DOCSLIB.ORG

Initial Study

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Initial Study SANTA ROSA SUBREGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION SYSTEM INCREMENTAL RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM INITIAL STUDY July 16, 2002 Prepared by Parsons INCREMENTAL RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM INITIAL STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... 1 Background and Introduction ................................................................................................ 2 Public Involvement............................................................................................................... 2 Scoping Meeting and Comments.......................................................................................... 2 Purpose and Need................................................................................................................ 3 Program Purpose ........................................................................................................... 3 Program Objectives ....................................................................................................... 3 Project Description ............................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4 Project Location ............................................................................................................. 5 Future System Requirements......................................................................................... 5 Existing System ............................................................................................................. 9 Program Alternatives ................................................................................................... 12 Alternative 1 – Indoor Water Conservation............................................................. 15 Alternative 2 – Infiltration and Inflow Reduction ..................................................... 15 Alternative 3 – Urban Reuse .................................................................................. 16 Alternative 4 – Agricultural Reuse.......................................................................... 17 Alternative 5 – Industrial Reuse ............................................................................. 18 Alternative 6 – Geysers Expansion ........................................................................ 18 Alternative 7 – Additional Treatment and Reuse Alternative................................... 19 Alternative 8 – Discharge Alternative ..................................................................... 20 Alternative 9 – No Project Alternative .................................................................... 20 Program Components .................................................................................................. 21 Cumulative Projects..................................................................................................... 28 Other Required Agency Approvals...................................................................................... 30 Federal Agency Permits and Approvals........................................................................ 31 State of California Agency Permits and Approvals ....................................................... 31 Regional Agency Permits and Approvals...................................................................... 33 County and City Agency Permits and Approvals........................................................... 33 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................. 35 I. Aesthetics..................................................................................................... 36 II. Agriculture Resources .................................................................................. 41 III. Air Quality .................................................................................................... 44 IV. Biological Resources .................................................................................... 47 V. Cultural Resources ....................................................................................... 51 VI. Geology and Soils ........................................................................................ 54 VII. Hazards/Hazardous Materials....................................................................... 58 VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality........................................................................ 63 IX. Land Use and Planning................................................................................. 69 X. Mineral Resources........................................................................................ 73 XI. Noise............................................................................................................ 76 XII. Population and Housing................................................................................ 79 XIII. Public Services............................................................................................. 81 XIV. Recreation.................................................................................................... 82 XV. Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................... 83 XVI. Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................... 87 XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance .............................................................. 89 JULY 16, 2002 PAGE I INCREMENTAL RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION.............................................................................................. 91 PREPARERS AND REFERENCES.................................................................... 92 Preparers ..................................................................................................................... 92 Parsons........................................................................................................................ 92 Merritt-Smith Consulting............................................................................................... 92 LSA Associates ............................................................................................................ 