluent limits are expected to be imposed in response to the CTR in The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published an emergency rule on July 22, 2002, listing the California tiger salamander as endangered. The emergency listing was made permanent on March 18, USFWS is expected to establish rules for protecting the salamander and its habitat. These rules could affect the City s ability to continue operating the existing irrigation system and the feasibility of siting additional storage facilities within the salamander s range. The salamander s range is not well defined, but is generally considered to include the Santa Rosa Plain west of Highway 101 and south of Guerneville Road. The City s current discharge permit requires that certain ph, temperature, and turbidity limits be met in the Laguna de Santa Rosa. These limits have not been met at all times at the existing discharge locations. Assumptions This Feasibility Report is based on the following assumptions regarding how these changed conditions will affect the Subregional System: CTR limits will be imposed when the Laguna Plant NPDES permit is re-issued (scheduled for 2005). Interim limits will be imposed for constituents with limits that cannot be attained at the time of permit adoption. A compliance schedule will be imposed in the permit, requiring final limits to be attained within 5 years. RDD\ (CAH2379.DOC) 4

6 DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT The City will continue to fulfill Geysers contract recycled water delivery volume and water quality obligations for the volume currently under contract. Some Program alternatives propose additional water deliveries and different water quality conditions than currently contracted. The City will continue to operate the existing agricultural and urban irrigation system as it is planned to be operated at the time of Geysers Recharge Project startup (i.e., approximately 2.1 billion gallons per year [BG/yr]). The implementation schedule for the IRWP, given these assumptions, is shown on Figure ES-1. Figure ES-1 Program Schedule Future Subregional System Flows To achieve the objectives of the IRWP, the future system must accomplish the following: Provide adequate reliable capacity to accommodate future flows generated by population and employment growth of the member entities. Achieve the quality of recycled water that will be required by regulatory agencies. Discharge of recycled water is subject to the CTR, which may require additional treatment for compliance. Discharge compliance also may require an additional point of discharge. Different methods were used to determine dry weather and wet weather flows, as described in the following sections. Dry Weather Flow Future flow projections for the Subregional System are based on the population, housing, and employment growth projected by the general plans (effective as of July 2002) of the Subregional System partners. Flow projections for these projected populations were predicated on actual 2000 population and Laguna Plant ADWF flows for each Subregional partner. In summary, the total projected ADWF at the Laguna Plant for the horizon planning year of each Subregional partner is 25.9 mgd. Table ES-2 summarizes ADWF projections. RDD\ (CAH2379.DOC) 5

7 DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT Wet Weather Flow Wet weather system flow projections are needed to determine how to manage total system inflows and outflows throughout each year. Wet weather inflow to the plant is much more sensitive than dry weather flow to hydrologic conditions, including rainfall events, Russian River flows, and groundwater levels. Among these factors, Laguna Plant dry weather inflow and wet weather inflow correlate most consistently with Russian River flow. TABLE ES-2 ADWF Projections Santa Rosa Incremental Recycled Water Program 2000 Flows a Projected Flows with Geysers Recharge Project 2020 Projected Flows Member Entity Mgd Percent mgd Percent mgd Percent & SSU SR/SPCSD Sebastopol Cotati Total a Includes 0.39 mgd for Oakmont and 0.05 mgd correction for Cotati metering in addition to actual Laguna Plant metered flow. Note: SR/SPCSD = Santa Rosa and South Park County Sanitation District. A water balance model was developed to simulate Laguna Plant daily inflow and daily outflows to storage, reuse, and discharge. The model yielded a peak wet weather day inflow to the Laguna Plant of 101 mgd, corresponding to a dry weather condition of 25.9 mgd. This represents the highest daily plant inflow during 67 years of record. The model was further used to simulate the amount of water in storage, being discharged, or reused at any time of year for future alternatives and example combinations of alternatives. Table ES-3 shows the portion of the total volume of the ADWF of 25.9 mgd that needs to be managed under the IRWP. TABLE ES-3 Future Capacity of the Subregional System by System Components at ADWF Under IRWP of 25.9 mgd (all values in BG) Santa Rosa Incremental Recycled Water Program Year Type (in 67-Year Analysis) Existing Irrigation System Geysers Recharge Project Discharge Growth a Total Subject to CTR b,c Total System Capacity at 25.9 mgd c, d Driest th percentile Median (50 th percentile) th percentile Wettest a Growth represents the total amount of Subregional System flow associated with an ADWF increase from 21.3 to 25.9 mgd. b Sum of Discharge and Growth. c Values do not always total exactly because of rounding of values to the nearest 0.1 BG. d Total system capacity at 25.9 mgd is the sum of existing irrigation system, Geysers Recharge Project, discharge and growth. RDD\ (CAH2379.DOC) 6

