this page intentionally left blank...makrom shatila, pe project engineer rick hendrickson, gisp gis...

$: THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK...Makrom Shatila, PE Project Engineer Rick Hendrickson, GISP GIS Professional Kevin Thomas, CEP Environmental Professional RBF JN 25-101785 H:\PDATA\25101785\Task$

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CCCAAAMMMPPP PPPEEENNNDDDLLLEEETTTOOONNN SSSEEEAAAWWWAAATTTEEERRR DDDEEESSSAAALLLIIINNNAAATTTIIIOOONNN PPPRRROOOJJJEEECCCTTT

FFFEEEAAASSSIIIBBBIIILLLIIITTTYYY SSSTTTUUUDDDYYY RRREEEPPPOOORRRTTT

EEEXXXEEECCCUUUTTTIIIVVVEEE S SSUUUMMMMMMAAARRRYYY

Prepared for:

San Diego County Water Authority 4677 Overland Avenue

San Diego, California 92123

Prepared by:

December 2009

CCCAAAMMMPPP PPPEEENNNDDDLLLEEETTTOOONNN SSSEEEAAAWWWAAATTTEEERRR DDDEEESSSAAALLLIIINNNAAATTTIIIOOONNN PPPRRROOOJJJEEECCCTTT

FFFEEEAAASSSIIIBBBIIILLLIIITTTYYY SSSTTTUUUDDDYYY RRREEEPPPOOORRRTTT

EEEXXXEEECCCUUUTTTIIIVVVEEE SSSUUUMMMMMMAAARRRYYY

Prepared for:

San Diego County Water Authority 4677 Overland Avenue

San Diego, California 92123

Bob Yamada Water Resources Manager Cesar Lopez Project Manager Prepared by:

RBF CONSULTING 9755 Clairemont Mesa Blvd, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92124 858.614.5000 Telephone 858.614.5001 Fax

Paul Findley, PE Project Manager Makrom Shatila, PE Project Engineer Rick Hendrickson, GISP GIS Professional Kevin Thomas, CEP Environmental Professional RBF JN 25-101785 H:\PDATA\25101785\Task 12 Feas Report\Draft\Draft_SDCWA Desal Feas Study_Vol1.doc

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS RBF Consulting and the San Diego County Water Authority would like to extend a special thanks to all Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton Personnel and Staff who were a key component to the completion of this Feasibility Study. The Water Authority would also like to extend a special thanks to the following funding agencies, Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Through their support and vision, they have helped agencies throughout California evaluate and implement alternative water supplies. The Water Authority appreciates the assistance that staff from each of these agencies provided in support of the Water Authority’s administration of Proposition 50 grant funds.

RBF Consulting also wishes to acknowledge the contribution of the subconsultant’s involved with this study, which provided their professional services in their given field of expertise. Below is a list of each subconsultant and the Technical Memorandum (TM) they prepared, which was essential to completing this Feasibility Study. Each TM is provided in its entirety in the Appendix (Volume 2): MBC Applied Environmental Sciences: Review of Marine Resources and Constraints for

a Proposed Desalination Project near the Santa Margarita River, Camp Pendleton, California (December 2007).

Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants: Geotechnical Reconnaissance Desalination Plant Feasibility Study, MCB Camp Pendleton (February 4, 2008).

Jacobs Associates: Project Memorandum: Camp Pendleton Desalination Plant Tunnel (April 15, 2008).

Malcolm Pirnie: Intake Technical Memorandum 3.2 (TM-3.2): Camp Pendleton Desalination Facility Intake Structure (September 2008). Brine Disposal Technical Memorandum 4.1 (TM-4.1): Camp Pendleton Desalination Discharge Feasibility Study (September 2008).

Geoscience Support Services, Inc: Technical Memorandum 3.3 (TM-3.3): Camp Pendleton Desalination Project - Slant Well Feasibility Study (October 2008).

DHK Engineers: Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Feasibility Study, Utility Provisions Technical Memorandum (April 5, 2009).

Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) & Malcolm Pirnie: Project Memorandum: San Diego County Water Authority Alliance Contracting Model Memorandum (April 14, 2009).

Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project Feasibility Study

Executive Summary Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction....................................................................................................................1

Seawater Intake / Concentrate Discharge....................................................................7

Desalination Treatment Facility..................................................................................14

Desalinated Water Conveyance..................................................................................17 Pump Stations .................................................................................................................................... 21 Product Water Integration ................................................................................................................... 22

Environmental And Permitting ...................................................................................27 Sensitive Resources ........................................................................................................................... 28 Technical Studies / Investigations ....................................................................................................... 28

Project Alternatives .....................................................................................................30 SRTTP Site ........................................................................................................................................ 30 MCTSSA Site ..................................................................................................................................... 33

Cost Development .......................................................................................................42 Capital Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 42 Operation and Maintenance Costs ...................................................................................................... 43 Life Cycle Present Worth .................................................................................................................... 44

Next Steps / Implementation.......................................................................................45 Pilot / Demonstration Project............................................................................................................... 46 Potential Funding Opportunities .......................................................................................................... 47 Contract Delivery Models.................................................................................................................... 47

LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES-1: Water Authority Service Area ............................................................................................. 2 Figure ES-2: Year 2020 San Diego Region Water Supply Portfolio ......................................................... 3 Figure ES-3A: Potential Project Impact Areas......................................................................................... 5 Figure ES-3B: Potential Project Impact Areas……………………….…………………………………………. 6

Figure ES-4: Open-Ocean Wedge-Wire Screen Intake Location ............................................................. 8 Figure ES-5: Seabed Infiltration Gallery (SIG) Conceptual Layout........................................................... 9 Figure ES-6: Deep Infiltration Gallery (DIG) Conceptual Layout ............................................................ 10 Figure ES-7: Beach Slant Well Intake Conceptual Layout ..................................................................... 11 Figure ES-8: Outfall and Diffuser System............................................................................................... 12 Figure ES-9: Outfall Diffuser Location................................................................................................... 13


Executive Summary Page ii

Figure ES-10: Open-Ocean Intake Process Flow Diagram .................................................................... 15 Figure ES-11: Desalinated Water Conveyance - South Boundary Pipeline Segment ............................. 18 Figure ES-12: Desalinated Water Conveyance - Oceanside Pipeline Segment...................................... 19 Figure ES-13: Desalinated Water Conveyance - Water Authority Pipeline Segment .............................. 20 Figure ES-14: Proposed Site for the Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station .................................................... 23 Figure ES-15: Proposed Site for Silverleaf Pump Station....................................................................... 24 Figure ES-16: Coastal Pipeline Alternatives .......................................................................................... 25 Figure ES-17: SMRCUP Proposed Pipelines......................................................................................... 26 Figure ES-18: SRTTP Site – Potential Configuration ............................................................................. 36 Figure ES-19: Desalination Facility at SRTTP Site ................................................................................ 37 Figure ES-20: SRTTP Site – Visual Rendering (Looking East) .............................................................. 38 Figure ES-21: MCTSSA Site – Potential Configuration.......................................................................... 39 Figure ES-22: Desalination Facility at MCTSSA Site ............................................................................. 40 Figure ES-23: MCTSSA Site – Visual Rendering (Looking West) .......................................................... 41 Figure ES-24: Preliminary Project Implementation Schedule ................................................................. 51 LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1 Proposed Pump Stations ..................................................................................................... 22 Table ES-2 Anticipated Permits and Approvals ...................................................................................... 29 Table ES-3 SRTTP Seawater Intake Components ................................................................................. 31 Table ES-4 SRTTP Concentrate Disposal System Components............................................................. 31 Table ES-5 SRTTP Desalination Facility Components............................................................................ 32 Table ES-6 SRTTP DWCP Components................................................................................................ 32 Table ES-7 MCTSSA - Intake Components per Phase ........................................................................... 33 Table ES-8 MCTSSA - Concentrate Disposal Components per Phase ................................................... 34 Table ES-9 MCTSSA - Desalination Components per Phase ................................................................. 34 Table ES-10 MCTSSA - DWCP Components per Phase........................................................................ 35 Table ES-11 Project Alternatives Capital Cost Estimates - Grid Power ................................................... 42 Table ES-12 Capital Cost Comparison................................................................................................... 43 Table ES-13 O&M Cost Estimate - Grid Power....................................................................................... 44 Table ES-14 Project Alternatives 50-Year Life Cycle Cost Summary ...................................................... 44


INTRODUCTION The San Diego County Water Authority (Water Authority) is a regional water wholesaler, established by the California State Legislature in 1944 to provide a supplemental supply of water as the San Diego region’s civilian and military population expanded to meet wartime activities. In order to meet the water demand for a growing population and economy, the Water Authority constructed five additional pipelines (Pipeline 2 – First Aqueduct and Pipelines 3, 4, & 5 – Second Aqueduct) between 1947 and 1980 that are supplied by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California‘s (MWD) distribution system, which delivers water into San Diego County. The Water Authority is now the predominant source of water, supplying approximately 97 percent of the region’s needs. The Water Authority boundary extends from the border with Mexico in the south, to Orange and Riverside Counties in the north, and from the Pacific Ocean to the foothills that terminate the coastal plain in the east. With a total of 908,959 acres (1,420.3 square miles), the Water Authority’s service area encompasses the western third of San Diego County as illustrated in Figure ES-1. The Water Authority, governed by a 35-member Board of Directors, is comprised of 24 member agencies that purchase water for use at the retail level, and serves approximately 3 million residents of San Diego County (the County of San Diego is an ex-officio member). The member agencies have diverse and varying water needs and consist of six cities, five water districts, eight municipal water districts, three irrigation districts, a public utility district, and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (MCBCP). The Water Authority currently imports approximately 70 percent of its water supply from MWD. MWD’s ability to provide reliable water supplies, particularly in a dry year, is constrained by the preferential right of each of its member agencies, as well as by current uncertainties regarding the continued reliability of the State Water Project (SWP) and the Colorado River. For these reasons, developing new water supplies for the region is a key component in the Water Authority’s diversification efforts. Seawater desalination represents a new, safe, and drought-proof water supply. Seawater desalination has emerged as an integral part of the Water Authority’s overall water supply diversification strategy that also includes aggressive water conservation, water recycling, and agriculture to urban water transfers.

