Environmental Review Process

What are the key environmental findings for the proposed project?

EIR Section

Topic

Draft EIR Impact Summary

Level of Significance

5.1

Hydrology and Water Quality (includes Brine)

Brine discharge from project operation via the existing Wastewater Treatment Facility ocean outfall would not violate water quality standards and the salinity of the discharge would be similar to existing seawater.

Less than Significant

Temporary marine water quality effects during construction would be minimized through mitigation measures.

Less than Significant with Mitigation

A pilot study demonstrated that potable water from the desalination plant would meet all drinking water standards.

Less than Significant with Mitigation

5.2

Marine Biological Resources (includes Intake and Brine)

Operation of the seawater intake system and brine discharge would not have substantial adverse effects on special-status or other marine species.

Less than Significant

Construction-phase impacts on marine life and habitat due to temporary water quality effects, underwater construction noise, and the placement of the intake structure would be minimized through mitigation measures.

Less than Significant with Mitigation

5.3

Terrestrial Biological Resources

Construction impacts of on-shore facilities on special-status species, migratory birds, riparian habitat, wetland habitat, or heritage trees would be minimized through mitigation measures.

Less than Significant with Mitigation

Tree removal at Plant Site A-2 could result in a substantial adverse effect to monarch butterfly overwintering habitat.

Potentially Significant and Unavoidable

5.4

Land Use, Planning, and Recreation

For Plant Sites A-1 and A-3 and all other project components, conflicts with land use plans and policies would be minimized through mitigation measures.

Less than Significant with Mitigation

Plant Site A-2 may conflict with City policies due to potential indirect impacts to the Natural Bridges State Beach (NBSB) monarch overwintering site, as a result of removal of trees on Plant Site A-2. These trees may provide secondary wind protection to the trees in NBSB where monarch butterflies roost.

Potentially Significant and Unavoidable

5.5

Air Quality and Climate (includes GHGs)

There would be no substantial adverse effects related to air quality.

Less than Significant

There would be no substantial adverse effects related to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and climate change, as the project would not result in a net increase in GHG emissions.

Less than Significant

5.6

Noise

Operational noise impacts would be minimized through mitigation measures.

Less than Significant with Mitigation

The proposed project would not generate significant construction-phase noise impacts.

Less than Significant

Construction vibration impacts would be minimized through mitigation measures.

Less than Significant with Mitigation

5.7

Geology and Soils

Seismic, slope, and soil hazards would be minimized through mitigation measures.

Less than Significant with Mitigation

There would be no substantial adverse impacts from coastal bluff retreat.

Less than Significant

5.8

Cultural Resources

Construction would not cause a substantial adverse change on known cultural resources.

Less than Significant

The potential for substantial change to yet-undiscovered/unrecorded cultural resources and/or buried human remains would be minimized through mitigation measures.

Less than Significant with Mitigation

5.9

Utilities and Service Systems (includes Energy)

There would be no significant impacts to the potable water supply.

Less than Significant

Sewer Disposal Option - Impacts to the Wastewater Treatment Facility and the distribution system would be minimized through mitigation measures.

Less than Significant with Mitigation

Landfill Disposal Option - Solid waste generated during operations would not substantially affect landfill capacity or conflict with state-mandated solid waste diversion rates.

Less than Significant

Increased use of energy and natural gas during operation would not result in the need for new supplies or facilities, and would not result in conflicts with applicable energy standards.

Less than Significant

5.1

Aesthetics

There would be no substantial adverse impacts on scenic vistas, scenic resources, or existing visual character or quality.

Less than Significant

Impacts to nighttime views from a new source of light would be minimized through mitigation measures.

Less than Significant with Mitigation

5.11

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Potential adverse impacts from accidental release of or exposure to hazardous materials during the construction phase would be minimized through mitigation measures.

Less than Significant with Mitigation

There would be no substantial adverse impacts from routine transport or use of hazardous materials during operation.

Less than Significant

5.12

Traffic and Transportation

There would be no substantial adverse impacts from construction or operations traffic or emergency access.

Less than Significant

6

Growth

The project would not directly induce growth, as it would not result in new residential development or substantial new long-term employment. The project would not foster unplanned growth, but would indirectly support planned growth, as set forth in adopted general plans and regional population projections. Regardless of future planned growth, a supplemental water supply is needed to meet the water demands of existing customers.

——

7

Cumulative

The proposed project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to the resources above, except for Plant Site A-2 due to potential indirect impacts on the adjacent NBSB monarch butterfly overwintering roost and associated contribution to other potential regional effects.

Potentially Significant and Unavoidable (Plant Site A-2 only) Less than Significant with Mitigation (all other components)

© 2008-2013 scwd2 Desalination Program, All rights reserved.