8 DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT Description of Alternatives The descriptions of IRWP alternatives have been developed at a conceptual or program-level in keeping with the programmatic nature of the 2003 Draft EIR that the City has prepared. Because the alternatives of the IRWP have only been defined at a program level and not at a projectspecific level of detail, the locations and design characteristics of the project components shown on Figure ES-2 are general or conceptual. Each alternative is discussed as a stand-alone entity in terms of its maximum practicable size consistent with the criteria for feasibility. Individual project alternatives are not necessarily mutually incompatible. The City anticipates that, as the IRWP is implemented, various alternatives will be combined to provide reliable, cost-effective system capacity. Because various alternatives will be combined in this manner, each alternative may not be constructed to the full design capacity described in this section. The array of potential combinations of various alternatives of varying sizes is quite extensive. Therefore, analyzing all of these combinations, and all the possible sizes of individual alternatives in combination with other alternatives, is unworkable. To provide meaningful and manageable information regarding the potential feasibility of particular alternatives, this section describes each alternative at its maximum practicable, feasible size. Major Program Components Several major program components are common to many alternatives as follows: Laguna Plant Expansion. The Laguna plant needs to be expanded to provide treatment for the incremental flow. Treatment plant expansion is necessary regardless of which disposal or reuse options are selected. However, the extent of expansion could be smaller if the I/I reduction alternative were implemented. Storage. recycled water storage is a necessary part of some alternatives, as described in Table ES-4. Surface and subsurface (aquifer storage and recovery) storage options were considered. Wetlands. Wetlands are not needed to make any of the alternatives function, but could be implemented in association with pipeline and storage components of several alternatives to provide habitat. Other components that are combined to create each of the alternatives include indoor water conservation, I/I reduction, urban irrigation (including dual piping systems and gray water system), agricultural irrigation, industrial reuse, pipelines, pump s and tanks, Geysers Steamfield expansion, direct discharge, indirect discharge (percolation ponds, infiltration basins, and injection wells), advanced membrane treatment, and no project. Table ES-4 and Figures ES-3 through ES-10 describe each Program Alternative. RDD\ (CAH2379.DOC) 7

9 MILES SCALE IS APPROXIMATE W RDD_915 (5/29/03) FIGURE ES-2 CONCEPT-LEVEL MAP OF PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES FEASIBILITY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

10 DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT TABLE ES-4 Summary of Alternatives Santa Rosa Incremental Recycled Water Program Maximum Flow Storage Estimated Cost Annual Alternative Managed (BG) Needed (BG) Capital ($ millions) O&M ($ millions) Components Included in Alternative Treatment Plant Upgrade 65 3 Laguna Plant Upgrade Indoor Water Conservation Laguna Plant Upgrade, Indoor Water Conservation I/I Reduction (1) Laguna Plant Upgrade, I/I Reduction Urban Reuse to Laguna Plant Upgrade, Urban Irrigation, Pipelines, Storage, Created Wetlands, Pump Stations and Tanks Agricultural Reuse to Laguna Plant Upgrade, Agricultural Irrigation, Pipelines, Storage, Created Wetlands, Pump Stations and Tanks Industrial Reuse 0 0 a a Industrial Reuse, Pipelines, Storage, Pump Stations and Tanks Treatment and Reuse a a Created Wetlands, Direct Discharge, Indirect Discharge, Advance Membrane Treatment Geysers Expansion Laguna Plant Upgrade, Pipelines, Storage, Created Wetlands, Pump Stations and Tanks, Geysers Steamfield Expansion Discharge to to to 29 Laguna Plant Upgrade, Pipelines, Storage, Created Wetlands, Pump Stations and Tanks, Geysers Steamfield Expansion, Direct Discharge, Indirect Discharge a Cost estimate not developed. RDD\ (CAH2379.DOC) 9