Executive Summary Page 1


Source: SDCWA 2002 Regional Facilities Master Plan

Figure ES-1: Water Authority Service Area



The Water Authority is taking steps to reduce its dependence upon imported water and diversify its water supply portfolio. The Water Authority’s 2002 Regional Water Facilities Master Plan identifies water supplies and facilities that would be needed to serve the region through 2030. In addition, the Water Authority’s updated 2005 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) includes seawater desalination as part of the regions future supply. Specific goals of the UWMP and Master Plan are increased reliability and diversification of the Water Authority’s water supply portfolio, which results in a targeted goal for seawater desalination to be 10 percent of the portfolio by year 2020 or about 80 million gallons per day (mgd). Figure ES-2 illustrates the region’s projected water supply portfolio in year 2020. Fifty (50) mgd of this goal would be met by the Carlsbad Desalination Project. The next increment of the seawater desalination, up to and beyond the 80 mgd goal in 2020 is the subject of this study.

Conservation 11%

Canal Lining Transfer

9%

Local Surface Water 7%

Groundwater 6%

Recycled Water 6%

MWD 29%

Seawater Desalination

10%

IID Transfer 22%

Figure ES-2: Year 2020 San Diego Region Water Supply Portfolio In order to achieve this next increment, a regional desalination facility and conveyance pipelines to deliver the water to the Water Authority’s facilities could be constructed. Camp Pendleton’s coastline offers the potential opportunity to develop a large, phased regional desalination facility. The expected product water capacity of the desalination facility would be 50 mgd for the initial project (Phase I) with two subsequent expansions of 50 mgd each for an ultimate capacity of 150 mgd that could be brought on-line as supply and demand conditions warranted. The Master Plan calls for an increase in supply to the Second Aqueduct by an increment of 232 cfs (150 mgd), some or all of which could be provided by this desalination project.



The Water Authority, in collaboration with the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), first began a pre-feasibility (fatal flaw) analysis of constructing a SWRO desalination facility in the northern portion of Camp Pendleton near the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS), operated by Southern California Edison (SCE). Co-location benefits existed for a desalination facility located at SONGS due to the availability of existing infrastructure for power supply, feedwater intake, and concentrate (brine) discharge. However, as the study progressed, SCE raised concerns with a desalination facility at or near SONGS, citing incompatibility with nuclear power plant operations, and public perception. In coordination with MCBCP staff, it was subsequently decided to move the desalination study location. As such, this report is an engineering feasibility-level study on the development of a seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalination facility located in the southwest region of Camp Pendleton. Several Sites to construct a large-scale desalination facility were identified along the Camp Pendleton coastline during numerous reconnaissance-level siting studies and discussions with Camp Pendleton personnel. After approximately one year of discussions and preliminary evaluations, two sites were identified by Camp Pendleton personnel as being feasible to locate a desalination facility, while considering impacts to base training and operations. This feasibility study entails site-specific evaluation of these two site alternatives to locate the desalination facility; the marine environment for seawater intake and concentrate discharge pipelines; and the conveyance pipeline alignment to the Water Authority’s aqueduct system. The objective of this feasibility-level study is to evaluate potential constraints that would limit or eliminate options for the design and operation of the proposed desalination facility, and related project infrastructure in the proposed project area, shown in Figure ES-3A and Figure ES-3B. The project area consists of the estuary and nearshore marine habitat associated with the mouth of the Santa Margarita River (SMR), the southwest region of Camp Pendleton, the San Luis Rey River (SLRR) corridor in Oceanside, and existing Water Authority easements in San Diego County north of Vista. Lastly, this study should determine the constructability, cost effectiveness, and potential design constraints of a seawater desalination facility located at either of the two proposed site alternatives in Camp Pendleton.



SEAWATER INTAKE / CONCENTRATE DISCHARGE Feedwater (seawater) for the proposed desalination facility would be obtained from a new, dedicated offshore intake. Four seawater intake options were considered for this project, which are listed below. Refer to Figure ES-4 through Figure ES-7 for an illustration of each intake option and its potential location.

Screened Open-Ocean Intake: An offshore screened open-ocean intake using cylindrical wedge-wire mesh screens suspended in the water column.

Seabed Infiltration Gallery (SIG): An offshore shallow pipe gallery installed under the seabed using sand as a filter.

Deep Infiltration Gallery (DIG): A gallery of deep offshore collector wells drilled to the underground tunnel below the seabed; and

Beach (Slant) Wells drilled from onshore.

A pipe-in-pipe (dual-use) tunnel would serve both offshore intake and concentrate conveyance as illustrated in Figure ES-8. The proposed tunnel would be approximately 2,000 - 4,000 feet long and would terminate at a maximum depth of approximately 100 feet below the ocean floor with a maximum ocean depth of approximately 40 feet. The tunnel would be 16-feet in diameter with an approximate 8-foot diameter interior pipe serving as the outfall pipeline. Feedwater would be conveyed within the annular space of the tunnel, while concentrate would be conveyed in the pressurized interior pipeline. The intake and outfall pipelines would rise to the ocean floor at the tunnel terminal structure and extend further offshore (on the seabed) to their designated locations. If slant wells were used, the tunnel would be designated as an outfall only and therefore no interior pressure pipe would be required. The SWRO desalting process converts the feedwater into potable water and by-product water, called concentrate or brine (with a salinity about twice that of seawater). Concentrate and possibly pretreatment backwash waste would be discharged back to the ocean through a new offshore discharge outfall (Figure ES-8). The outfall would be designed with diffuser ports to promote local dilution of the brine discharge. Although RO volumes and the potential for additional intake for dilution have not been determined, the outfall would be designed to accept discharge of treated wastewater from Camp Pendleton’s Southern Region Tertiary Treatment Plant (SRTTP) and concentrate from the proposed Santa Margarita Conjunctive Use Project (SMRCUP). It is difficult to design a diffuser system that can accommodate flows that range between 5 mgd and 170 mgd. Therefore a smaller pipeline and diffuser system may be required for low flow events (SRTTP effluent and SMRCUP concentrate), which would occur when the desalination facility is non-operational. Refer to Figure ES-9 for the potential outfall discharge location.


Santa MargaritaRiver Estuary

Del MarBoat Basin

MCBCPRestricted Use Area MCBCP

Restricted Use Area

SRTTP Site

MCTSSA Site

50 ft

150 ft

100 ft

��I-5

��I-5

O2-4

CO

2-3C

O2-2

C

O2-1

C

O2-4

BO2-3

B

O2-2

B

O2-

1B

O2-4A

O2-3A

O2-2AO2-

1A

Legend

Final Proposed Site

! Artificial Reefs

Restricted AreasPendleton Use Areas

Bathymetry (ft)

!(

!(

Oceanside

San Diego

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10.1

Miles

Oceanside Artificial Reef 2

Wedgewire Intake Structure Footprint

Wedgewire Intake Potential Location Zone

Subsurface ConveyanceTunnel (4,000 ft offshore)

Conveyance Pipe on Seabed

³

OPEN-OCEAN WEDGE-WIRE SCREENINTAKE LOCATION FIGURE ES-4

San Diego County Water Authority

Seawater Desalination Facilityat Camp Pendleton

RBF Consulting

~1.4mile

s


Del MarBoat Basin

MCBCPRestricted Use Area


Shallow Seabed InfiltrationGallery Potential Location Zone

Shallow Seabed InfiltrationGallery Footprint (see Inset)


Conveyance Pipeon Seabed

2,400 ft

1,000 ft

SRTTP Site

MCTSSA Site

50 ft

150 ft

100 ft

200 ft

��I-5��I-5

O2-4C

O2-3C

O2-2C

O2-1C

O2-4B

O2-3B

O2-2B

O2-1B

O2-4A

O2-3A

O2-2AO2-1

A

Legend

Final Proposed Site

! Artificial Reefs


Bathymetry (ft)

!(

!(

Oceanside

San Diego

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10.1

Miles


¦

1,200 ft

Note: The shallow seabed infiltration gallery shown is sized at 55 acres to accomodate the maximum potential production rate of the plant (150 MGD). A reduced production rate would result in a smaller footprint.

³



SEABED INFILTRATION GALLERY (SIG) INTAKECONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FIGURE ES-5

RBF Consulting

~1.5mile

s


Del MarBoat Basin

MCBCPRestricted Use Area MCBCP

Restricted Use Area

Deep InfiltrationGallery Area (See Inset)


600 ft

3,500 ft

500 ft

SRTTP Site

MCTSSA Site

50 ft

150 ft

100 ft

200 ft

��I-5��I-5

O2-4C

O2-3C

O2-2C

O2-1C

O2-4B

O2-3B

O2-2B

O2-1B

O2-4A

O2-3A

O2-2AO2-1

A

!(

!(

Oceanside

San Diego

Legend

Final Proposed Site

! Artificial Reefs


Bathymetry (ft)0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10.1

Miles


¦

Note 1: The deep infiltration gallery consistsof a series of angled wells drilled from inside the conveyance tunnel. The artist rendered inset (above) was created by RBF Consultants.