92 Illingworth & Rodkin ..................................................................................................... 92 References ..................................................................................................................... 92 JULY 16, 2002 PAGE II INCREMENTAL RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM INITIAL STUDY BACKGROUND Project Title Incremental Recycled Water Program Lead Agency Name and Address City of Santa Rosa Department of Public Utilities 69 Stony Circle Santa Rosa, CA 95401 Contact Person and Phone Number Dan Carlson Santa Rosa Utilities Department 69 Stony Circle Santa Rosa, CA 95401 (707) 543-3930 Project Location Central Sonoma County from Rohnert Park to Cloverdale and eastern portion of Lake County Assessor’s Parcel Number Numerous Project Sponsor’s Name and Address City of Santa Rosa P.O. Box 1678 Santa Rosa, CA 95402 General Plan Designation Various Zoning Various JULY 16, 2002 PAGE 1 INCREMENTAL RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM INITIAL STUDY BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION The project proponent, the City of Santa Rosa (managing partner of the Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System), proposes to implement an Incremental Recycled Water Program (IRWP). The City of Santa Rosa, as the lead agency, has decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposal. This Initial Study, therefore, has been prepared and circulated to notify the public and interested agencies of the proposal, solicit comments about the environmental impacts of the project, and request assistance in identifying key issues the EIR should evaluate. The EIR is proposed to be a Program EIR under Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. In recognition of this, the alternatives and components of the Program have been developed at a conceptual level and environmental review will also be at a conceptual level. The Program EIR is intended to take advantage of this opportunity to consider cumulative impacts, facilitate the analysis of a wide range of alternatives, and allow the City to consider broad policy alternatives and programwide mitigation measures at an early time in the development of the Program. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Three public “pre-scoping” meetings have been held to advise the public of the Program as it is being developed. These meetings were well attended and took place on October 3 and 10, 2001, and May 1, 2002. The IRWP website is available at www.recycledwaterprogram.com to publicize meetings, advise regarding the schedule, and provide ways in which the project proponent can be contacted. SCOPING MEETING AND COMMENTS A public scoping meeting is scheduled to receive public input regarding the content of the EIR, potential alternatives, and information relevant to the environmental review of the Program. The meeting is tentatively scheduled for July 31, 2002 at the Finley Community Center located at 2060 West College Avenue in Santa Rosa at 6:30 pm. Written scoping comments will be accepted until August 14, 2002. For more information, please contact Pat Fruiht – Community Affairs at 707-543-3023. Written comments should be mailed or faxed to: City of Santa Rosa Santa
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Springs of California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, DIBECTOB WATER- SUPPLY PAPER 338 SPRINGS OF CALIFORNIA BY GEKALD A. WARING WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1915 CONTENTS. Page. lntroduction by W. C. Mendenhall ... .. ................................... 5 Physical features of California ...... ....... .. .. ... .. ....... .............. 7 Natural divisions ................... ... .. ........................... 7 Coast Ranges ..................................... ....•.......... _._._ 7 11 ~~:~~::!:: :~~e:_-_-_·.-.·.·: ~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: ::: 12 Sierra Nevada .................... .................................... 12 Southeastern desert ......................... ............. .. ..... ... 13 Faults ..... ....... ... ................ ·.. : ..... ................ ..... 14 Natural waters ................................ _.......................... 15 Use of terms "mineral water" and ''pure water" ............... : .·...... 15 ,,uneral analysis of water ................................ .. ... ........ 15 Source and amount of substances in water ................. ............. 17 Degree of concentration of natural waters ........................ ..· .... 21 Properties of mineral waters . ................... ...... _. _.. .. _... _....• 22 Temperature of natural waters ... : ....................... _.. _..... .... : . 24 Classification of mineral waters ............ .......... .. .. _. .. _......... _ 25 Therapeutic value of waters .................................... ... ... 26 Analyses
    [Show full text]
  • Human Impacts on Geyser Basins
    volume 17 • number 1 • 2009 Human Impacts on Geyser Basins The “Crystal” Salamanders of Yellowstone Presence of White-tailed Jackrabbits Nature Notes: Wolves and Tigers Geyser Basins with no Documented Impacts Valley of Geysers, Umnak (Russia) Island Geyser Basins Impacted by Energy Development Geyser Basins Impacted by Tourism Iceland Iceland Beowawe, ~61 ~27 Nevada ~30 0 Yellowstone ~220 Steamboat Springs, Nevada ~21 0 ~55 El Tatio, Chile North Island, New Zealand North Island, New Zealand Geysers existing in 1950 Geyser basins with documented negative effects of tourism Geysers remaining after geothermal energy development Impacts to geyser basins from human activities. At least half of the major geyser basins of the world have been altered by geothermal energy development or tourism. Courtesy of Steingisser, 2008. Yellowstone in a Global Context N THIS ISSUE of Yellowstone Science, Alethea Steingis- claimed they had been extirpated from the park. As they have ser and Andrew Marcus in “Human Impacts on Geyser since the park’s establishment, jackrabbits continue to persist IBasins” document the global distribution of geysers, their in the park in a small range characterized by arid, lower eleva- destruction at the hands of humans, and the tremendous tion sagebrush-grassland habitats. With so many species in the importance of Yellowstone National Park in preserving these world on the edge of survival, the confirmation of the jackrab- rare and ephemeral features. We hope this article will promote bit’s persistence is welcome. further documentation, research, and protection efforts for The Nature Note continues to consider Yellowstone with geyser basins around the world. Documentation of their exis- a broader perspective.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1249
