##### ITEM 4:PROVIDE UPDATE ON MPWMD WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AND DISCUSS OPTIONS

A.        PRESENT HYDROGEOLOGIC REPORTS

B.        DISCUSS OPTIONS FOR EIR ON WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

Meeting Date:           March 31, 2004                      Budgeted:  $876,500 for FY 03-04 Program/Line Item No.: 1-3-2 Staff Contact: Henrietta Stern Cost Estimate:$0 - 650,000 range General Counsel Approval: Staff note provided for review ### Committee Recommendation:none CEQA Compliance: EIR in progress ADDITIONAL MATERIAL PRESENTED TO THE BOARD ON MARCH 31, 2004 SUMMARY: The Board will receive technical reports and hear presentations by District consultants regarding: Ø Results of hydrogeologic investigations on the coastal dune aquifer (Aromas Formation) that affect the feasibility and capacity of a local desalination project in the Sand City/Fort Ord area (see “Discussion” section); and Ø Options for future action on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the MPWMD Water Supply Project. At its December 15, 2003 meeting, the Board was provided the “Board Review Draft EIR” (BRDEIR) for the MPWMD Water Supply Project. The term “Board Review Draft” is used to differentiate the current document from a formal Draft EIR to be circulated to the public in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). At the meeting, the Board voted to delay any action on circulating a Draft EIR until hydrogeologic reports on the coastal dune aquifer are finalized in March 2004. The Board directed that a special workshop be held to review the results and determine the best course of action at that time. Exhibit 4-A is the Executive Summary of the hydrogeologic studies. In simple terms, the major findings are: Ø The coastal dune aquifer characteristics are different than previously understood, and change as one moves from south to north. These characteristics pose constraints that were not well documented before. Ø These aquifer characteristics, coupled with the offshore bathymetry (underwater topography) do not support use of the “offshore HDD” technology described in detail in the EIR, but could support use of “onshore HDD” technology for seawater collection (briefly reviewed in the EIR). Ø Brine disposal using radial or HDD wells in the Fort Ord area would be technically feasible, but would likely not be allowed due to lack of a clay barrier between the coastal dune aquifer and the Paso Robles Formation (drinking water source) in that location. The best means for brine disposal is use of the regional wastewater treatment plant outfall pipeline. Ø Potable (drinking) water yields of up to 5,600 acre-feet annually (AFA) could be achieved with radial wells alone, and up to 8,400 AFA is possible with onshore HDD wells, assuming use of the regional wastewater treatment plant outfall pipeline for brine discharge. Higher yields of up to 11,000 AFA might be possible by combining technologies, but would be a complex undertaking. Please see the “Discussion” section for an explanation of terms. The consultants will present their report findings and answer questions at the March 31, 2004 meeting. The current MPWMD project proposal is a seawater desalination project in the Sand City area sized to yield 8,409 AFA of potable water. Use of the offshore HDD technology for seawater intake and/or brine discharge is needed to achieve the 8,409 AFA goal. The BRDEIR evaluates in detail the environmental effects of several component configurations such as the specific location of the desalination plant, pipeline alignments, and technology used for seawater intake and brine discharge. Each impact chapter includes tables comparing the different component options. Other types of water supply alternatives are evaluated at the program-level of detail in the “Alternatives” chapter. Extensive comparison tables compare the proposed project with four major alternatives: (1) “No Project” (two variations); (2) a smaller Sand City desalination plant combined with larger-scale aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) in the Seaside Basin; (3) Carmel River Dam and Reservoir; and (4) Moss Landing desalination plant. The EIR reviewed facilities associated with production targets higher than the 8,409 AFA as well as additional alternatives such as small-scale ASR, wastewater reclamation, offstream storage, and other configurations. The BRDEIR was prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates (JSA) and its primary subcontractor, Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM), with assistance by District staff. The scope of study for the EIR was defined by the District Board in March-May 2003. Please see the “Background” section below for more information on previous Board direction, work accomplished to date, and the Phase 1 and Phase 2 contracts with JSA. RECOMMENDATION: The Board should hear the presentations by CDM and JSA on the hydrogeologic investigation results and EIR options, respectively. Copies of the full hydrogeologic report will be provided to the Board at the March 31, 2004 meeting. Because this is a Board workshop, no formal action will be taken, such as approving new contracts or scopes of work. However, the Board should advise staff on general policy direction as it relates to current contracts, and/or identify specific agenda items that should be considered in the near future. Specifically, staff needs direction