11 Quantity: Captital cost: O&M cost: 0.3 BG $3 million a $1 million/year a urban reuse pump Santa Rosa agricultural irrigation Storage Russian River Llano pump Mountain pump s indoor water conservation Pretreatment I/I Reduction Laguna Plant Expansion Terminal tank Geysers steam field Notes a Does not include $65 million in captal cost or $3 million in annual operation and maintenance costs for expansion of the Laguna Plant. b Gray-tone indicates existing facilities; colors represent proposed incremental flow facilities. W RDD_028 (5/29/03) FIGURE ES-3 ALTERNATIVE 1 INDOOR WATER CONSERVATION b FEASIBILITY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

12 Quantity: 2 BG Captital cost: $600 million O&M cost: $-1 million/year a urban reuse pump Santa Rosa agricultural irrigation Storage Russian River Llano pump Mountain pump s Indoor water conservation Pretreatment I/I Reduction Laguna Plant Expansion Terminal tank Geysers steam field Notes a The largest size of this alternative would reduce expansion of the Laguna Plant from $65 million to $15 million in capital cost and reduce annual O&M costs from $3 million to $2 million. b Gray-tone indicates existing facilities; colors represent proposed incremental flow facilities. W RDD_029 (5/29/03) FIGURE ES-4 ALTERNATIVE 2 I/I REDUCTION b FEASIBILITY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

13 and Cotati urban reuse Quantity: 2.1 BG Captital cost: $261 million a O&M cost: $6 million/year a pump Santa Rosa agricultural irrigation surface storage Russian River Llano pump Mountain pump s Indoor water conservation Pretreatment I/I Reduction Laguna Plant Expansion Terminal tank Geysers steam field Santa Rosa urban reuse pump surface storage Subsurface storage Notes a Does not include $65 million in captal cost or $3 million in annual operation and maintenance costs for expansion of the Laguna Plant. b Gray-tone indicates existing facilities; colors represent proposed incremental flow facilities. W RDD_031 (5/29/03) Santa Rosa urban reuse FIGURE ES-5 ALTERNATIVE 3 URBAN REUSE b FEASIBILITY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

14 urban reuse Quantity: Captital cost: O&M cost: 0.3 BG $3 million a $1 million/year a pump Surface storage Pump East of agricultural irrigation Santa Rosa agricultural irrigation Storage Russian River Llano pump Mountain pump s Indoor water conservation Pretreatment I/I Reduction Laguna Plant Expansion Pump Pump Terminal tank Geysers steam field Surface or subsurface storage Pump North County agricultural irrigation NOTES a Does not include $65 million in captal cost or $3 million in annual operation and maintenance costs for expansion of the Laguna Plant. b gray-tone indicates existing facilities; colors represent proposed incremental flow facilities. W RDD_032 (5/29/03) FIGURE ES-6 ALTERNATIVE 4 AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION b FEASIBILITY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

15 Quantity: Captital cost: O&M cost: 0 BG $ million a $ million/year a urban reuse pump Santa Rosa agricultural irrigation Storage Russian River Llano pump Industrial reuse Mountain pump s Indoor water conservation Pretreatment I/I Reduction Laguna Plant Expansion Terminal tank Geysers steam field NOTES a Cost estimates were not developed for this alternative. It is infeasible because it does not provide disposal in addition to reuse. b Gray-tone indicates existing facilities; colors represent proposed incremental flow facilities. W RDD_033 (5/29/03) FIGURE ES-7 ALTERNATIVE 5 INDUSTRIAL REUSE b FEASIBILITY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

16 Quantity: 6.7 BG Captital cost: $253 million a O&M cost: $12 million/year a urban reuse pump Santa Rosa agricultural irrigation storage Russian River Llano pump Mountain pump s Indoor water conservation Pretreatment I/I Reduction Laguna Plant Expansion Terminal tank Geysers steam field Notes a Does not include $65 million in captal cost or $3 million in annual operation and maintenance costs for expansion of the Laguna Plant. b Gray-tone indicates existing facilities; colors represent proposed incremental flow facilities. W RDD_035 (5/28/03) FIGURE ES-8 ALTERNATIVE 6 GEYSERS EXPANSION b FEASIBILITY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