INSET



DEEP INFILTRATION GALLERY (DIG) INTAKECONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FIGURE ES-6

RBF Consulting


Del MarBoat Basin



Beachwells (Slant Wells)(required number and

size unknown)

SRTTP Site

MCTSSA Site

50 ft

150 ft

100 ft

200 ft250 ft

§̈¦I-5

§̈¦I-5

O2-4C

O2-3C

O2-2C

O2-1C

O2-4B

O2-3B

O2-2B

O2-1B

O2-4A

O2-3A

O2-2AO2-1

A

Legend

Final Proposed Site! Artificial Reefs

Restricted AreasPendleton Use AreasBathymetry (ft)

Map Document: (S:\GIS_Resources\Standards_Guidelines\MapTemplates\GIS_TEMPLATES_2005\17x11_Portrait.mxt)7/19/2005 -- 5:19:30 PM

!(

!(

Oceanside

San Diego

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.250.125

Miles


¦

CA

L I FO

RN

I A



BEACH SLANT WELL INTAKECONCEPTUAL LAYOUT FIGURE ES-7

RBF Consulting


Note: 30-inch pipeline used for fail-safe disposal of SRTTP effluent and/or SMRCUP concentrate (low flow conditions) is not illustrated in the dual-use tunnel to the left.

Figure ES-8: Outfall and Diffuser System


100

ft

Sub

surfa

ceC

onve

yanc

eTu

nnel

(4,0

00ft

offs

hore

)

Out

fall

Diff

user

and

Zone

ofIn

itial

Dilu

tion

(ZID

)Loc

atio

nS

eeIN

SE

T1

ford

etai

l.

Dis

char

geC

onve

yanc

eP

ipe

onS

eabe

d Bea

chw

ellI

n tak

eA

rea

(req

uire

dsi

zeun

know

n)

Dee

pIn

filtra

tion

Gal

lery

500

ftto

4,0 0

0ft

Offs

hore

from

Con

veya

nce

Tunn

el

Bea

chw

ellI

ntak

eA

rea

(req

uire

dsi

zeun

know

n)

50 ft

SantaMargaritaRiver

O2-4C

O2-3C

O2-2C

O2-1C

O2-4B

O2-3B

O2-2B

O2-1B

O2-4A

O2-3A

O2-2A

O2-1A

§̈ ¦I-5

SRTT

P Si

te

MC

TSSA

Site

!(

!(

Oce

ansi

de San

Die

go

Artif

icia

l Ree

fO

cean

side

No.

2

³

01,

200

2,40

03,

600

4,80

060

0Fe

et

Not

es:

1. A

rtific

ial R

eef L

ocat

ions

from

Cal

iforn

ia D

epar

tmen

t of F

ish

and

Gam

e.2.

Site

loca

tions

from

RBF

Site

Eva

luat

ion

Mem

o.

3. R

estri

cted

are

as fr

om M

BC M

arin

e R

esou

rces

Rep

ort.

4. A

eria

l orth

oim

ager

y fro

m U

SGS

(199

7).

CA

LIF

OR

NIA

PACIFIC

OCEAN

MC

BC

P R

estri

cted

Ar

ea

Stu

a rt M

esa

Rd

Sant

a M

arga

rita

Riv

er E

stua

ry

MC

BC

P R

estri

cted

Ar

ea

Del

Mar

Bo

at B

asin

Lege

nd Fina

l Pro

pose

d Si

te

!Ar

tific

ial R

eefs

Bath

ymet

ry (f

t)

Pend

leto

n U

se A

reas

Seni

stiv

e H

abita

t

San

Die

goC

ount

yW

ater

Aut

horit

y

Cam

pP

endl

eton

Des

alin

atio

nP

roje

ct

OU

TF

AL

LD

IFF

US

ER

LO

CA

TIO

NF

or

Sla

nt

Wel

lor

DIG

Inta

ke

RB

FC

ON

SU

LTIN

G

FIG

UR

EE

S-9

~2.4miles


DESALINATION TREATMENT FACILITY The Water Authority’s proposed Camp Pendleton Desalination Facility would desalinate raw seawater obtained from a screened open-ocean or subsurface intake. For a project of this magnitude, seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) membranes are the preferred desalination technology. SWRO membranes are sensitive to microbial contamination, turbidity, and other contaminants, and therefore pretreatment of the raw seawater is required to prevent the membranes from fouling. The proposed pretreatment scheme would consist of:

Drum screens;

Dissolved air flotation (DAF);

Ultra-filtration (UF) membranes (screened open-ocean intake only); and

Cartridge filters.

The proposed pretreatment process is considered worst case, and specific processes (i.e. DAF) could be eliminated if the seawater intake is optimally located to enhance feedwater quality. Specific pretreatment process would be determined during pilot testing. The pretreatment process would require the use of several chemicals to increase pretreatment removal efficiency. The proposed chemicals to be used are:

Sodium Hypochlorite (shock chlorination of screens - disinfection);

Ferric Chloride (coagulant);

Sodium Hydroxide (enhanced boron reduction);

Sulphuric Acid (pH adjustment); and

Sodium Bisulfite (de-chlorination).

After pretreatment, the filtered water (filtrate) would be pumped through the SWRO membranes. An energy recovery system would be used to recover the energy from the concentrate stream prior to its disposal to assist in reducing energy costs. After the RO process, the permeate would be remineralized (post-treatment) to prevent corrosion of the distribution pipelines and resemble existing potable water supplies. The post-treatment process would consist of:

Carbon dioxide;

Lime (calcite beds);

Sodium hydroxide (pH adjustment); and

Sodium hypochlorite (chlorine residual).

Waste streams (sludge and solids) from the DAF and UF membranes would be conveyed to an on-site solids handling facility. Figure ES-10 illustrates a process flow diagram for a screened open-ocean intake. Membrane filtration is assumed not necessary for a subsurface intake.


FIG

UR

EE

S-1

0


The SWRO desalination process, pretreatment, and associated conveyance pumping (i.e. DWPS) are energy intensive processes. Approximate total power loads for the project, including plant inlet pumping, treatment, and distribution to the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct, range from 35 MW (50 mgd) to 105 MW (150 mgd). Traditional and alternative sources of power service for the proposed seawater desalination facility include:

Utility supplied electric power (from the grid);

Cogeneration technology such as natural gas-fueled turbine generators;

Power service for both site alternatives could be provided by San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E). The service capacity and the resulting transformer switchyard would be selected to the highest available service, which would be at least 16 kVA. Access easements, environmental permitting, design, and construction of the interconnection to the SDG&E service are typically completed by SDG&E with revenue recovered by the project. The desalination facility would typically operate as a base-loaded facility (operational 24 hours per day), would be able to shutdown without safety issues, and produces and conveys potable water. These factors would be beneficial when developing the terms of a power purchase agreement (PPA) with SDG&E. On-site power cogeneration, which is a more capital intensive alternative, was evaluated to determine a cost-effective approach to satisfy each facility’s electrical requirements and potential merits of a cogeneration classification for preferred natural gas rates. The cogeneration qualifying facility (QF) would consist of a 40-MW combined cycle steam turbine power block, and a Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) facility, which would use the waste heat generated by the combined heat and power (CHP) facility. The MED system is optimal for back pressure steam from a combined cycle system. The low pressure steam from a 40-MW facility can produce an additional 1.5 – 2.0 mgd of distilled water.



DESALINATED WATER CONVEYANCE The Desalinated Water Conveyance Pipeline (DWCP) and associated pumping facilities would convey product water from the proposed desalination facility to the Water Authority’s Twin Oaks Diversion Structure (TODS) or Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant (TOVWTP) Clearwell. The conveyance facilities include:

South Boundary Pipeline (SBP) Segment;

Oceanside Pipeline Segment;

Water Authority Pipeline (WAP) Segment;

Initial Lift: Desalinated Water Pump Station (DWPS);

Intermediate Lift: Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station (TOVPS); and

Water Exchange (optional): Silverleaf Pump Station (SLPS).

The proposed DWCP would be a 72-inch diameter mortar lined and coated steel pipe (MLCSP) capable of conveying 150 mgd of desalinated water at an approximate velocity of 8.0 ft/s. The total dynamic head (TDH) for 150 mgd is approximately 1,010 feet (437 psi) with a static lift of 800 feet from the DWPS to the TOVPS. If the pipeline were increased 12-inches in diameter, an 84-inch diameter pipeline would decrease the TDH to approximately 900 feet (390 psi). An additional conveyance planning study would be required to determine other potential DWCP alignments, and determine beneficial pipe size, based on life cycle costs, and confirmed pumping requirements. The South Boundary Pipeline (SBP) segment of the DWCP would ultimately convey desalinated water from the DWPS located at the desalination plant (at either site alternative) to a connection point with the Oceanside Pipeline segment as illustrated in Figure ES-11. The point of connection for the SBP and the Oceanside Pipeline segments is located at the toe of the of the San Luis Rey River (SLRR) levee near Whelan Lake. The SBP consists of two pipeline alignment alternatives, the 4.7 mile Ysidora Basin Pipeline (YBP) route; and the 5.3 mile Wire Mountain Pipeline (WMP) route. The YBP alignment is preferred over the WMP alignment for either site location since the alignment is located predominately in open-space (ease of construction) and would not greatly impact the housing and training areas within Camp Pendleton. The approximate 8.3 mile Oceanside Pipeline segment would convey desalinated water from the SBP segment connection to the Water Authority Pipeline segment connection near the east end of the Water Authority’s existing North County Distribution Pipeline (NCDP), as illustrated in Figure ES-12.


