|
The mission of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) is to "manage, augment, and protect water resources for the benefit of the community and environment". MPWMD serves as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project (CRDRP) proposed by the California-American Water Company (Cal-Am). MPWMD is preparing this supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) on the reservoir project, including an evaluation of water supply alternatives. The State CEQA Guidelines, in Section 15126(d), require an EIR to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project to determine whether a feasible alternative (or combination of alternatives) can avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the project, even if the alternatives would "impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly". "Feasible" is defined in the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15364) as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors". The alternatives discussion also includes comparative environmental, cost, and other feasibility information, but not at the same level of detail as the proposed project. California Assembly Bill (AB) 1182, signed into law in September 1998, requires the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to identify an alternative "water resources plan" that would be implemented if the CRDRP does not come to fruition. At the request of the CPUC and because of extensive public interest, MPWMD has expanded this alternatives analysis beyond what is required by CEQA to address concepts suggested in a series of CPUC public participation workshops on the CRDRP held during summer 1997. Preliminary comparative environmental, drought protection, cost, and feasibility information for selected alternative resource plans is provided in this appendix. These data could serve as a springboard for more detailed future evaluations by the CPUC and other entities that are beyond the scope of this SEIR. As part of the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement (MPWMD 1994a, also known as the 1994 New Los Padres [NLP] EIR), MPWMD evaluated numerous water supply alternatives between 1988 and 1995 in compliance with procedures identified by CEQA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Section 404(b)(1) of the federal Clean Water Act. Information on alternatives is also included in the administrative record that led the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to grant water rights approvals for the NLP Dam and Reservoir Project in July 1995. Additional alternatives have been evaluated by MPWMD since November 1995, when an MPWMD-sponsored bond measure for the NLP project was not approved by voters. The purposes of this technical appendix to the SEIR are as follows:
This appendix includes the following components:
To avoid interfering with the continuity of the text, tables and figures appear at the end of this appendix.
MPWMD is the lead agency to process a permit application by Cal-Am to expand its water distribution system by constructing the CRDRP. Cal-Am’s application was accepted by MPWMD as complete in March 1997. This project would be a 24,000-af dam and reservoir on the Carmel River, located about 0.5 mile downstream of the existing Los Padres Dam, which is also owned and operated by Cal-Am. The CRDRP is physically identical to MPWMD’s earlier NLP project proposal. The CRDRP has been characterized by Cal-Am as a "no growth" project because it would be operated in a way that does not allocate approximately 3,400 af to be used for development (i.e., new connections to the water supply system and remodels) that would have been accommodated by the NLP project. Instead, the water would remain in the Carmel River system to improve drought protection and provide increased environmental enhancement. Extensive environmental documentation and alternatives evaluations, presented in a 10-volume EIR/IS and two EIR addenda, were prepared by MPWMD over the 1988-1995 period for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWMD 1994a-d, 1995a-c). Based on this information, the MPWMD Board of Directors determined in August 1995 that the NLP project was the most feasible, least environmentally damaging project that met MPWMD’s project purposes. The board set an election date of November 1995 to seek voter approval for MPWMD financing of the NLP project (Measure "C") as required by MPWMD law. Measure "C" was not approved by the