17 urban reuse Quantity: 6.7 BG Captital cost: $ million a O&M cost: $ million/year a pump Santa Rosa agricultural irrigation storage Russian River Llano pump Mountain pump s Indoor water conservation pretreatment I/I Reduction Laguna Plant Expansion Pump Pump Terminal tank Geysers steam field treatment Pump s Lake Sonoma NOTES a Cost estimates were not developed for this alternative. It was determined to be infeasible because of permitting and schedule constraints. b Gray-tone indicates existing facilities; colors represent proposed incremental flow facilities. W RDD_036 (5/29/03) Groundwater augmentation FIGURE ES-9 ALTERNATIVE 7 ADDITIONAL TREATMENT AND REUSE b FEASIBILITY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

18 urban reuse Quantity: 6.7 BG Captital cost: $ million a,b O&M cost: $ million/year a,b pump Santa Rosa agricultural irrigation Storage Russian River Llano pump Mountain pump s Indoor water conservation Pretreatment I/I Reduction Laguna Plant Expansion Terminal tank Geysers steam field Percolation/ infiltration basin Surface storage NOTES a Capital costs could range from $318 to $506 million and annual O&M costs could range from $19 to $34 million because of the range of treatment, discharge, and storage associated with the alternative. b Does not include $65 million in captal cost or $3 million in annual operation and maintenance costs for expansion of the Laguna Plant. c Gray-tone indicates existing facilities; colors represent proposed incremental flow facilities. W RDD_038 (5/29/03) Russian River treatment FIGURE ES-10 ALTERNATIVE 8 DISCHARGE c FEASIBILITY REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

19 DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT Alternative 9 No Project Consideration of the No Project alternative is required by CEQA. For purposes of the Program EIR, the No Project alternative includes only facilities existing or under construction as of July Screening of Alternatives Potential IRWP alternatives were screened by both the BPU and Santa Rosa City Council in September 2002 to determine which alternatives should be further developed and evaluated in the Program EIR. The IRWP may be subject to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as CEQA, requirements at some point in the future. Therefore, screening criteria listed below are derived from both state and federal guidelines: Alternatives must accomplish most of the program objectives. Alternatives must be feasible (practicable). An alternative is considered feasible after taking technology, logistics, and cost into consideration. Using these criteria, the following components and alternatives were screened out: Subsurface storage Treatment and Reuse, including groundwater augmentation and surface water augmentation in Lake Sonoma Industrial reuse Example Combinations of Feasible Alternatives The alternatives described in this report have been analyzed individually at their maximum practicable size. The maximum practicable size of discharge alternatives could address the maximum expected annual volume of 6.7 BG. Because the maximum practicable size of certain alternatives will not accommodate the maximum expected annual volume, these alternatives will have to be combined to provide sufficient water recycling or disposal capacity. The IRWP will likely consist of combinations of alternatives of various sizes to achieve the project objectives in a reliable, cost-effective, and environmentally sensitive manner. Example combinations of alternatives that could recycle or dispose of 6.7 BG annually are shown in Table ES-5. RDD\ (CAH2379.DOC) 18

20 DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT TABLE ES-5 Example Combinations of Alternatives (annual capacities in BG) and Total Capital and O&M Costs ($ millions) Santa Rosa Incremental Recycled Water Program Alternative Number Indoor Water Conservation I/I Reduction Urban Reuse Agricultural Reuse Geysers Expansion Direct or Indirect River Discharge Indirect River Discharge Direct River Discharge 6.4 Total Capital Cost a Annual O&M Cost a NVP Cost a a All values in millions of dollars adjusted to 2002 dollar value. Program Implementation Following certification of the Program EIR, the selection process will occur by adopting a Water Recycling Master Plan that will identify specific program alternatives or combinations of alternatives to be implemented and the size, sequencing, timing, and cost of each. As additional reuse or discharge capacity is needed, the City will prepare additional project-specific environmental documentation to implement specific projects. RDD\ (CAH2379.DOC) 19