FIG

UR

EE

S-1

1

ES

-12

ES

-13

FIG

UR

EE

S-1

2

ES

-11

FIG

UR

EE

S-1

3

ES

-12


The approximate 6.0 mile Water Authority Pipeline (WAP) segment would convey desalinated water from the Oceanside Pipeline connection to the existing Twin Oaks Facility. The proposed WAP alignment is illustrated in Figure ES-13. A recommended alternative that would eliminate 3.7 miles of WAP construction would be to utilize the Water Authority’s existing NCDP. This option requires a water exchange agreement with the City of Oceanside and an additional 25 mgd pump station. Another recommendation that would eliminate the additional 2.3 miles of WAP construction would be to connect directly to Pipeline 4, north of the TODS. The potential connection point would be near the east end of the NCDP, just west of the City of Oceanside’s Robert A. Weese Water Treatment Plant (Weese WTP).

Pump Stations

The Desalinated Water Pump Station (DWPS), located at the proposed desalination facility provides the initial lift to convey desalinated water to the Twin Oaks Facilities. The DWPS would require approximately 15,000 HP installed for 50 mgd, while the ultimate project would require approximately 42,000 HP installed to deliver up to 150 mgd of desalinated water to the TODS. The Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station (TOVPS) is a proposed second (intermediate lift) pump station required along the DWCP alignment (Figure ES-14) to convey desalinated water to its final destination at the Twin Oaks tanks or Pipeline 4. TOVPS would require two 5-MG flow regulatory structure (FRS) tanks. It is anticipated that only one 5-MG tank would be constructed during Phase 1, while the other would be built during Phase 2. The pumping requirements for the TOVPS depend on the DWCP termination (connection) point. If the termination of the DWCP is the TODS or clearwells, the TOVPS would require approximately 4,500 HP installed to pump 50 mgd, while the Ultimate Project would require approximately 11,900 HP installed to pump 150 mgd. If the termination of the DWCP is Pipeline 4, the TOVPS would require approximately 7,500 HP installed to pump 50 mgd, while the Ultimate Project would require approximately 17,500 HP installed to pump 150 mgd. The Silverleaf Pump Station (SLPS) is a proposed pump station that would be required if the NCDP is used for product water conveyance. It would pump approximately 25 mgd of treated water from Weese WTP into the DWCP. Currently the NCDP conveys approximately 25 mgd of treated water west to North County member agencies. Therefore, North County member agencies would receive desalinated water and the 25 mgd of treated water from Weese WTP would be pumped by the SLPS directly into the DWCP (see Figure ES-15). Refer to Table ES-1 for a list of all the proposed pump stations for the Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project.



Table ES-1 Proposed Pump Stations

Description Name Ultimate Ultimate Ultimate Flow TDH HP Initial lift Desalinated Water Pump Station 150 mgd 1,020 ft 42,000 Intermediate lift Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station 150 mgd 440 ft 17,500 Water exchange Silverleaf Pump Station 25 mgd 285 ft 800

Product Water Integration

Potential product water integration includes the list of facilities and agencies below:

Twin Oaks Diversion Structure (TODS) or Clearwells;

North County Distribution Pipeline (NCDP);

Second Aqueduct;

Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton (MCBCP);

Santa Margarita River Conjunctive Use Project (SMRCUP); and

Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC).

Existing Water Authority infrastructure that would be impacted by the proposed desalination project product water conveyance system are the TODS or TOVWTP Clearwells, the NCDP, and the Second Aqueduct. A practical alternative to constructing the WAP segment of the DWCP is to utilize the NCDP and Pipeline 4 rather than constructing approximately 6.0 miles of new 72-inch pipeline (Figure ES-13). Product water could also potentially be conveyed to the north region of MCBCP or to Southern Orange County through a Coastal I-5 Pipeline or as part of a cross-base pipeline that Camp Pendleton is considering as part of the SMRCUP (Figure ES-16). Project components of the SMRCUP “Proposed Action” that could potentially be integrated into the proposed Camp Pendleton desalinated water conveyance system includes:

A 13-mile bi-directional pipeline (24-36-inch) from Reservoir Ridge (MCBCP) to Fallbrook’s Red Mountain Reservoir, terminating at a connection point to the Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct (Figure ES-17), with pump stations located at the Camp Pendleton boundary with the Naval Weapons Station and at Knoll Park (Fallbrook), with a FRS for temporary water storage. This option is not preferred due to the increased pumping head and difficulty of installing a large diameter pipeline through Fallbrook.

A 24-mile bi-directional cross-base pipeline (30-inch) to Orange County for delivery of treated SMR water to MWDOC, including at least two pumping stations (Figure ES-17).


FIGURE ES-14

FIGURE ES-15

FIG

UR

EES

-22

CO

AST

AL

PIPE

LIN

E A

LTER

NA

TIVE

S

SO

UR

CE

:CO

AS

TA

LP

IPE

LIN

ES

TU

DY

(SD

CW

A,M

WD

,&M

WD

OC

)F

IGU

RE

ES

-16

FIG

UR

EES

-23

SMR

CU

P PR

OPO

SED

PIP

ELIN

ES

SO

UR

CE

:CO

AS

TA

LP

IPE

LIN

ES

TU

DY

(SD

CW

A,M

WD

,&M

WD

OC

)F

IGU

RE

ES

-17


ENVIRONMENTAL AND PERMITTING The following is a partial list of key permitting issues associated with regional desalination projects, based on recent examples throughout California. These issues need to be adequately considered and addressed as part of the conceptual facility alternatives analyses, and as the project moves through the environmental and regulatory approval process and design.

1) Impingement/Entrainment (I/E): This project would avoid I/E issues that pertain to an OTC power plant based desalination plant, but would have to tackle this issue if a screened open-ocean intake is used. I/E remains one of the major obstacles to successful permitting of a seawater desalination plant.

2) Energy/Climate Change: This emerging issue requires serious consideration, both at the conceptual feasibility level, and as the project moves through the environmental and regulatory approval process. As seen in recent deliberations by CCC and State Lands Commission (SLC), regulatory agencies are likely to request detailed analysis of project-related Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, both direct and indirect.

3) Concentrate Discharge: This issue is common to any desalination facility and can be addressed through proper discharge location and design. The SWRCB is evaluating Ocean Plan amendments that may regulate concentrate discharge.

4) Sensitive Biological Resources: The ideal project would have limited or no impact upon sensitive species and habitat, as well as “Waters of the U.S.”, as this would complicate the environmental/regulatory approval process, increase project costs, and likely lead to project delays. Impacted sensitive areas can be minimized, but with many projects is inevitable, and therefore mitigation would be required.

5) Growth/Cumulative Impacts: This issue would occur with any “new” water supply, regardless of site-specific issues and regardless of the source. This project would need to address consistency with adopted water supply plans.

6) Camp Pendleton: Clearly, the project must be designed in a manner that is acceptable to Camp Pendleton, as the property owner and key federal agency.

7) Local Support: The ideal project would have support from the local community and businesses which would greatly facilitate approvals as the project moves through the environmental and regulatory process.

Development of the proposed desalination project would require various permits, approvals, and consultation with the Federal, State, and Local regulators. Some of the anticipated regulatory agencies include Camp Pendleton (U.S. Dept of Defense), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), California Coastal Commission (CCC), Caltrans, and California Department of Health (CDH). Refer to Table ES-2 for a complete list of potential permits required for this project.



Refer to Figure ES-24 at the end of the Executive Summary for a preliminary project implementation schedule, which includes the permitting process.

Sensitive Resources

Sensitive biological resources that exist in South Camp Pendleton include sensitive habitat, plant species, and animals. The South Camp Pendleton area serves as the nesting area for the California Least Tern and Snowy Plover. Cockleburr Canyon is the California Least Tern foraging area and has California Least Bell’s Vireo habitat. Near the mouth of Cockleburr Canyon are the Light-footed Clapper Rail and Belding’s Savannah Sparrow. Along South Camp Pendleton’s beach area is sensitive dune habitat. The Santa Margarita River (SMR) contains sensitive habitat such as riparian, vernal pools, and Tidewater Goby habitat. Sensitive biological plant species include the San Diego Button Celery and the Torrey Pine Tree. The SMR is also home to several protected biological species. Refer to Attachment B, Camp Pendleton Natural Resources, in Appendix E for a complete illustration of Camp Pendleton’s Natural Resources. Sensitive biological resources that exist in Oceanside along the DWCP alignment include sensitive habitat, plant species, and animals. The San Luis Rey River (SLRR) contains sensitive habitat such as beach/saltpan, grassland, riparian scrubs, riparian forests/woodlands, and sticky dudleya. The SLRR is also home to several protected biological species. Refer to Attachment C, Oceanside Subarea HCP/NCCP, in Appendix E for a complete illustration of Oceanside’s Habitat Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan. Sensitive biological resources that exist within the County of San Diego along the DWCP alignment include grasslands, riparian/wetlands, eucalyptus woodlands, Stephens Kangaroo Rat, Gnatcatcher habitat, and the Arroyo Toad. Refer to Attachment D, North County Subarea MSCP, in Appendix E for a complete illustration of North County’s Multiple Species Conservation Program.