voters, however. Since then, MPWMD has focused on non-dam-related water supply alternatives while maintaining the state water rights permit and federal Section 404 permit that were obtained for the NLP project in 1995. In November 1996, Cal-Am announced its proposal to construct the CRDRP. That announcement was in response to SWRCB Order WR 95-10, Cal-Am’s assessment of various alternatives, and the results of a commissioned survey of nearly 16,000 voters conducted after the November 1995 election on the NLP project. According to Cal-Am, results of the survey indicated that defeat of the project was primarily based on concerns over its growth-inducing potential, not necessarily on the merits of MPWMD’s project. The CRDRP, with its "no growth" component, is thought by Cal-Am to be the best option to respond to community concerns and meet the requirements of the SWRCB order (which states that Cal-Am could construct, as one means of compliance, a project similar to the NLP project to legalize its water supply). Because none of the project water yield is envisioned to be used for new connections and remodels within the community, the existing Cal-Am production limit of 17,641 af/yr would not change as a result of the CRDRP. Cal-Am has requested that MPWMD license or transfer the use of MPWMD’s existing state and federal permits for the dam to Cal-Am. The federal permit is Clean Water Act Section 404 permit 20364S09, issued to MPWMD by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) in June 1995. The state permit is SWRCB water rights permit 20808, issued in October 1995 based on Decision 1632. In February 1998, the SWRCB issued Order WR 98-04 as a result of the settlement of litigation on SWRCB’s Carmel River decisions. Order WR 98-04 amended certain aspects of Decision 1632 and Order WR 95-10. Notable provisions include restoration of certain MPWMD water rights that had been revoked, use of year-round water diversions from the Carmel River, extended deadlines for project construction, establishment of a maximum Cal-Am production limit from the river basin, and actions to minimize diversion from the Carmel River in the low-flow season. Order WR 98-04 is provided in Appendix G. The MPWMD Board of Directors will determine whether to certify the SEIR and approve Cal-Am’s application to amend its water distribution system and will resolve the disposition of MPWMD’s existing permits for the NLP project in mid-1999. The CPUC will then hold separate evidentiary hearings to determine whether to approve Cal-Am’s application to construct the dam, which would result in changes to water rates. The CPUC determination is anticipated in early 2000. In December 1995, the Monterey County Superior Court determined that the 1994 NLP Final EIR was deficient. As a result, the court ordered that MPWMD rescind its September 1994 certification of the Final EIR and ordered that a focused supplement be prepared to address concerns raised by owners of vineyards near the proposed dam site. This ruling was upheld by the Appellate Court in August 1997. Consistent with that ruling, the alternatives evaluation in the 1994 NLP Final EIR is the baseline for new information on alternatives evaluated in this appendix. California AB 1182, passed in August 1998, requires the CPUC to identify an alternative "water resources plan" to the CRDRP proposal that could be implemented if the CRDRP is not approved or is not implemented. This legislation was signed into law by Governor Pete Wilson on September 23, 1998. In a similar action on August 6, 1998, the CPUC approved Decision 98-08-036, which directed Cal-Am to identify a long-term contingency plan describing the program or combination of programs that Cal-Am would pursue if, for any reason, the new Carmel River Dam does not go forward. According to Cal-Am’s permit applications to MPWMD, the CPUC, and the SWRCB and Cal-Am’s communications with the Corps, the CRDRP has three stated purposes:
Because the CRDRP is characterized as a "no growth" project, Cal-Am production would not increase above the 17,641-af/yr production limit currently set by MPWMD. The project would not directly provide water for new construction and remodels that increase water use. As described in Section A.2.4 below, this production limit requires a review of previous determinations on the feasibility of certain alternatives (or combinations of alternatives) because earlier analyses assumed Cal-Am production limits of at least 21,000 af/yr.