    ��� � Geothermal Energy—Clean Power From the Earth’s Heat Circular 1249 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Geothermal Energy—Clean Power From the Earth’s Heat By Wendell A. Duffield and John H. Sass C1249 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey ii iii U.S. Department of the Interior Gale A. Norton, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Charles G. Groat, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2003 Available from U.S. Geological Survey Information Services� Box 25286, Denver Federal Center� Denver, CO 80225� This report and any updates to it are available at� http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/circular/c1249/� Additional USGS publications can be found at� http://geology.usgs.gov/products.html� For more information about the USGS and its products;� Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS� World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/� Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply� endorsement of the U.S. Government.� Although this report is in the public domain, it contains copyrighted materials that are noted in the text. Permission� to reproduce those items must be secured from the individual copyright owners.� Published in the Western Region, Menlo Park, California� Manuscript approved for publication March 20, 2003� Text and illustrations edited by James W. Hendley II and Carolyn Donlin� Cataloging-in-publication data are on file with the Library of Congress (http://www.loc.gov/). Cover—Coso geothermal plant, Navy One, at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake in southern California (U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Geophysical Characterization of the Northwest Geysers, California
    PROCEEDINGS, 44th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering Stanford University, Stanford, California, February 11-13, 2019 SGP-TR-214 Geophysical Characterization of the heat source in the Northwest Geysers, California Jared R. Peacock1, Margaret T. Mangan1, Mark Walters2, Craig Hartline2, Jonathan Glen1, Tait Earney1, William Schermerhorn1 1U.S. Geological Survey, 345 Middlefield Rd., Menlo Park, CA, 2Calpine Corporation, 10350 Socrates Mine Road, Middletown, CA 95461 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Keywords: The Geysers, magnetotellurics, resistivity, gravity, three-dimensional modeling, EGS, HDR ABSTRACT The Geysers, in northern California, is the largest energy producing geothermal field in the world. Looking to expand capacity, the operator Calpine Corporation developed an anomalously hot (~400 °C at 2.5 km depth) part of the field in the northwest Geysers, including testing of an enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Though the area is anomalously hot, geophysical methods have failed to adequately image any inferred magmatic heat source. Gravity measurements were collected and jointly modeled with existing magnetic data along a two-dimensional profile aligned with an existing geologic cross-section. The key feature of the potential field model is a low-density, low-susceptibility body below the EGS at 5 km depth. Magnetotelluric (MT) measurements were collected around the northwest Geysers and modeled in three-dimensions to characterize subsurface resistivity structure. The resistivity model images an extension of a Quaternary granitic pluton locally known as “the felsite” under the EGS project and a possible zone of partial melt (<10%) below 7 km in the northwestern part of the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study Mammoth Pacific Power
    IV. CASE STUDY: MAMMOTH PACIFIC POWER PLANT View of Mammoth Pacific II The following section offers a firsthand account of the development process for a geothermal power plant. It reveals what took place behind the scenes to bring a power plant online near a small, California community, as indicated by the people who were involved in that process,.both within and outside the developing company. This case study documents one plant’s transformation from one of the most hotly contested to one of the most locally and internationally appreciated power plants in the United States. A. Setting Travel guides advertise Mono County, California, as .a land of fire and ice. with .extraordinary features [that] attest to the region’s active geologic past. The largest city within Mono County, the Town of Mammoth Lakes, is a recreation area, where regular activities include skiing, mountain climbing, hiking, fishing, and is a land that one local described as Los Angeles. playground. At the time the Mammoth Pacific power plants were developed near the Town of Mammoth Lakes, the type of geothermal technology used was relatively new and unexplored. The effects of such a plant, especially upon such a prime recreation area prized for its natural beauty, were uncertain. B. Plans for Development The first unit at the Mammoth Pacific Complex, the 10-MW MP-I power plant that came online in 1984, was relatively unknown by constituents of Mono County. But the 1990 expansion, which added two 15 MW units to the Mammoth Pacific Complex, bringing the total capacity at the complex to 40 MW, met substantial public scrutiny.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quicksilver Rush 150 Years Ago There Was a World Wide Struggle for a Little Known Commodity Known As Quicksilver