on the current JSA/CDM Phase 2 contract, which is more than 90% complete. The contract calls for circulation of the Draft EIR for public comment and presentations at public workshops on the Draft EIR. To date, a Board Review Draft has been completed but no action has been taken by the Board. In its presentation on March 31, 2004, JSA will review a variety of options for specific action on the Draft EIR. The following options are a simplification of the JSA options, all of which entail a contract amendment. The costs include project-level engineering and CEQA evaluation: Option A: Circulate EIR as is, except remove discussion of offshore HDD in appropriate sections. The EIR will focus on desalination with radial well technology (either three or four wells). This would take about four months and range in cost from30,000-40,000 up to $60,000-75,000, depending if three or four radial wells are evaluated. A variation of this option would include evaluation of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) combined with desalination. (Note: Option A reflects JSA Options 1A, 1B and 2 in Exhibit 4-B). Option B: Refine EIR to remove discussion of offshore HDD and replace with detailed review of onshore HDD where appropriate; discuss possible combinations of methods, based on Phase 2 hydrogeologic study results. This would take roughly five months and cost$70,000-90,000. A variation of this option would include project level evaluation of ASR combined with desalination, which would take a total of seven months and cost $110,000-180,000. (Note: Option B reflects JSA Options 3 and 4 in Exhibit 4-B). Option C: Significantly expand EIR to incorporate detailed information on onshore HDD as well as Moss Landing desalination and/or Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project. Consider project level evaluation of a yield goal greater than 8,400 AFA. This would take 12-18 months and would range in cost from$280,000-390,000 (Carmel River Dam) up to 400,000-650,000 (Moss Landing desalination). (Note: Option C reflects JSA Options 5 and 6 in Exhibit 4-B). Option D: Defer action on EIR questions for 90-120 days (or more). During this time, assess opportunities associated with California American Water (Cal-Am, formerly named California-American Water Company), Monterey County and/or the Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District (CSD) regarding Moss Landing desalination. Also, assess progress on Seaside Basin adjudication and the Seaside Basin Groundwater Management Plan, and what role, if any, local desalination could play to help address adverse trends in the basin. The EIR contract would be placed on temporary hold. Option E: End MPWMD’s CEQA process for a local desalination project, and terminate consultant services pursuant to procedures specified in the contract. Exhibit 4-B is a matrix providing an expanded description of these options. Please see the “Discussion” section below for more information. The pros and cons for each option involve issues such as: Ø desire to obtain a document that can be used by MPWMD and/or other agencies, who must perform an alternatives analysis for any water supply proposal in an EIR; Ø cost of continued work to MPWMD; Ø open versus closed opportunities (“eggs in the basket”); Ø budget and fiscal considerations, including possible co-funding by others; Ø obtain early agency and public feedback on local desalination concepts; and Ø basic policy considerations. Some of the basic policy considerations that affect specific Board decisions about the EIR and other near-term work include: Ø Should the District pursue a water supply project or partner in a project, or should another entity develop the supply? Ø Should the District be the CEQA lead or co-lead for a water supply project? Ø What are the project purposes and associated water yield goals? Ø Should only one project be considered to meet the purposes and yield goal, or is a series of projects over time acceptable? Ø What are the projects of most interest? Ø How long is a reasonable time to wait for a regional project developed by another entity to provide water? Ø Are there other applications of local desalination, such as helping to protect the Seaside Basin, that are reasons for continued consideration and CEQA review? DISCUSSION: There are important distinctions between various methods used to collect seawater and discharge concentrated brine from a desalination project. The consultant presentations will describe each of the following with graphics, including their suitability for seawater collection and brine discharge in various areas and capacities: Ø Radial well: This technology has been widely used for collection of fresh water. In this application, wells would be used to collect seawater through the seawater-saturated beach/dune sands, referred to as the “coastal aquifer.” A radial well consists of a vertical concrete caisson with a pump column inside, and with lateral screens projecting out of the caisson towards the ocean (similar to bicycle spokes) at the base of the coastal aquifer to collect seawater. Radial wells are often referred to as “Ranney wells” after the engineer who pioneered this technique. Ø Offshore (Perpendicular) HDD: Horizontal Directional Drilled (HDD) wells are used for many water supply applications, but are a new technology for desalination in our area. The horizontal (rather than vertical) aspect allows the drilling rig (top of