Technical Studies / Investigations

The proposed project consists of the development of a desalination facility, located at one of the two proposed site alternatives, an intake system, a concentrate disposal system, and a desalinated water conveyance system. An EIR/EIS is required for the proposed project. Potential technical studies required to conduct a EIR/EIS include a Visual Impact Report, Air Quality Assessment, Climate Change Assessment, Biological Resources Report (including Marine Biology), Cultural Resources Report, Geotechnical Report, Bathymetry Report, Hydrology Report, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Radiation Frequency Survey (MCTSSA Site), Receiving Water Modeling Report, Acoustical Assessment, Traffic Impact Analysis, Military Impacts, and Water Supply Assessment.



PROJECT ALTERNATIVES After several meetings with MCB Camp Pendleton personnel, two sites were approved to continue further investigation of constructing a desalination facility with an ultimate capacity of 150 mgd in the southwest region of Camp Pendleton. These two sites are known as the SRTTP Site and the MCTSSA Site alternatives. Refer to Figure ES-3A for the two site locations. Both the SRTTP and MCTSSA Site alternatives are considered feasible to construct a regional desalination facility. After additional technical studies are completed and further discussions are held with Camp Pendleton personnel, one site would become the preferred project while the other would likely be carried forward as an alternative. The Water Authority assumes that Camp Pendleton personnel would also have a preference on which site is most suitable to construct a desalination facility based on the minimization of impacts to Camp Pendleton training, operations, and mission. Once determined, the Water Authority would define the preferred project description that would be evaluated in an Environmental Impact Report / Statement (EIR/EIS), should a decision be made to proceed into the environmental review on the project.

SRTTP Site

The SRTTP Site is located east of I-5, south of the SMR, approximately 1.0-mile east of the Pacific Ocean. The site is approximately 26 acres and is occupied by the non-operational Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) 13 site and open-space along the SMR.

Seawater Intake and Feedwater Pump Station The seawater intake system proposed for the SRTTP Site is the DIG collector well intake system. The DIG intake is proposed for this site due to the assumed permeable hydrogeology offshore of the SMR outlet. It must be noted that any of the intake options are feasible for this site. The dual-use tunnel would be drilled in a northwest direction to take advantage of the SMR alluvial soil near the mouth of the river, and reduce the length of the concentrate disposal pipeline laid on the seafloor, since the concentrate discharge location is northwest of the onshore tunnel portal site. The Feedwater Pump Station (FWPS) would be located onshore, near the Del Mar Recreation Beach, just south of the SMR. This site may not be feasible due to future Base planning efforts in the Del Mar Area (Area 21). If necessary, the FWPS could be located on the SRTTP Site and therefore extend the length of the tunnel by approximately 4,200 feet. A temporary construction access portal would be necessary onshore. Alternative FWPS locations would also be considered and evaluated in future technical studies.



The Feedwater pipelines, which consist of two 7-foot diameter pipelines, would be installed in two phases, while the two I-5 crossings would be installed during Phase 1. When the plant expands capacity, the deferred pipeline would be installed. Refer to Figure ES-18 for the proposed FWPS and feedwater pipeline locations. Refer to Table ES-3 for a list of the seawater intake components required for the SRTTP Site.

Table ES-3 SRTTP Seawater Intake Components

Component Phase 1 50 mgd

Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

DIG Collector Wells 30 initial wells 30 additional wells 30 additional wells Feedwater Pipeline (tunnel) 4,000 ft, 16-ft diam. - - Feedwater Pipeline (land) 4,200 ft, 7-ft diam. 4,200 ft, 7-ft diam. - Feedwater PS (installed hp) 5,400 hp 8,100 hp 10,800 hp

Concentrate Disposal The concentrate disposal system for the SRTTP Site would vary slightly compared to the MCTSSA Site. The brine disposal pipelines would be longer in length for the SRTTP Site since the brine discharge location is further away from the site. Refer to Table ES-4 for a list of the SRTTP Site concentrate disposal system components.

Table ES-4 SRTTP Concentrate Disposal System Components


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Combined “Y” Diffuser System (2) legs - 1,200 ft, 7-ft diam. divers - Dedicated Effluent Diffuser 8,700 ft, 2-ft diam. - - Brine Disposal Pipeline (seabed) 8,700 ft, 10-ft diam. - - Brine Carrier Pipeline (tunnel) 4,000 ft, 8-ft diam. - - Brine Disposal Pipeline (land) 4,200 ft, 7-ft diam. - -

Desalination Facility The SRTTP Site would require less treatment components compared to the MCTSSA Site if a subsurface DIG intake were employed. A subsurface intake takes advantage of the natural seabed filtration and therefore produces fewer solids to treat before the desalination process. It must be noted that the SRTTP site could accommodate the additional treatment facilities required (UF, sludge thickening tanks, etc) if a screened open-ocean intake were employed. Table ES-5 provides a list of the SRTTP Site desalination facility components. Refer to Figure ES-19 and Figure ES-20 for the SRTTP Site desalination facility site layout and visual rendering, respectively.



Table ES-5 SRTTP Desalination Facility Components


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Pretreatment Drum Screens 4 Units (3+1) 3 Units 3 Units Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) 3 DAF Tanks 3 DAF Tanks 3 DAF Tanks Desalination Reverse Osmosis (10) 5-mgd trains (10) 5-mgd trains (10) 5-mgd trains Energy Recovery Device (ERD) 180 ERI PX 180 ERI PX 180 ERI PX ERD Booster Pumps 10 Pumps 10 Pumps 10 Pumps Post-Treatment Lime, CO2, Chlorination, etc. Structure & Equip. Additional Equip. Additional Equip. Clearwell Tank 5 MG 5 MG - Solids Handling Dewatering Belt Press 1 Unit 1 Unit -

Access to the SRTTP Site is favorable due to the close proximity to the main gate. Vandegrift Blvd and Stuart Mesa Road access the site. In addition, since the site is located east of I-5, chemical delivery trucks will not have to cross I-5 to access the site. The SRTTP Site is potentially accessible by rail. A new rail spur could be constructed to be used for bulk chemical deliveries.

Desalinated Water Conveyance The DWCP is assumed to use the YBP alignment for the SBP segment. The collector pipeline lengths are reduced for the SRTTP Site due to its close proximity to the YBP alignment. Table ES-6 provides a list of DWCP components associated with the SRTTP Site.

Table ES-6 SRTTP DWCP Components


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Railroad & SMR Connectors 3,000 ft, 6-ft diam. - - South Boundary Pipeline Segment 25,000 ft, 6-ft diam. - - Oceanside Pipeline Segment 44,000 ft, 6-ft diam. - - Desalinated Water PS (installed hp) 15,000 hp 30,000 hp 42,000 hp Twin Oaks Valley PS (installed hp) 7,500 hp 12,500 hp 17,500 hp TOVPS FRS Tank 5 MG 5 MG - Silverleaf PS (installed hp) 2,400 hp - -



MCTSSA Site

The MCTSSA Site is located north of the SMR, adjacent to and west of I-5, east of the MCTSSA facility. The site is approximately 30 acres and is currently leased agricultural fields (tomato fields).

Seawater Intake and Feedwater Pump Station The seawater intake system proposed for the MCTSSA Site is a screened open-ocean intake system using wedge-wire screens. A screened open-ocean intake was chosen for this site due to the assumed poor hydrogeology directly offshore of the site. It must be noted that even though a screened open-ocean intake is proposed, a subsurface intake is still feasible for this site given further offshore hydrogeologic investigations. A subsurface DIG collector well system would require approximately 4,000 feet of dual-use tunnel to accommodate the required number of wells. If a screened open-ocean intake is used, which is proposed for the MCTSSA Site, the dual-use tunnel would only need to be approximately 2,000 feet long, so as to locate the tunnel terminus past the surf zone, therefore reducing the length of the tunnel by half. The FWPS associated with the MCTSSA Site would be located on the bluffs, in the northwest corner of the tomato fields, just south of the MCTSSA facility. If this site interferes with MCTSSA operations, the FWPS could move south approximately 1,000 ft or onto the proposed MCTSSA desalination facility site, extending the length of the dual-use tunnel, yet eliminating the need for onshore feedwater and concentrate pipelines. The feedwater pipelines, which consist of two 7-foot diameter pipelines, would be installed in two phases. During Phase 1, only one pipeline would be constructed, conveying approximately 130 mgd of feedwater to the desalination plant. When the plant expands capacity, the deferred pipeline would be installed. Refer to Figure ES-21 for the proposed location of the FWPS and feedwater pipelines. Refer to Table ES-7 for a list of the MCTSSA Site seawater intake components.

Table ES-7 MCTSSA - Intake Components per Phase


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Wedge-wire Screen Intake (8) ”T” Screens, 6ft diam. - - Feedwater Pipelines (seabed) (2) 6,000 ft, 10-ft diam. - - Feedwater Pipelines (tunnel) 2,000 ft, 16-ft diam. - - Feedwater Pipelines (land) 1,500 ft, 7-ft diam. 1,500 ft, 7-ft diam. - Feedwater PS (installed hp) 5,400 hp 8,100 hp 10,800 hp

Concentrate Disposal



The concentrate disposal system for the MCTSSA Site varies slightly to the SRTTP Site. The brine disposal pipelines (on the seabed) are longer in length for the MCTSSA Site since the tunnel would not extend as far offshore. The brine disposal pipeline (on land) is shorter in length since the MCTSSA Site is in close proximity to the shore. Refer to Table ES-8 for a list of the MCTSSA Site concentrate disposal system components.

