Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Incremental Recycled Water Program Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System Scoping Meeting July 31, 2002.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Incremental Recycled Water Program Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System Scoping Meeting July 31, 2002."— Presentation transcript:

1 Incremental Recycled Water Program Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System Scoping Meeting July 31, 2002

2 Incremental Recycled Water Program 2 Introduction  Purpose of Meeting  Meeting agenda  Introduction – Ed Brauner, Deputy City Manager  CEQA Overview – Pat Collins, EIR Manager  Description of Program – David Smith, Ph.D., Program Manager  Public comments  Purpose of Incremental Recycled Water Program

3 Incremental Recycled Water Program 3 CEQA Overview  City has decided to prepare a Program EIR  Not as detailed as a Project EIR  Allows for broad policy considerations, program-wide mitigation measures  Subsequent CEQA documents for specific projects  No preferred alternative – all alternatives will be evaluated equally  Issued a Notice of Preparation and Initial Study to agencies on July 16 th

4 Incremental Recycled Water Program 4 Incremental Program Schedule Feasibility Eval. Public Involve. Tech Studies CEQA Design Permitting Construction/Ops Discharge Permit Re- Issuance

5 Incremental Recycled Water Program 5 Near-Term IRWP Public Involvement Opportunities  EIR Scoping  Comment period ends August 14  Screening of Alternatives to be Studied in the EIR  Screening criteria discussed Aug 1 st at BPU; Aug 6 th at Council  Screening on Sep 19 th at BPU; Sep 24 th at Council  Draft EIR public review  Spring ‘03

6 Incremental Recycled Water Program 6 Purpose of Scoping  Inform agencies and the public about the project  Identify the range of alternatives  Identify specific issues to be analyzed in depth  Understand various points of view about the IRWP so the EIR can respond

7 Incremental Recycled Water Program 7 Public Comments  Written comments  Mailed or faxed to Santa Rosa City Manager’s Office  Hand in Comment Form tonight  Deadline is August 14, 2002  Oral comments

8 Incremental Recycled Water Program 8 Program Overview  Why is the Program needed?  What are the possible solutions?

9 Incremental Recycled Water Program 9 Why the Incremental Recycled Water Program?  Geysers Recharge Project  General Plans as of 1994 (21.3 mgd)  Meets capacity needs through 2010  11 mgd (9 – 12 mgd) for entire project  IRWP  Meet capacity needs beyond 2010  General plans changed to allow 25.9 mgd  California Toxics Rule imposed in 2000  New limits on effluent quality  New solutions needed to comply

10 Incremental Recycled Water Program 10 California Toxics Rule – Constituents of Concern  Copper – pipe corrosion, difficult to remove  Lead – pipe corrosion  Cyanide – treatment byproduct  Aldrin - pesticide  alpha-BHC - pesticide  gamma-BHC (lindane – head lice control)  beta-Endosulfan - pesticide

11 Incremental Recycled Water Program 11 General Plans and Future Flow Pre-’9418 mgd Apr ’ mgd July ’02 General PlanFlowDisposal/Reuse Irrigation Discharge + Geysers - Irrigation - Discharge + ?????+ 4.6 mgd Total=25.9 million gallons per day

12 Incremental Recycled Water Program 12 IRWP Purpose and Need  Three Primary Project Objectives  Provide treatment, reuse and disposal for planned population  Protect public health and natural resources, esp. River and tributaries  Economically feasible  Supporting Objectives  Maximize reuse  Potable supply benefits  Environmental protection  Maximize use of existing infrastructure  Manageable and reliable system

13 Incremental Recycled Water Program 13 How Much Water Needs to Handled? Year Type Recycled Water Production (BG/yr) Reuse and Disposal (BG/Yr) a Geysers at 11 mgd Existing Irrigation Needs to be Managed Dry Normal Wet a BG/Yr = billion gallons per year

14 Incremental Recycled Water Program 14 What are the Possible Solutions?  Laguna Plant Expansion  Indoor Water Conservation  Inflow & Infiltration Reduction  Urban Reuse  Agricultural Reuse  Industrial Reuse  Geysers Expansion  Additional Treatment & Reuse  Discharge

15 Incremental Recycled Water Program 15 Possible Location for IRWP Alternatives

16 Incremental Recycled Water Program 16 Alternatives - Laguna Plant Expansion  Increase treatment capacity from 21.3 to 25.9 mgd  Common to all reuse and disposal alternatives  All needed facilities expected to fit within existing site  Cost $40 - $158 million  Filtration requirements may change