A.2.3 PREVIOUS ALTERNATIVES EVALUATIONS A.2.3.1 Alternatives Evaluations for 1994 NLP EIR (1988-1995) The previous MPWMD alternatives evaluation was guided by three project goals:
The specific wording of the formal statement of project purpose evolved over time but consistently reflected these goals. With these objectives in mind, MPWMD has evaluated various water supply options since its inception in 1978. Early studies led to various-sized proposals for a dam and reservoir at the New San Clemente site, located downstream of the existing San Clemente Dam. A notice of preparation of an EIR on a 29,000-af reservoir project was issued in 1982, and a Draft EIR/IS on that project was completed in late 1987. Based on comments received on the Draft EIR/IS for the then-proposed New San Clemente Project, the MPWMD Board of Directors determined that a Supplemental Draft EIR/IS should be prepared and a comprehensive evaluation of water supply alternatives should be performed. The evaluation would be conducted in phases, with more detailed evaluations performed on alternatives that passed through initial screening criteria. This multiyear process was guided by an interagency oversight group chaired by then-Congressman Leon Panetta. MPWMD did not proceed to the next phase of the evaluation until consensus was achieved by the interagency group, particularly in relation to alternatives that were screened out as being infeasible. Public workshops were also held throughout the evaluation process. The alternatives evaluation process was conducted in compliance with CEQA, NEPA, and federal Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) requirements. This section summarizes the alternatives evaluation efforts undertaken by MPWMD and other agencies from 1988 through 1995. For a more detailed discussion of the alternatives evaluation process, refer to the following documents on file at the MPWMD office:
Part I Evaluation—1988. More than 30 alternatives (listed in Table A-1) were evaluated based on studies conducted before and during 1988. The alternatives included new or enlarged dams on Carmel River or its tributaries, offstream storage reservoirs, new groundwater development and recharge, sediment removal from existing reservoirs, water importation, desalination, increased conservation (e.g., cisterns and retrofit), and reclamation. This analysis was primarily qualitative, except for a total annual cost limit of $8.64 million per year (in 1988 dollars) that was set at that time. (The total annual cost incorporated capital costs, financing, and operating costs.) This amount reflected the board’s determination, at that time, that a new project should not result in more than a 30% increase in water rates. The intent was to identify significant cost, technological, logistical, availability, and environmental constraints that would render an alternative infeasible. Fourteen alternatives were designated as satisfying or conditionally satisfying the Part I criteria (conditional satisfaction indicated that more study was needed to confirm viability). Table A-2 provides the rationale for dismissing various alternatives from further consideration. Part II Evaluation—1988. For the Part II evaluation, MPWMD assessed various alternatives (including many combinations and size variations of alternatives) that passed the Part I evaluation and met the $8.64-million total annual cost limit. The Carmel Valley Simulation (CVSIM) computer model was used to evaluate each alternative with regard to the following four water supply and streamflow performance criteria that reflected the project purposes:
Six alternatives were recommended as passing (or conditionally passing) the Part II evaluation: three sizes of New San Clemente Dam (one option entailed combining the dam with new wells in the Lower Carmel Valley), two sizes of NLP Dam (one option combined with new wells), and the San Clemente Creek Dam (a pumped storage option) combined with new wells. The Part II report also identified alternatives that did not pass the Part I criteria but were recommended for inclusion in the EIR/IS because of a CEQA requirement to evaluate alternatives that are feasible but do not fully meet project goals. These projects were dams on Chupines and Cachagua Creeks, sediment removal from existing reservoirs to return them to their original capacity, a small NLP Dam, and desalination. Technical Evaluations and Related Action—1989-1991. After the Part II evaluation was completed in November 1988, MPWMD performed several technical investigations to assess conditionally approved alternatives. In addition, several other significant actions were taken by the MPWMD Board of Directors:
Alternatives Evaluated in Detail in the SDEIR/IS—August 1991. Based on the evaluations and actions summarized above, the projects that had originally been recommended for further study in the Part II alternatives report were revised and amended to the following alternatives for detailed environmental review in the SDEIR/IS:
Based on the evaluations in the 1991 SDEIR/IS, certain alternatives were determined to be either infeasible or unacceptable. These were the 9,000-af NLP project; the New San Clemente, San Clemente Creek, Chupines Creek, and Cachagua Creek dam projects; and the undefined 7-MGD desalination project. The reasons for not pursuing these alternatives are explained in the 404(b)(1) Compliance Evaluation Final Report (MPWMD 1995f) and summarized in Table A-3. They include failure to meet project purpose, extremely high cost because of technical uncertainties, questionable site availability, and location outside the MPWMD boundary. Alternatives Evaluated in Detail in SDEIR/IS-II—February 1993. Five alternatives were evaluated in detail in the Supplemental Draft EIR/IS-II (SDEIR/IS-II), which was circulated in February 1993. The alternatives listed below were selected based on new information obtained from additional technical evaluations in 1991–1992. This new information included refinements of the CVSIM model code to reflect detailed instream flow requirements developed by the interagency Fishery Working Group (comprising state, federal, and MPWMD and agency fishery experts), the experience of the 1987–1991 drought period, information from the desalination project EIR about specific desalination project sites, revised buildout projections (maximum growth allowed by general plans and zoning), and changes in MPWMD board policy about additional pumping from wells in the Lower Carmel Valley as requested by the California Department of Fish and Game. The five alternatives were the following:
Based on the evaluations in the 1993 SDEIR/IS-II, the 15,000-af Cañada Reservoir plus desalination project and the 7-MGD desalination project were determined to be infeasible as long-term water supply projects. The reasons for not pursuing these alternatives are explained in the 404(b)(1) Compliance Evaluation Final Report (MPWMD 1995f) and summarized in Table A-3. They include failure to meet overall project purpose, excessive cost because of technical uncertainties, logistical factors regarding an authorizing election, and location outside the MPWMD boundary. The NLP plus desalination project, although technically feasible, was not evaluated further because voters rejected the 3-MGD desalination plant in June 1993. Alternatives Evaluated in Detail in 1994 Final EIR and Addenda—1994–1995. Based on the 1993 SD EIR/IS-II, which identified the 24,000-af NLP project as the environmentally preferred alternative, the Final EIR/IS that was prepared in March 1994 and certified in September 1994 focused on only two projects:
The legislation that created MPWMD requires an Engineer’s Report and public election to fund construction of major water projects. Thus, two addenda to the Final EIR/IS were prepared in 1995 that reflected additional geotechnical work performed in 1994–1995 and the Section 404 and water rights permit conditions specified in June and July 1995 (MPWMD 1995a, 1995b). As part of the Section 404 permit decision, the Corps relied on the 404(b)(1) Compliance Evaluation Final Report (MPWMD 1995f). Other Alternatives Evaluations—1988–1995. Other MPWMD alternatives evaluations occurred in the 1988–1995 period, related to MPWMD’s Near-Term Water Supply Program. This program began during the 1987–1991 drought, when the MPWMD Board of Directors recognized that, although the long-term project would take years to complete, pressing water needs existed at that time. A variety of smaller scale options were evaluated during this period, particularly desalination and groundwater development. The Near-Term Desalination Project EIR (MPWMD 1992) describes several desalination and other alternative options that were evaluated. As a result of environmental and engineering studies, MPWMD proposed a 3-MGD near-term desalination project in Sand City. The electorate rejected this project in June 1993. Based on groundwater evaluations funded by MPWMD, Cal-Am was able to develop the Paralta well in the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The addition of this well to the Cal-Am system ended a 28-month water moratorium, helped alleviate water diversions from the Carmel River, and improved drought protection. A.2.3.2 Non-Dam Alternative Evaluations, 1996 to Present The July 1995 SWRCB decisions relating to the Carmel River and the November 1995 election in which voters failed to approve the ballot measure for the NLP project greatly influenced the course of MPWMD alternatives efforts beginning in December 1995. SWRCB Decisions on Carmel River Issues. In July 1995, in response to complaints lodged in the late 1980s against Cal-Am alleging illegal diversions of water from the Carmel River Basin and harm to the river environment, the SWRCB issued Order WR 95-10. Key elements of the order included the following determinations:
Goals were set for reductions in water production from Carmel Valley, corresponding to 11,990 af in water year 1996 and 11,285 af in water year 1997 and each subsequent year. Several options were available to Cal-Am to rectify this situation:
In November 1995, after filing unsuccessful requests for reconsideration by the SWRCB, MPWMD, Cal-Am, and environmental organizations filed suit against the SWRCB regarding various aspects of its decisions. This litigation was settled in February 1998 and resulted in SWRCB Order WR 98-04, which modified aspects of Order WR 95-10 and Decision 1632. MPWMD Action Plan for Water Supply Alternatives. Although the NLP project bond measure was not approved in November 1995, the water supply problems facing the community remained. Thus, in December 1995, the MPWMD Board of Directors instructed its staff to focus on non-dam alternatives while maintaining the viability of the federal and state permits that had been obtained for the reservoir project. Staff was directed to hold public workshops on water supply options, reevaluate water supply options, incorporate alternatives research conducted by Cal-Am, and develop an action plan for implementation in 1996. After two public workshops and evaluation of more than 50 supply augmentation and demand reduction alternatives (Table A-4), the board adopted the Action Plan for Water Supply Alternatives (MPWMD 1996b) on February 29, 1996. The Action Plan, which was the first step toward developing a comprehensive Water Augmentation Plan, recommended immediate steps to be implemented in pursuit of three projects:
In addition, the Action Plan recommended that the following ongoing MPWMD efforts toward six other water supply and demand reduction options be continued:
In April 1996, the board allocated funds to retain consulting specialists to evaluate water augmentation projects (e.g., larger seawater desalination projects than had been previously considered and injection of excess Carmel River water into the Seaside Groundwater Basin for later recovery). These evaluations were characterized as Phase I studies because they focused on the feasibility of these projects. If the projects were determined to be feasible, Phase II or III evaluations were envisioned that would provide the more detailed information needed to obtain a public vote on a project. Concurrently, MPWMD staff and consultants carried out evaluations in the Seaside Groundwater Basin that were already under way in early 1996. MPWMD also continued its efforts to develop projects that would reduce water demand, such as development of a toilet retrofit/rebate program, increased use of wastewater reclamation, a revised Cal-Am rate structure to reward low water use, and other means to promote water conservation. MPWMD Preliminary Water Augmentation Plan and Update (1997-1998). A Preliminary Water Augmentation Plan (WAP) (MPWMD 1996a) was approved in January 1997. The purposes of the WAP were to report on the findings of Phase I water supply evaluations completed in 1996, describe important water supply circumstances and choices facing the board and the community at that time, and recommend future actions to achieve water supply goals. At its January 1997 meeting, the board adopted a goal to meet the needs of existing legal lots of record (as of January 1, 1997) and expected remodels over the next 10 years (i.e., through 2006) and directed staff to determine the quantity of water required to meet these needs. Regarding specific water supply alternatives, the board adopted the following plan recommendations:
These evaluations were carried out in 1997 and the results were described in the January 1998 Update to Preliminary Water Augmentation Plan (MPWMD 1998a). In addition, the following important actions occurred from January 1997 through August 1998 relating to water supply alternatives:
Many of these actions are described in the preliminary WAP and WAP Update (MPWMD 1996a, 1998) or in subsequent sections of this appendix. A.2.4 ASSESSMENT OF PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS Section A.2.3 of this appendix describes the criteria and methods used to assess long-term water supply alternatives through 1995 in light of the project purposes described for the NLP project. Specifically, previous evaluations assumed a total Cal-Am production limit of at least 21,000 af/yr; the CRDRP, as currently proposed by Cal-Am, assumes no change to the existing 17,641-af/yr production limit. The requirement in SWRCB Order WR 95-10 to legalize Cal-Am diversions from the Carmel River Basin was not a factor in past evaluations of water supply alternatives, but presently it plays an important role in determining which alternatives may be feasible. In light of the many changes and new information made available since 1994, the question arises whether alternatives that had previously been discarded as less viable should be reconsidered. Sections A.3 and A.4 of this appendix address this question. Section A.3 is a comprehensive review of the feasibility of seven major classes of alternatives and incorporates information on more than 70 individual recommended alternatives, including those considered in previous evaluations. Section A.4 evaluates the most promising combinations of alternatives in light of Cal-Am’s proposed project purposes. This evaluation is broader