    The Quicksilver Rush 150 years ago there was a world wide struggle for a little known commodity known as Quicksilver. This story ends at the last Quicksilver mine (still operating in the 1970’s) right here in West County at a hamlet called Mercury. Quicksilver The word ‘quicksilver’ sounds like another shortcut to a flimflam…like the term ‘fools gold’. But, quicksilver does have value, it is the slang name for ‘Mercury’. You may also think “Big deal, old fashioned thermometers, how much money is in that?”. Back in the olden golden days, prospecting, mining, and speculation in quicksilver was big buckeroos. The Bay Area was the capital of quicksilver (at just the right time), and Sonoma County had a flurry of boomtowns. Refining Rocks into Gold When gold miners realized they could no longer pick up nuggets in the stream and the excitement of the '49er migration faded, gold mining became just another extraction industry. Hydraulic mining engineers knew that the way to recover gold (and silver) from low-grade ore was by a process called There was only one problem, there amalgamation, the was no Mercury in California. All treatment of ground-up the processed Mercury was in ore with mercury to Europe, it would have been too extract gold. expensive to transport a million tons of Mercury around the world to the California gold fields. The Richest Mine In 1845 Captain Andres Castillero, a Mexican soldier, diplomat and scholar, was sent to Alta California. While exploring south of Yerba Buena he recognizing a reddish color cliff as probably being cinnabar, he proceeded to test the ore and discovered that it was indeed cinnabar.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Control Plan, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Amendments to the 1994 Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins The Third Edition of the Basin Plan was adopted by the Central Valley Water Board on 9 December 1994, approved by the State Water Board on 16 February 1995 and approved by the Office of Administrative Law on 9 May 1995. The Fourth Edition of the Basin Plan was the 1998 reprint of the Third Edition incorporating amendments adopted and approved between 1994 and 1998. The Basin Plan is in a loose-leaf format to facilitate the addition of amendments. The Basin Plan can be kept up-to-date by inserting the pages that have been revised to include subsequent amendments. The date subsequent amendments are adopted by the Central Valley Water Board will appear at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, all pages will be dated 1 September 1998. Basin plan amendments adopted by the Regional Central Valley Water Board must be approved by the State Water Board and the Office of Administrative Law. If the amendment involves adopting or revising a standard which relates to surface waters it must also be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [40 CFR Section 131(c)].
    [Show full text]
  • Buried Treasure: the Environmental, Economic, and Employment
    Geothermal Technologies Program Buried Treasure The Environmental, Economic, and Employment Benefits of Geothermal Energy As charged by Secretary Abraham, the Offi ce of Energy Effi ciency and Renewable Energy provides national leadership to revolutionize energy effi ciency and renewable energy technologies, to leapfrog the status quo, and to pursue dramatic environmental benefi ts. The Geothermal Technologies Program, a critical part of our overall effort, is making great strides toward increasing the viability and deployment of geothermal heat and power. The peer reviewed, focused R&D and supporting outreach activities conducted by this program will enable broad expansion of the use of geothermal resources throughout the western United States. Through federal leadership and partnership with states, communities, industry, and universities, we will ensure that geothermal energy is established as an economically competitive contributor to the U.S. energy supply. Our program’s success will mean a stronger economy, a cleaner environment, and a more secure energy future for our nation. “Pursuing a prosperous future where energy is clean, abundant, reliable, and affordable....” David K. Garman Assistant Secretary Energy Effi ciency and Renewable Energy Cover image: People enjoy the geothermal, hot spring pools in Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming. PIX 03698 Warren Gretz, NREL 1 About Geothermal Energy he geothermal energy potential beneath our feet is vast. This tremendous resource amounts to 50,000 times the energy of all oil and gas resources in the world. And geothermal energy is clean; T it represents a promising solution for the nation and the world as we become ever more concerned about global warming, pollution, and rising fossil energy prices.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map and Map Database of Western Sonoma, Northernmost Marin, and Southernmost Mendocino Counties, California
    Geologic Map and Map Database of Western Sonoma, Northernmost Marin, and Southernmost Mendocino Counties, California By M.C. Blake, Jr., R.W. Graymer, and R.E. Stamski Pamphlet to accompany MISCELLANEOUS FIELD STUDIES MAP MF-2402 Version 1.0 2002 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Contents Geologic explanation and acknowledgements 1 Introduction 1 Stratigraphy 1 Mesozoic and Tertiary terrane complexes 1 Description of Terranes 2 Tertiary Stratigraphy 10 Quaternary Surficial Deposits 11 Paleontology 11 Radiometric Ages 11 Structure 12 Structural History 12 Description of Map Units 15 Acknowledgements 23 Digital publication and database description 24 Introduction 24 For those who don’t use digital geologic map databases 24 MF-2402 Digital Contents 24 PostScript plotfile package 25 PDF plotfile package 25 Digital database package 25 TAR files 26 PostScript plotfiles 27 PDF plotfiles 27 Obtaining the Digital Database and Plotfile Packages 28 To obtain TAR files of database or plotfile packages from the USGS web pages 28 To obtain TAR files of database or plotfile packages by ftp 28 Obtaining plots from a commercial vendor 28 Obtaining plots from USGS Map On Demand Services 28 Revisions and version numbers 28 Digital database format 29 Converting ARC export files 29 Digital compilation 29 Base maps 29 Faults and landslides 29 Spatial resolution 29 Database specifics 30 Lines 30 Areas 32 Points 33 References Cited 35 ii Geologic Explanation and Acknowledgements Introduction The map in this report is modified from and supercedes USGS Open-File Report 71-44 (Blake and This report contains a new geologic map at 1:100,000 others, 1971).