17 Incremental Recycled Water Program 17 Alternatives – Indoor Water Conservation  Implementation beyond current programs  Santa Rosa – sustain existing program  Others cities – additional effort  Different program for each Subregional partner Flow Reduction (mgd) Flow Reduction (BG/yr) Cost ($million, Cap/O&M) Program thru IRWP /1

18 Incremental Recycled Water Program 18 Alternatives – Inflow & Infiltration Reduction  Rehabilitation of sewers to reduce I&I volume  Annual I&I volume 0 - >3 BG/Yr  Priority areas  Crosstown area, such as Montgomery Village  Oldtown area, such as hospital, cemetery, Town and Country areas  Wide range of implementation level possible – up to $600 million for 70% reduction  Appropriate level defined by avoided costs

19 Incremental Recycled Water Program 19 Alternatives – Urban Reuse  Construct  up to 75-mile distribution network  1 main pump station, up to 6 booster pumps stas.  Parcels greater than about 1 acre  Maximum project  Irrigation System Cost - $112 million, $57k/MG Existing City water users0.7 BG/Yr Existing other users0.6 Future users0.7 Total2.0 BG/Yr

20 Incremental Recycled Water Program 20 Alternatives - Storage  Needed for several alternatives  Surface  Santa Rosa Plain  East of Rohnert Park  North County  Subsurface  Santa Rosa Plain  Potential water quality benefits  Storage cost – up to $70 million

21 Incremental Recycled Water Program 21 Urban Reuse – Possible Surface Storage Area

22 Incremental Recycled Water Program 22 Urban Reuse – Possible Subsurface Storage Area  Favorable Area for Groundwater Injection and Extraction  2 BG storage needed  1 well field with 14 injection/ extraction wells stores 1 BG  Well field is approximately 3,000 feet wide and 9,000 feet long  Treatment benefit

23 Incremental Recycled Water Program 23 Alternatives – Agricultural Irrigation  East of Rohnert Park  1.2 BG potential demand  Storage BG  Conveyance  North County  5 subareas  10.3 BG potential demand; 4.3 BG reliable supply  Storage BG  Conveyance  $19.2k/MG

24 Incremental Recycled Water Program 24 Alternatives – Industrial Reuse  Gravel processing  Typical facility “uses” 0.2 BG/yr  Cost $3k/MG or more depending on distance from Geysers Pipeline

25 Incremental Recycled Water Program 25 Alternatives – Geysers Pipeline Capacity Increase  Installed system  To AV: 48-inch, 40 mgd  AV to Geysers: 30-inch, 16 mgd  Expansion potential  48-inch: from 40 to 81 mgd  Convey peak flows to indirect discharge, additional storage or reuse – CTR compliance  Add 2 PS between Plant and AV - $30 million  30-inch: from 16 to 27 mgd  Increase steamfield injection

26 Incremental Recycled Water Program 26 Alternatives – Geysers Expansion  Current project = 11 mgd, 4 BG/yr  Expansion  From 11 to 21 mgd, 2.9 BG/yr  Pipeline: $0.3 capital, $2.3 million O&M  Steamfield: $32 million a cap, $1.3 million a O&M  From 11 to 27 mgd, 4.6 BG/Yr  Pipeline: $42 million capital, $7.7 million O&M  Steamfield: $62 million a cap, $2.6 million a O&M  Maximizes use of existing facilities a Calpine’s estimate

27 Incremental Recycled Water Program 27 Alternatives – Additional Treatment & Reuse  Up to 126 pollutants could be regulated  CTR compliance strategies:  Avoid direct discharge or  Improve effluent quality to comply  Effluent quality improvement strategies  Source control – not sufficient  Treatment – Reverse osmosis - up to $212 million  RO water suitable for  Discharge to the Russian River - $1 million  Groundwater injection – cost not yet estimated  Augmentation of Lake Sonoma - up to $60 million

28 Incremental Recycled Water Program 28 Alternatives – Indirect Discharge  Discharge to River via soil and groundwater  Percolation ponds  Infiltration basins (gravel pits)  Groundwater injection  Locations adjacent to River  Cost  Greater than $10 million for conveyance and site improvements  Land cost not yet estimated.

29 Incremental Recycled Water Program 29 Selected Example Combinations of Alternatives

30 Incremental Recycled Water Program 30 Scoping Comments  The most useful comments are:  Suggest alternatives to be included in the EIR  Identify specific issues to be analyzed in the EIR

31 Incremental Recycled Water Program 31 Public Comments  Written comments  Hand in Comment Form tonight  Mailed or faxed to Santa Rosa City Manager’s Office  Deadline is August 14, 2002  Public comments


Download ppt "Incremental Recycled Water Program Santa Rosa Subregional Water Reclamation System Scoping Meeting July 31, 2002."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google