in scope than those performed in the past because combinations of alternatives are no longer restricted by cost limits. Earlier analyses were held to cost limit guidelines lower than those contemplated in 1998 ($100 million or more). Those earlier cost limits restricted the number of project components that could be combined to form an alternative project. The current evaluations can accommodate combinations of three or four major alternative projects. Based on a review of previous CVSIM evaluations (described in Section A.2.3.1), few substantive changes have been made to the basic information about the technical, regulatory, economic, environmental, logistical, and social factors that were used to assess project feasibility. The rest of this section summarizes key differences between past and present evaluations; detailed information on the new alternatives evaluation is provided in Sections A.3 and A.4. As described in Section A.3.4, a noteworthy technical change is the apparent feasibility of injection/recovery in the Seaside Coastal Subareas as a result of advances in injection well technology. Studies conducted in the early 1980s indicated that this was not a promising option. In contrast, recent hydrogeologic studies in the Seaside Groundwater Basin indicate that production from the basin (with existing facilities) should be reduced rather than increased. As described in Section A.3.5, recent studies have identified potential new opportunities for wastewater reclamation. SWRCB Order WR 95-10 and Decision 1632 have had far-reaching effects on the viability of several types of alternatives, especially those that entail groundwater development in Carmel Valley (see Section A.3.4.1). As explained in Section A.3.3, state regulatory actions and recent sedimentation caused by large storms in 1995 and 1998 have reduced the viability of dredging at the existing San Clemente Dam and Reservoir. The DWR’s Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) has required Cal-Am to retrofit the existing dam to meet current seismic safety standards. Based on deliberations by an interagency team of engineers and fishery experts, the seismic retrofit project will likely entail sluice gates built into the dam to pass accumulated sediment in a controlled manner to maintain about 200 af of storage in the reservoir. Dredging was considered for sediment management but was not selected as the preferred option because of the extremely high cost and the potential for substantial environmental damage. As explained in Section A.3.6, water importation options appear to be less viable now than was previously thought, as a result of a ballot measure limiting options for the Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, contemplated changes to management of the federal Central Valley Project, policies against interbasin transfer of water, and development of the Fort Ord Reuse Plan. Other important developments have been the listing of two species in the Carmel River Basin as threatened and the concerns expressed in 1997 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) about the need to maintain adequate habitat conditions for frog tadpoles in the summer (Noda pers. comm.). The listing of South Central California ESU steelhead and the California red-legged frog strongly indicate that providing sustained instream flow in the Carmel River to protect these species has increased in importance, and project viability may depend more on this factor than was previously the case. The listings indicate that smaller mainstem dams or tributary/offstream reservoirs are less likely to be feasible. Some of these reservoirs, if combined with a large enough desalination project and operated as described in earlier evaluations, may be able to meet the current yield requirement of 17,641 af/yr. Such projects, however, would not be large enough to provide adequate instream flow to compensate for loss of habitat for threatened species resulting from inundation, or to address the existing degradation of river habitat for these species, which must be corrected. Under current Endangered Species Act requirements, streamflow requirements for the tributary and small dam projects are very likely to be higher today than those "modified operations" assumed in the CVSIM runs analyzed for previous evaluations. In theory, if a large tributary reservoir (larger than 10,000 af) operated primarily to provide adequate instream flow were combined with a large desalination plant (larger than 7 MGD), it might be possible to provide adequate municipal supply and streamflow. (Note that any assumptions about the adequacy of municipal supply and instream flow must be confirmed by CVSIM analysis.) However, the economic feasibility of such a project would be questionable because of potentially significant rate increases borne by ratepayers, and such a project would still entail the adverse habitat inundation and construction impacts associated with dams. The site location and environmental concerns associated with larger desalination projects would also remain.
|