the well) to be hundreds of feet away from where water is actually collected or dispersed. The offshore perpendicular method was evaluated in detail in the BRDEIR. The well is drilled under the coastal dunes at a shallow angle until it intersects near the base of the coastal aquifer, then extends horizontally offshore, beneath the seafloor, perpendicular to the beach. Construction uses a single entry point on the shoreline to drill the well and install the casing; this method is called the “blind-hole method.” The EIR evaluated offshore HDD wells for both seawater collection and brine discharge. Ø Onshore (Parallel) HDD: This type of HDD well was discussed briefly in the BRDEIR, and is similar in concept to a horizontal drain or collection gallery. It would be used for seawater collection only. The horizontal well would be drilled beneath and parallel to the beach (i.e., north-south alignment) with entry and exit points on the beach. This configuration would use the “pull-through method” whereby the screen assembly is pulled back from the exit point to the entry point. Ø Outfall Pipeline: This refers to brine discharge through the existing outfall from the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency’s regional wastewater treatment plant in Marina. #### Update on Other Proposed Regional Desalination Efforts District staff is aware of two regional desalination projects that are being pursued by other entities, which may present partnering and/or water service opportunities. Both are in the early stages of development, and have yet to begin the EIR process. Both sponsors have indicated a willingness to provide water to several communities within Monterey County, and to work with the District and others regarding water needs. They include: Ø Cal-Am/Monterey County plant at Moss Landing: On March 16, 2004, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors approved a Letter of Intent to partner with Cal-Am to develop a desalination project in the Moss Landing area to serve Monterey County needs, and directed the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) to work with Cal-Am to implement the project. A specific project site has not been defined at present. In a March 23, 2004 phone call, Curtis Weeks, General Manager of the MCWRA, indicated that a final Letter of Intent will be submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) by May 2004 along with preliminary water demand estimates that would affect project size. Monterey County/Cal-Am negotiations resulting in a formal Implementation Agreement should be completed by September 2004. During that same May-September 2004 time frame, Cal-Am/MCWRA plan to consult with MPWMD, Marina Coast Water District and entities in the Castroville area to refine water demand estimates and develop alternative plant capacities and locations. This information would be used in Cal-Am’s Environmental Assessment required by the CPUC prior to submittal of a formal application for a Moss Landing desalination project. At present, it is assumed that the CPUC would serve as the lead agency for an EIR on the project. Ø Pajaro/Sunny Mesa Community Services District (CSD): In a March 23, 2004 phone conversation, the agency’s attorney, Marc Del Piero, stated that the EIR process on a large desalination project at the former National Refracteries site, leased from the current owner, will begin in the very near future and should be completed within the next 18 months. The Pajaro/Sunny Mesa CSD will serve as the CEQA lead agency and has retained consultants, including expert biologists from Moss Landing Marine Laboratory, to consolidate known information and evaluate environmental effects of the project. Consultants will begin to prepare the scope of work for the EIR in the next 2-3 weeks, and a project proposal should be defined soon thereafter. The Pajaro/Sunny Mesa CSD is willing to work with and supply water to private companies such as Cal-Am as well as public agencies such as water districts or jurisdictions. BACKGROUND: In early 2002, the Board determined that the Water Supply Project EIR contract should be performed in three phases: (1) develop project descriptions for proposed project and alternatives, and issue Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an EIR; (2) prepare Draft EIR and circulate for public review; and (3) prepare and certify Final EIR, approve project. The Board set an ambitious goal of certifying an EIR by October 2003. Phase 1 Efforts. At its March 18, 2002 meeting, the Board authorized the Phase 1 contract scope of work to be performed by JSA and CDM for a not-so-exceed amount of about724,000.  The Phase 1 engineering work focused on developing project descriptions for non-dam alternatives with more detailed and updated information than was found in the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) “Plan B” non-dam alternative draft reports available at that time.   The Phase 1 environmental work included issuance of an EIR Notice of Preparation in June 2002, public hearings and receipt of written comments in July 2002, and Board review of policy issues elicited by the comments in July and August 2002.  The original intent was to prepare a joint EIR and federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document, because ASR entails use of federal land for injection wells.  The EIS component is not being pursued because of subsequent focus on desalination in Sand City.