Table ES-8 MCTSSA - Concentrate Disposal Components per Phase


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Combined “Y” Diffuser System (2) legs - 1,200 ft, 7-ft diam. divers - Dedicated Effluent Diffuser 10,000 ft, 2-ft diam. - - Brine Disposal Pipeline (seabed) 10,000 ft, 10-ft diam. - - Brine Carrier Pipeline (tunnel) 2,000 ft, 8-ft diam. - - Brine Disposal Pipeline (land) 1,500 ft, 7-ft diam. - -

Desalination Facility The MCTSSA Site would require additional pretreatment components compared to the SRTTP Site due to the use of a screened open-ocean intake. A screened open-ocean intake requires extensive pretreatment to handle the large amount of solids loading, and therefore would use ultra-filtration (UF) membranes as an additional process. Table ES-9 provides a list of the MCTSSA Site desalination facility components. Refer to Figure ES-22 and Figure ES-23 for the MCTSSA Site desalination facility site layout and visual rendering, respectively.

Table ES-9 MCTSSA - Desalination Components per Phase


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Pretreatment Drum Screens 4 Units (3+1) 3 Units 3 Units Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) 3 DAF Tanks 3 DAF Tanks 3 DAF Tanks Submerged UF 28 UF Basins 28 UF Basins 28 UF Basins Desalination Reverse Osmosis (RO) (10) 5-mgd trains (10) 5-mgd trains (10) 5-mgd trains Energy Recovery (ERD) 180 ERI PX 180 ERI PX 180 ERI PX ERD Booster Pumps 10 Pumps 10 Pumps 10 Pumps Post-Treatment Lime, CO2, Chlorination, etc. Structure & Equip. Additional Equip. Additional Equip. Clearwell Tank 5 MG 5 MG - Solids Handling Sludge Thickening Tanks 2 Tanks 2 Tanks 2 Tanks Dewatering Belt Press 2 Units 2 Units 2 Units



Access to the MCTSSA Site is not as favorable as the SRTTP Site since it is located west of I-5. Currently, only one I-5 bridge crossing provides access to the MCTSSA Site. The bridge is capable of carrying military tanks, yet is not wide enough to handle two trucks in each direction simultaneously. Therefore, potential improvements may be necessary to the bridge to accommodate chemical truck deliveries. Another potential access route is the Lower Santa Margarita River Road (dirt road). This dirt road crosses under I-5 just north of SMR. The road would need to be improved to accommodate trucks safely under I-5 and not pose any environmental harm to SMR.

Desalinated Water Conveyance The DWCP is assumed to use the YBP alignment for the SBP segment. The collector pipeline would cross under I-5. The crossing would occur under the I-5 / SMR Bridge and may not require trenchless installation. Table ES-10 provides a list of DWCP components associated with the MCTSSA Site.

Table ES-10 MCTSSA - DWCP Components per Phase


Phase 2 100 mgd

Ultimate 150 mgd

Lower SMR Road Connector 12,000 ft, 6-ft diam. - - South Boundary Pipeline Segment 25,000 ft, 6-ft diam. - - Oceanside Pipeline Segment 44,000 ft, 6-ft diam. - - Desalinated Water PS (installed hp) 15,000 hp 30,000 hp 42,000 hp Twin Oaks Valley PS (installed hp) 7,500 hp 12,500 hp 17,500 hp TOVPS FRS Tank 5 MG 5 MG - Silverleaf PS (installed hp) 2,400 hp - -


FIG

UR

EES

-9SR

TTP

SITE

- PO

TEN

TIA

L C

ON

FIG

UR

ATIO

N

SRTT

PD

esal

Faci

lity

Site

SRTT

PPl

ant

Oce

anO

utfa

ll&

Feed

wat

erTu

nnel

Two

-84"

Feed

wat

erPi

pelin

es

84"

Brin

eD

ispo

sal

Pipe

line

30"

SRTT

PEf

fluen

tW

ater

Pipe

line

72"

Prod

uctW

ater

Con

veya

nce

Pipe

line

LEG

END

Tren

chle

ssC

onst

ruct

ion

Und

erI-5

(~10

00LF

)

Feed

wat

erPu

mp

Stat

ion

&Tu

nnel

Dril

ling

Port

al

Pro

duct

Wat

erC

onve

yanc

eYs

idor

aB

asin

Pipe

line

FIG

UR

EE

S-1

8

FIG

UR

EE

S-1

9

ES

-18

-

FIG

UR

EES

-11

SRTT

P SI

TE -

VISU

AL

REN

DER

ING

LOO

KIN

G E

AST

RE

ND

ER

ING

CR

EA

TE

DB

YF

PB

AR

CH

ITE

CT

SF

IGU

RE

ES

-20

FIG

UR

EES

-12

MC

TSSA

SIT

E - P

OTE

NTI

AL

CO

NFI

GU

RAT

ION

Feed

wat

erPu

mp

Stat

ion&

Tunn

elD

rillin

gPo

rtal

MC

TSSA

Pro

duct

Wat

erC

onve

yanc

eYs

idor

aBas

inP

ipel

ine

MC

TSSA

Des

alFa

cilit

ySite

72"

Prod

uctW

ater

Con

veya

nceP

ipel

ine

LEG

END

30"

SRTT

PEf

fluen

tW

ater

Pip

elin

e

(2)-

84"

Feed

wat

erPi

pelin

es

84"B

rine

Dis

posa

lPi

pelin

e

Oce

anO

utfa

ll&

Feed

wat

erTu

nnel

AC

U-5

From

SRTT

PPl

ant

FIG

UR

EE

S-2

1

FIG

UR

EE

S-2

2

FIG

UR

EES

-14

MC

TSSA

SIT

E - V

ISU

AL

REN

DER

ING

LOO

KIN

G W

EST

RE

ND

ER

ING

CR

EA

TE

DB

YF

PB

AR

CH

ITE

CT

SF

IGU

RE

ES

-23


COST DEVELOPMENT Capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, in 2009 dollars, were developed for the two proposed SWRO desalination project alternatives. For the purpose of the Executive Summary, only costs associated with grid power are portrayed in this document. Additional costs and details associated with on-site power generation are available in Volume 1 (Final Report). The desalination facility would initially be constructed with a capacity of 50 mgd (Phase 1) with two subsequent expansion phases, each increasing treatment capacity by an additional 50 mgd for an ultimate capacity of 150 mgd. For purposes of this study, all buried infrastructure (pipelines, intake, diffusers, etc.) would be constructed during Phase 1 and sized for the ultimate project. The costs developed for this project include:

Capital Cost

Operation and Maintenance Cost

50-Year Life Cycle Cost

Capital Costs

As defined in the Water Authority’s Cost Estimating Guidelines Manual (ESD 260 – January 2008), the capital cost estimate for a feasibility level study is defined as Class 4. Class 4 cost estimates are generally prepared based on limited information and subsequently have wide accuracy ranges. Typical accuracy ranges for Class 4 cost estimates are -15% to -30% on the low side, and +20% to +50% on the high side. The capital costs in this executive summary for the two desalination project alternatives (SRTTP and MCTSSA) include the following components:

Seawater Intake (Intake system, tunnel, pipelines, and FWPS);

Concentrate Disposal (Diffuser system and disposal pipelines);

Desalination Facility (Pretreatment, RO, Post-treatment, etc);

Desalinated Water Conveyance System (DWCP, and pump stations); and

Electrical Power Service: Power purchased from the local utility grid.

Table ES-11 Project Alternatives Capital Cost Estimates - Grid Power

Site Phase 1 Phase 2 Expansion

Phase 3 Expansion

SRTTP $ 1,245,000,000 $ 556,000,000 $ 502,000,000 MCTSSA $ 1,303,000,000 $ 642,000,000 $ 598,000,000

* Costs provided in 2009 dollars



Various contingency factors were applied to certain items of the capital cost estimate. Contingency factors are assumed to decrease once additional technical studies and investigations have been conducted and conceptual design begins. Listed below are the different contingences used:

40% contingency was applied to all marine and tunneling construction work due to the current level of uncertainty and unknowns.

30% owner contingency (Class 4) is applied to the remaining balance based on the Water Authority’s Cost Estimating Guidelines (ESD 260).

25% owner contingency is applied to the expansion phase construction costs (Phase 2 and 3) since the number of unknowns (underground & marine environments) is assumed to decrease.

Implementation costs, which include engineering, environmental documentation, legal, property acquisition services, construction management, and administration, were assumed at 25% (per Water Authority request) of the total construction cost, including contingency. Although the capital costs are significant, they are comparable to recently constructed seawater desalination projects in Australia with similar capacity, infrastructure, and treatment processes, as demonstrated in Table ES-12 below. As previously mentioned, the proposed treatment process is considered worst case and as a result, the capital costs are considered conservative. Specific processes (i.e. DAF) could be eliminated if the seawater intake is optimally located to enhance feedwater quality, which would reduce capital costs.