    [Show full text]
  • December 13, 2019 Leslie Lee Palmer Director, Safety and Enforcement Division California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ne
    651 Commerce Drive Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 781- 3636 www.ncpa.com December 13, 2019 Leslie Lee Palmer Director, Safety and Enforcement Division California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California 94102 [email protected] Re: Northern California Power Agency Comments on PG&E Public Safety Power Shutoff Report for October 26 to November 1, 2019 PSPS Event Dear Mr. Palmer: The Northern California Power Agency (NCPA)1 and its member were directly and profoundly impacted by the two PG&E public safety power shut-off (PSPS) events that occurred between October 26 and November 1, 2019 (October 26 Event). In order to inform the Commission’s review of PG&E’s actions and aid in the refinement of PSPS procedures and protocols to help mitigate these impacts in the future, NCPA provides this response to PG&E’s Post-PSPS Report for that event (October 26 Report). This response is timely filed pursuant to the extension authorized by Executive Director Stebbins on November 8, 2019. NCPA’s members are both public safety partners and operate critical facilities, as defined in California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) Decision 19-05-042 (Phase 1 PSPS Decision).2 This is not the first PSPS event that has impacted NCPA and its member 1 NCPA is a not-for-profit Joint Powers Agency established in 1968 to make joint investments in energy resources that would ensure an affordable, reliable, and clean supply of electricity for customers in its member communities. NCPA’s 16 members include municipalities, a rural electric cooperative, a port, public transit district, and a public utility district.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhanced Geothermal Systems
    Enhanced Geothermal Systems The Navy I geothermal power plant near Coso Hot Springs, California. How to extract more energy and PIX07667 J.L. Renner, INEEL power from geothermal resources fractured. However, due to secondary-mineralization he Coso geothermal project, located in processes, those fractures have sealed over time, TCalifornia’s Coso volcanic field and about 100 resulting in low permeability and little or no miles (161 kilometers) north of Los Angeles, produces production of fluids. Through a combination of 260 megawatts of geothermal energy. Without tapping hydraulic, thermal, and chemical processes, the into any new geothermal resources (just by fracturing target EGS reservoir can be ‘stimulated,’ causing the existing reservoir), Coso will soon produce another the fractures to open, extend, and interconnect. 20 megawatts of electricity. The additional power This results in the creation of a conductive fracture will come from applying technology designed to network and a reservoir that is indistinguishable improve the production of fields like Coso. Known as from conventional geothermal reservoirs. EGS enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), this technology technology could serve to extend the margins of should more than double the amount of recoverable existing geothermal systems or create entirely new geothermal energy in the U.S., as well as extend the ones, wherever appropriate thermal and tectonic productive life of existing geothermal fields. conditions exist. EGS Benefits The enhanced production at Coso will come as DOE’s partners at the University of Utah’s Energy & • Increased Productivity Geoscience Institute (EGI) and Caithness Corporation • Extended Lifetime pump water under high pressure into a portion of • Expanded Resources the Coso field to reopen sealed fractures in subsurface • Siting Flexibility rocks.
    [Show full text]
  • Notice Concerning Copyright Restrictions
    NOTICE CONCERNING COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS This document may contain copyrighted materials. These materials have been made available for use in research, teaching, and private study, but may not be used for any commercial purpose. Users may not otherwise copy, reproduce, retransmit, distribute, publish, commercially exploit or otherwise transfer any material. The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other reproduction. One of these specific conditions is that the photocopy or reproduction is not to be "used for any purpose other than private study, scholarship, or research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a copying order if, in its judgment, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of copyright law. U.S. Geothermal Development California Claims the World’s Highest Geothermal Power Output, With Potential for Even More Production With Advanced Techniques By John Sass and Sue Priest, U.S. Geological Survey (Flagstaff, AZ) alifornia contains, by far, the greatest geothermal generating capacity in the United States, and with the possible exception of Alaska, the great- Cest potential for development of additional resources. California has nearly two-thirds of U.S. geothermal electrical installed capacity of nearly 3,000 megawatts (MW). Depending on assumptions regarding geothermal res- ervoir characteristics and future market conditions, additional resources of between 2,000 and 10,000 MW might be developed (Muffler, 1979).
    [Show full text]