At its August 29, 2002 meeting, the Board voted to not approve the Phase 2 scope of work to prepare a Draft EIR/EIS at that time.  Instead, the Board believed that key Phase 1 engineering tasks must first be completed, and more information must be obtained about pertinent topics before moving forward.  The needed information included:  detailed review of the CPUC Plan B Final Report released in August 2002; determine Cal-Am plans for a dam or Plan B; confirm lead agency status with the CPUC; and confirm U.S. Army plans regarding role as federal lead agency.  Progress on the Phase 1 engineering report was hindered by lack of access to Cal-Am or CPUC data (which was eventually provided in February 2003).  An update on the EIR-related activities was provided to the Board at its November 14, 2002 strategic planning session.  In Fall 2002 through January 2003, meetings were held with the U.S. Army, Cal-Am, CPUC and many local jurisdictions about the EIR process and water supply facility locations.

Carmel River Flow Threshold Report.  At its August 29 and September 16, 2002 meetings, the Board directed staff to add a new “Task 2-0” to define the streamflow regime that would sustain the Carmel River habitat and dependent species, and prepare a “Carmel River Flow Threshold Report”.  The Board acknowledged that the original goal of certifying an EIR by October 2003 would not be achieved due to the extra time needed for Task 2.0 as well as the engineering data delays noted above.  Several versions of the Carmel River Flow Threshold Report were received by the Board in early 2003, and circulated to agencies and the public for comment.  Due to concerns about consistency with federal flow recommendations, the Board voted in July 2003 to not use the flow threshold report in the EIR.

Phase 1 Engineering Report.  In December 2002 and February 2003, CDM submitted interim drafts of the Phase 1 Engineering Report for internal detailed review; the completed report was presented to the Board on March 27, 2003.  The report evaluated a variety of water supply alternatives based on available technical and economic information, and identified: (a) the maximum feasible size for each major type of alternative; and (b) recommended combinations of alternatives needed to achieve three water production goals.  The goals represented existing Cal-Am water production as well as potential future water needs focused primarily on existing legal lots of record.  A significant report conclusion was that the maximum drinking water production of a Sand City desalination plant using standard radial wells is estimated at 6,000 AFA.  However, if horizontal directional drilling (HDD or “slant”) wells were used, the maximum production at Sand City would be increased to about 11,000 AFA.  The report recommended that field tests be conducted to confirm these production estimates as well as the feasibility of the HDD technology in the local hydrogeologic setting.

Cal-Am Project Proposals.  On February 11, 2003, Cal-Am announced its plans to construct a 9,400 AFA Moss Landing desalination plant combined with a small (1,300 AFA) Seaside Basin ASR project, known as the Coastal Water Project (CWP), which is identical to the Plan B Final Report recommendation.  Cal-Am requested that its application to the CPUC be amended to replace the proposed Carmel River Dam with the CWP and that the CPUC be lead agency on the EIR for the CWP.  The water distribution system application to MPWMD for the Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project was kept active by Cal-Am.  In March 2003, the CPUC directed Cal-Am by April 1, 2003 to identify agencies with a regulatory interest in the CWP, address rate-making issues associated with the dam proposal, and describe how the dam application and extensive EIR information prepared by MPWMD will  “wind down” yet not be lost.  The CPUC set an April 11 deadline for agency input on these issues.  The CPUC held hearings on May 14, and issued a Proposed Decision on July 16, which was later ratified by the full Commission on September 4, 2003.  The CPUC Decision: (a) dismisses without prejudice Cal-Am’s application for the Carmel River Dam; (b) directs Cal-Am to submit a formal application for the CWP, including an Environmental Assessment (EA) and exploration of regional partnerships: and (c) asserts that the CPUC should be the lead agency for the CWP.  Cal-Am and CPUC representatives estimate that Cal-Am will take about 18 months to prepare the EA and then submit a new application for the CWP (i.e., early 2005).

Phase 2 Scope for Draft EIR.  At its January 30, 2003 meeting, the MPWMD Board indicated its interest in a local desalination project producing up to 11,000 AFA combined with a small (less than 1,000 AFA) ASR project.  Staff was subsequently asked to develop work plans and cost estimates for several options, including project-level evaluation of only a Sand City area desalination plant that would produce 8,409 AFA to lawfully meet the existing 15,285 AFA Cal-Am production, assuming 3,500 AFA from the Seaside Basin and 3,376 AFA recognized rights for diversions from the Carmel River.