Table ES-12 Capital Cost Comparison

Initial Capacity Capital Cost Location (mgd) (2009 Dollars)

Queensland (Brisbane, AUS) 33 $1.1 Billion Sydney (AUS) 66 $1.2 Billion Camp Pendleton 50-100 $1.3 - $1.9 Billion Melbourne (AUS) 108 $2.0 Billion

* Costs provided in 2009 dollars (USD)

Operation and Maintenance Costs

Annual O&M costs (in 2009 dollars) for the two project alternatives include costs related to:

Energy: Process equipment, pumping (both on- and off-site), buildings, etc;

Labor: For all facilities including off-site pump stations;

Materials: Membranes, lab equipment, etc.;

Chemicals: Pretreatment, post-treatment, etc.; and

Inspection: Tunnel and intake structures.



The key factor that differentiates O&M costs between the two project alternatives is the type of intake utilized. As previously described, the MCTSSA Site alternative is proposed as using a screened open-ocean wedge-wire screen intake, while the SRTTP Site alternative would utilize a subsurface DIG intake. Although each site has been proposed to utilize a specific type of intake, all proposed intake options are feasible for both sites until further offshore hydrogeologic investigations are conducted. An open-ocean intake requires additional chemicals and pretreatment consisting of UF membranes due to the increased solids load. The additional pretreatment increases O&M costs when compared to a subsurface intake which utilizes natural filtration through the seabed. Therefore the O&M costs are based on the type of intake used, independent of the site location. The O&M costs (in 2009 dollars) provided in Table ES-13 assume the local power grid would supply electrical power for the Camp Pendleton Desalination Project. The O&M costs were calculated assuming a preferred rate of $0.10/kWh, assuming revenue recovery for the required power transmission lines is incorporated into the rate.

Table ES-13 O&M Cost Estimate - Grid Power

Intake Phase 1 Phase 2 Ultimate Type 50 mgd 100 mgd 150 mgd

Subsurface $ 45,300,000 $ 86,600,000 $ 130,800,000 Screened Open-Ocean $ 54,600,000 $ 104,800,000 $ 157,700,000


Life Cycle Present Worth

A 50-year Life Cycle Present Worth analysis was conducted for both project alternatives assuming the desalination facility is online by year 2019 and that each 50 mgd expansion occurs in years 2028 and 2038. The analysis was performed utilizing an escalated dollar approach known as the cost escalation method, described in Chapter 16 of the Water Authority’s Design Manual Volume 1 (ESD-160). Table ES-14 demonstrates the 50-year present worth and average cost of water ($/AF) for each project alternative, utilizing electrical power from the local utility grid.

Table ES-14 Project Alternatives 50-Year Life Cycle Cost Summary

Average cost of water ($/AF) Site Acre-Feet Produced

2009 Present Worth(w/ Inflation)

2009 PW $/AF Inflated Uninflated

SRTTP 6,832,000 $4,018,700,000 $588 $3,858 $1,687 MCTSSA 6,832,000 $4,653,800,000 $681 $4,514 $1,932




NEXT STEPS / IMPLEMENTATION The next steps for the proposed Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project, following the completion of this Feasibility Study and approval by the Water Authority’s Board of Directors are to conduct further planning studies that will assist in defining the project description necessary to conduct the Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) and required permits. This section serves as a preliminary implementation guide, listing the necessary action items and milestones necessary for this project to be online by 2019. Listed below are initial action items that should be accomplished:

MCBCP Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

Planning Studies Consultant Procurement

Conduct planning studies (power, conveyance, offshore investigations, etc.)

Environmental (EIR/EIS) Consultant Procurement

Negotiate Implementation / Lease Agreement with MCBCP

Project Financial Plan

Public Relations

The execution of the MOU between the Water Authority and Camp Pendleton is the most crucial milestone as completion of subsequent events would be contingent upon its completion. Written Base approval is anticipated to be obtained between January and February 2010. The Water Authority intends to conduct several planning studies over the next two years to further develop the proposed project description. The Request for Proposals (RFP) to procure the planning studies consultant is anticipated to be released in March 2010 with Board approval and contract complete by June 2010. The planning studies would consist of, but are not limited to, power options, additional conveyance alternatives, product water integration alternatives, and offshore / onshore geotechnical investigations, and are anticipated to be completed by March 2012. The results of the subsequent planning studies, particularly the Camp Pendleton Desalination Project product water integration analysis, would be incorporated into the Water Authority’s regional water facility master planning effort, which would begin around June 2010 and conclude around June 2012. The regional master plan would evaluate local water supply options, including proposed seawater desalination supplies, along with imported water supply reliability assessments to develop and prioritize an appropriate mix of local and imported supply development projects that will meet the region’s needs.



Once the planning studies and regional master plan are near their completion, a decision would be made by the Board on whether to continue, delay, or defer the project based on the result and recommendation of the master planning effort. If the project continues, the next step would be to hire an Environmental Consultant (EC) to lead the EIR/EIS process. The entire procurement process would take approximately 6-8 months. The RFP for the EC is anticipated to be released in late 2011 with Board approval and contract completion by June 2012. The EC team would conduct necessary technical studies (biological resources, cultural resources, visual impacts, air quality, traffic, noise, etc.) and prepare the draft and final EIR/EIS. The technical studies and EIR/EIS process are assumed to take approximately two and half years, with the EIR/EIS certified by December 2014. The initial permitting process would commence during the EIR/EIS preparation process. The EC team would assist the Water Authority with regulatory agency (Federal, State, & Local) coordination meetings and permit application process. Once the Final EIR/EIS is certified, the Water Authority would begin discussions with MCBCP to negotiate project implementation and property lease agreement. This would take approximately two years to finalize with a signed agreement by December 2016. The Project Financial Plan (PFP) would commence near the completion of the Feasibility Study. The entire PFP is assumed to take approximately 12 months to complete. The only milestone currently established is to create a budget for the subsequent planning studies. Public relations and community outreach associated with this project are assumed to have already begun and would continue throughout the duration of the project. Public outreach would consist of workshops, education, site visits, groundbreaking, press releases, etc. All public events would require coordination with Camp Pendleton. Refer to Figure ES-24 for a preliminary project implementation schedule.

Pilot / Demonstration Project

During the EIR/EIS process, the Water Authority may begin the process of designing and permitting a pilot / demonstration project. The purpose of a pilot / demonstration project includes:

Operation and testing of different pretreatment schemes;

Determine chemical usage (pretreatment, CIP, etc.) requirements;

Determine residuals / solids handling requirements;

Assists in designing the treatment process;

Assists in determining costs of full scale project; and

Required for Dept. of Public Health (DPH) drinking water permit.



The construction of the pilot / demonstration project is assumed to occur after the completion of the EIR/EIS. Once operating, the pilot would run for a minimum of twelve months to obtain a DPH drinking water permit. Currently, the size (flowrate), location (MCTSSA or SRTTP), and type of intake to utilize (screened open-ocean or subsurface), has not yet been determined. If the hydrogeologic investigations determine that a subsurface intake is feasible, the proposed intake would most likely consist of onshore slant wells that would simulate a subsurface intake option (SIG, DIG, wells); otherwise, a screened open-ocean intake would be constructed.

Potential Funding Opportunities

Several potential funding opportunities exist that the Water Authority could pursue to help finance the proposed Camp Pendleton SWRO Desalination Project. Potential governmental agencies that could provide funding opportunities are listed below and described in detail in Section 11.1 (Volume 1):

California Department of Water Resources

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Department of Energy

Further research is required to determine which specific grants are available from each agency that could be pursued by the Water Authority.

Contract Delivery Models

Several contracting delivery models (project delivery methods) are available for the Water Authority to pursue to construct the desalination facility and associated components. One contract delivery model that has been used to construct several desalination projects worldwide is Alliance Contracting. Alliance Contracting has been extensively used in Australia for large civil works projects (i.e. desalination projects) and vertical construction. Alliance Contracting has also seen continued use in the United Kingdom and is beginning to be adopted in the United States. A project alliance is a commercial/legal framework between a department, agency or Government-Backed Enterprise (GBE) as “owner”-participant and one or more private sector parties as ‘service provider’ or ‘non-owner participants’ (NOPs) for delivering one or more capital works projects, characterized by1: 1 The Department of Treasury and Finance, State of Victoria (Australia). Project Alliancing Practitioners’ Guide. April 2006.



Collective sharing of (nearly) all project risk, performance, and outcome;

No fault, no blame, and no dispute between the alliance participants (except in very limited cases of default);

Payment of NOPs services under a “three-limb” compensation model comprising:

Limb 1 – Direct cost: Expenditure on the work under the alliance (including mistakes, rework, and wasted effort) and project-specific overheads related to the work under the alliance are reimbursed at actual cost, subject to audit.

Limb 2 – Fee: A fee to cover ‘normal’ profit and a contribution towards recovery of non-project specific (i.e. corporate) overheads.

Limb 3 – Pain/Gain: An equitable pre-agreed share of the ‘pain’ or ‘gain’, depending on how actual outcomes compare with pre-agreed targets (in both cost and non-cost performance areas).

Unanimous principle-based decision-making on all key project issues; and

An integrated project team selected on the basis of best person for each position.

In certain circumstances, it may be appropriate for an agency or GBE to participate in a project alliance as an NOP, distinct from the government owner-participant. Working inside an Alliance Contract revolves around each participant adhering to a clear set of Alliance Principles. These form the foundation upon which all decisions are made and define the standards of behavior expected from all participants to the alliance. For these principles to be meaningful they must be developed from within the team members. In general, the following principles can be found inside most alliances.

All participants win, or all participants lose, depending on the outcome achieved.

The participants have a peer relationship where each has an equal say in decisions for the project.

Risks and responsibilities are shared and managed collectively rather than allocated to individual participants.

Risks and rewards are shared equitably among the participants.

All participants provide best-in-class- resources.

The participants are committed to developing a culture that promotes and drives innovation and outstanding performance.

There is a clear definition of responsibilities in a no blame culture.

All transactions are to be fully open-book.

Communication between all participants is open, straight, and honest.



Several other conventional delivery models exist that the water Authority can pursue to construct different components of the project.

Design – Bid – Build (DBB);

Engineering, Procurement, and Construction Management (EPCM);

Design – Build (DB);

Design – Build – Operate (DBO) and maintain (DBOM);

Build – Own – Operate – Transfer (BOOT); and

Build – Own – Operate (BOO).

The list above has been arranged in approximately increasing order of private sector involvement. As the various methods (listed above) allocate risk differently between the Owner (Water Authority) and the private sector, it is important that the Owner understand the implications of all methods and associated risks. The Water Authority has previously constructed several large diameter conveyance pipelines (i.e. aqueduct pipelines) and pump stations (i.e. San Vicente). For these types of projects, the Water Authority has relied on a design-bid-build (DBB) or a design-build (DB) project delivery method. Therefore it is assumed that the construction of the Desalinated Water Conveyance Pipeline (DWCP) and the proposed Twin Oaks Valley Pump Station (TOVPS) would be constructed with a DBB or DB contract model. The proposed Desalinated Water Pump Station (DWPS) is assumed to be constructed as part of the desalination facility which is discussed in the following section. The Water Authority currently has the time needed to define this project and therefore allows a wide range of alternative delivery methods to be considered. This could change however if the drought conditions significantly worsen. The Camp Pendleton Seawater Desalination Project can be well defined for the desalination facility components with more risk associated with the DIG collector well intake system and tunnel arrangements. A screened open-ocean intake does not involve as mush risk as a subsurface intake system, since several marine contractors have experience with installing screen intake systems. Given the long term operating nature of the project, a Design Build Operate (DBO) delivery method seems to best fit the majority of owner objectives and should be considered further. The Water Authority has recent experience with the DBO project delivery method. In April 2008, CH2MHILL began the successful operation of the Twin Oaks Valley Water Treatment Plant (TOVWTP), which is currently the world’s largest submerged membrane treatment plant. The Water Authority owns the plant, yet it was designed, constructed, and is currently operated by CH2MHILL.



Consideration should be given to the use of an Alliance Contract for the DIG tunnel collector well intake system. There is no experience which can be used to objectively quantify the risks prior to preparation of the tender documents. The marine construction associated with a screened open-ocean intake, outfall diffuser system, and associated seabed pipelines, don’t involve as much risk, since several marine contractors have experience with constructing and installing these types of components. The existence of two contracts would however bring its own risks as the desalination facility would depend on the timely completion and reliable performance of the DIG collector well intake system (or any other intake option for that matter) for its performance. If this did not occur then there would exist the risk of litigation by the desalination plant contractor. On balance, the risks associated with multiple contracts should be weighed against the alternative of including the intake, outfall diffuser system, and desalination facility in one contract, if feasible. Selecting a project delivery method with respect to the Camp Pendleton Desalination Project (excluding the DWCP), involves considering a number of risks. Some of these risks can be well defined if time is available and others are more difficult to quantify. These risks include (but are not limited to):

Unexpected Site conditions;

Military Base Location;

Complex / Changing Regulatory Conditions;

CDPH Approvals;

Litigation;

Marine Construction;

Tunnel Construction; and

DIG Wells / Slant Wells.


ID Task Name DurationStart

Finish

1 Water Authority's Desalination Facility at Camp Pendleton 2760 days Mon 06/01/09 Fri 12/27/19

2 Public Outreach 2760 days Mon 06/01/09 Fri 12/27/19

4 Negotiate MOU with MCBCP 35 wks Mon 06/01/09 Fri 01/29/10

5 Advanced Planning Studies 520 days Mon 02/01/10 Fri 01/27/12

6 Procure Consultant for Planning Studies 26 wks Mon 02/01/10 Fri 07/30/10

7 Conveyance and Power Study 260 days Mon 08/02/10 Fri 07/29/11

9 Offshore Investigations and Water Sampling 390 days Mon 08/02/10 Fri 01/27/12

10 Permits and Consultation for Drilling/Sampling 26 wks Mon 08/02/10 Fri 01/28/11

11 Subsurface Intake Investigation 95 days Mon 01/31/11 Fri 06/10/11

12 Mobilization/Setup 1 wk Mon 01/31/11 Fri 02/04/11

13 Initial Non-destructive Tests 4 wks Mon 02/07/11 Fri 03/04/11

14 Drill Investigative Boreholes 10 wks Mon 03/07/11 Fri 05/13/11

15 Drill and Develop Test Well 4 wks Mon 05/16/11 Fri 06/10/11

16 Water Quality Monitoring and Sampling 260 days Mon 01/31/11 Fri 01/27/12

22 Onshore Investigations and Surveys 230 days Mon 08/02/10 Fri 06/17/1123 Permits and Consultation for Onshore Investigations 26 wks Mon 08/02/10 Fri 01/28/11

24 Geotechnical Site Investigation 55 days Mon 01/31/11 Fri 04/15/11

28 Geotechnical/ Conveyance Route Investigation 45 days Mon 04/18/11 Fri 06/17/11

32 CEQA/ NEPA Clearance (EIR/ EIS) 848 days Mon 10/17/11 Wed 01/14/15

33 Procure Environmental Consultant for EIR/EIS 36 wks Mon 10/17/11 Fri 06/22/12

34 MCBCP Data Acquisition 40 days Mon 06/25/12 Fri 08/17/12

35 MCBCP Data Collection 1 mon Mon 06/25/12 Fri 07/20/12

36 SDCWA (Consultant) Data Acquisition 1 mon Mon 07/23/12 Fri 08/17/12

37 Preliminary Design Report 180 days Mon 06/25/12 Fri 03/01/13

41 Technical Studies/ Surveys 120 days Mon 08/20/12 Fri 02/01/1356 Initial Study/Notice of Preparation 60 days Mon 01/07/13 Sun 03/31/13

57 Initial Study Preparation 8 wks Mon 01/07/13 Fri 03/01/13

58 30-Day Public Review 30 edays Fri 03/01/13 Sun 03/31/13

59 Draft EIR/ EIS 271 days Mon 04/01/13 Mon 04/14/14

60 Screencheck Draft EIR/ EIS Preparation 6 mons Mon 04/01/13 Fri 09/13/13

61 Preliminary Draft EIR/ EIS Preparation 6 mons Mon 09/16/13 Fri 02/28/14

62 45-Day Public Review 45 edays Fri 02/28/14 Mon 04/14/14

63 Final EIR/ EIS 197 days Tue 04/15/14 Wed 01/14/15

64 Final EIR/ EIS Preparation 13 wks Tue 04/15/14 Mon 07/14/14

65 Public Hearing 13 wks Tue 07/15/14 Mon 10/13/14

66 Notice of Decision (NOD) Issued 0 days Mon 10/13/14 Mon 10/13/14

67 Record of Decision (ROD) 45 days Tue 10/14/14 Mon 12/15/14

68 30 day CEQA Challenge Period 30 edays Mon 12/15/14 Wed 01/14/15

69 Permits and Regulatory Approvals 400 days Mon 03/03/14 Fri 09/11/15

70 Long-Lead Discretionary Permits 400 days Mon 03/03/14 Fri 09/11/1577 Construction Permits 120 days Tue 10/14/14 Mon 03/30/15

84 Site Lease/ ROW Acquisition 520 days Tue 10/14/14 Mon 10/10/16

85 Negotiate Project Implementation/ Lease Agreement with MCBCP 104 wks Tue 10/14/14 Mon 10/10/16

86 Conveyance ROW Acquisition 96 wks Tue 12/09/14 Mon 10/10/16

87 Design/ Construction 1040 days Fri 01/01/16 Thu 12/26/1988 Procure DBO Contractor 52 wks Fri 01/01/16 Thu 12/29/16

89 Preliminary and Final Design 65 wks Fri 12/30/16 Thu 03/29/18

90 Construction 134 wks Fri 06/02/17 Thu 12/26/19

91 Final Permits/ Commissioning/ Startup 1488 days Tue 04/15/14 Thu 12/26/19

92 Local Utility Companies Agreements 4 mons Tue 04/15/14 Mon 08/04/14

93 Local Sanitary Sewer Connection/Industrial Waste Discharge 3 mons Tue 04/15/14 Mon 07/07/14

94 RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements 1 day Tue 04/15/14 Tue 04/15/14

95 State Department of Health - Domestic Water Supply Permit 26 wks Fri 06/28/19 Thu 12/26/19

96 SDAPCD Permit to Operate 26 wks Fri 06/28/19 Thu 12/26/19

97 Commissioning and Startup 39 wks Fri 03/29/19 Thu 12/26/19

10/13

Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr 4 Qtr 12010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Task Split Progress Milestone Summary Project Summary External Tasks External Milestone Deadline

San Diego County Water Authority's Seawater Desalination Facility at Camp Pendleton

Preliminary Project Implementation Schedule FIGURE ES-24

this page intentionally left blank...makrom shatila, pe project engineer rick hendrickson, gisp gis...

Documents