In February 2003, the MPWMD Chairperson directed that revised scope information be delayed until late March to allow consultation with Cal-Am regarding its plans for the CWP and the potential for a coordinated water supply effort.   Given Cal-Am’s commitment to the CWP and increasing interest by Board leadership in a local desalination alternative, District staff was directed to provide as much information as possible about a local desalination option given the limited remaining funds in the Phase 1 budget.

On March 27, April 2 and May 2, 2003, the MPWMD Board evaluated a variety of options, and provided specific direction on the scope of work for Phase 2, which focuses on preparation of a Draft EIR on water supply options as well as testing to determine feasibility of alternative means to collect seawater and dispose of brine.  In a series of motions, the Board took the following actions:

Ø      Proposed construction of a local desalination project in the Sand City area.  The goal is to complete the Final EIR in Spring 2004 and hold an authorizing vote on financing the project in November 2004. The project yield goal is 8,409 AFA to make lawful the current level of Cal-Am water demand in the community (15,285 AFA total) as well as enable a 500 AFA reduction in Cal-Am pumping from the Seaside Basin.

Ø      Determined that the Sand City desalination project will be studied at the “project-level” of detail in the EIR.  Other alternatives, such as Moss Landing desalination, ASR, reclamation, storm water reuse, off-stream storage, and the Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project, will be reviewed at a lesser level of detail (“program level”).

Ø      Approved the Phase 2 scope of work for engineering and environmental work associated with preparation of a Draft EIR on the water supply project with a completion goal of October 2003.  The total not-to-exceed amount is $946,750, including: (a)$662,500 to prepare the Draft EIR; (b) $222,700 to conduct geotechnical (well drilling and aquifer tests) and geophysical (sonic) evaluations to characterize the shallow coastal dune aquifer (Aromas Formation) as it relates to the feasibility of installing HDD wells for the Sand City desalination project; and (c)$61,550 to obtain permits for the aquifer testing program (four test wells located in former Fort Ord, Sand City and Seaside).

Ø      Indicated its desire to serve as the lead agency for preparation of a separate EIR on the Cal-Am CWP proposal.  Because other agencies have also indicated interest in serving as the lead agency for the Cal-Am project, a formal determination has yet to be made.

Ø      Directed MPWMD staff to formally request Cal-Am to rescind its application for the Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project, consistent with February 2003 announcements about the Coastal Water Project.  MPWMD staff was directed to schedule a public hearing on whether or not the application for the dam should be denied if an affirmative response was not received within 90 days.  (Note: Cal-Am subsequently indicated it did not plan to rescind its application until the CPUC made determinations on the CWP.  The District Board denied Cal-Am’s application for the dam at a public hearing on August 18, 2003.)

For a detailed overview, please refer to the Board packets for March 27, April 2, and May 2, 2003 as well as the January 2004 Quarterly Water Supply Project Status Report, which includes a sequential listing of actions by various entities over the past several years.  All are available for review at the District office.

Status of Work Effort.  The Phase 1 work effort was completed on April 4, 2003.  Nearly all the Phase 2 work tasks have been completed as of March 25, 2004, including:

Ø      Prepare limited copies of  “Board Review Draft” EIR for receipt by MWPMD Board on December 15, 2003;

Ø      Obtain permits from seven agencies to enable geophysical and geotechnical investigations of shallow coastal dune aquifer (Aromas Formation); this was an extensive effort that took longer than anticipated due to delayed action by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

Ø      Drill and install casings at four boring sites, including two on the former Fort Ord, one in Seaside, and one in Sand City;

Ø      Conduct “slug tests” and other hydrogeologic measurements in the cased borings;

Ø      Conduct offshore and onshore geophysical (sonic) investigations, including peer review by UCSC professor Dr. Gary Greene, an expert in this field;

Ø      Conduct modeling to evaluate the effect of radial and HDD wells on coastal aquifer, and prepare a draft technical memorandum, including peer review by an independent hydrogeologist with local expertise (Martin Feeney) and the District hydrogeologist;

Ø      Conduct detailed modeling to evaluate radial and HDD well capacities based on results of field investigations;

Ø      Prepare a draft Phase 2 engineering report (Sand City Desalination Project Feasibility Study), including updated technical memorandum on revised computer modeling;  submit for peer review;

Ø      Prepare slide presentations for March 31, 2004 Board workshop.

Remaining consultant tasks (and time lines) to be performed in accordance with the Phase 2 contract include:

Ø      Prepare formal Draft EIR; make numerous copies and CDs; circulate to public, agencies and State Clearinghouse, assuming approval by the Board;

Ø      Participate in public workshops and public hearings for the Draft EIR, assuming approval by the Board.

A rough estimate for the remaining Phase 2 tasks to be performed pursuant to the Phase 2 contract is a minimum of $30,000-$40,000 to circulate a Draft EIR and hold workshops and hearings.  The actual cost could be much higher, depending on the option selected by the Board.

8,409 AFA Yield Goal

The current BRDEIR provides project level evaluation of a desalination project that would produce 8,409 AFA (rounded to 8,400 AFA in the EIR discussion).  A common question asked is why 8,409 AFA was selected as the project goal rather than the 10,730 AFA estimated in the 1995 SWRCB Order 95-10 if the stated project purpose is to comply with Order 95-10 and enable a lawful water supply.  The 8,409 AFA amount represents the amount of production needed to make current community water use lawful (total of 15, 285 AFA Cal-Am production) and accounts for the possibility that Cal-Am may need to reduce production from the Seaside Basin by 500 AFA to reduce impacts, as follows:

Ø      Since 1996, Cal-Am production is limited to 15,285 AFA, comprised of 11,285 AFA limit on Carmel River diversions imposed by Order 95-10 and 4,000 AFA limit on Seaside Basin extractions imposed by MWMD;

Ø      Subtract 3,376 AFA recognized by SWRCB as Cal-Am’s legal right to divert water from the Carmel River;

Ø      Subtract 3,500 AFA estimated to be taken by Cal-Am from the Seaside Basin in the future (this is 500 AFA less than current limit of 4,000 AFA);

Ø      Thus, the quantity needed to replace unlawful diversions and provide a lawful supply for current community water use is 8,409 AFA.

In contrast, the 10,730 AFA unlawful diversions estimated in Order 95-10 was based on historical Carmel River diversions in the 1979-1988 period, with the average defined as 14,106 AFA.  The 10,730 AFA represents 14,106 AFA (historical Carmel River diversions) minus 3,376 AFA (recognized diversion right).  Since water year 1997, SWRCB Order 95-10 has prohibited Cal-Am from taking more than 11,285 AFA from the river, which is roughly 2,800 AF less than the historical 14,106 AF.  Thus, the 10,730 AFA estimate of unlawful diversions in Order 95-10 does not reflect current conditions.

IMPACT ON RESOURCES:  The FY 2003-2004 budget includes $876,500 for environmental review and related engineering work for the period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004. Nearly all of these funds will be spent for the Phase 2 work completed to date. Funds are currently budgeted only for Phase 2 work included in the current consultant contracts. The funding source is the Capital Projects Fund, which obtains revenue primarily from MPWMD water connection fees on permits for new construction or remodels. Previous Board direction has been to use the Capital Projects Fund reserve when water augmentation project expenditures have exceeded revenues. As described in the March 31, 2004 budget workshop, limited reserve funds will be available by June 2004. Overview of Consultant Costs for Phase 1 and Phase 2 The Board approved retaining JSA/CDM in March 2002; the Phase 1 contract was signed on April 17, 2002 with a not-to-exceed limit of$723,775.  JSA/CDM invoices for the period April 2002 through April 4, 2003 totaled $638,267 or 88% of the contract limit for Phase 1. The Board approved of the Phase 2 contract with JSA/CDM on April 2 and an amendment for permit activities on May 2, 2003 with a not-to-exceed amount of$946,750 for Phase 2 (contract signed May 19, 2003).  JSA invoices from April 5, 2003 through February 22, 2004 total  $785,173 (83% of contract limit). This amount does not include CDM costs for February and March 2004, and does not include JSA costs for March 2004, together estimated at roughly$83,000.  Thus, estimated Phase 2 costs through late March 2004 total about $868,000 (rounded), about 92% of the contract limit. The combined total cost for Phase 1 and Phase 2 desalination EIR studies incurred from April 2002 through March 2004 is estimated at roughly$1.5 million.  Exhibit 4-C summarizes the above cost information.