2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 NEED FOR PROJECT AND PROJECT PURPOSES
2.1.1 ACTIONS BY CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
2.1.2 ACTIONS BY CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION REGARDING CAL-AM REQUESTS
2.1.3 ACTION BY MPWMD AND OTHER AGENCIES
2.2 PROJECT FACILITIES
2.2.1 CARMEL RIVER DAM AND RESERVOIR
2.2.2 FISH COLLECTION FACILITIES
2.2.3 OTHER PROJECT COMPONENTS
2.3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND SCHEDULE
2.4 PROJECT OPERATION
2.4.1 REVISIONS TO CVSIM MODEL FOR THIS SEIR
2.5 PROJECT COSTS
2.6 PROJECT TIMELINE
2.7 NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

2.1 NEED FOR PROJECT AND PROJECT PURPOSES

As discussed in detail in Chapter 2 of the NLP EIR, improvements to the Monterey Peninsula's water supply system have been needed for many years, for the following reasons:

 
• the area is vulnerable to climatic variation and the impact of multiyear drought on limited local supply resources is severe;
• additional water supply is needed to meet future demand from the residential and commercial sectors of the community; and
• existing water use has an adverse effect on the public trust (environmental) resources of the Carmel River because insufficient supply is available for migratory fish and riparian (streamside) vegetation.

 
• legalize the use of an estimated 10,730 acre-feet per year (af/yr) of water removed by Cal-Am from the Carmel River Basin, as required by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in Order WR 95-10;
• meet streamflow requirements necessary to protect the public trust resources of the Carmel River, as described in SWRCB Decision 1632; and
• provide adequate drought protection for existing water customers (i.e., those served under the current production limit of 17,641 af/yr).

back to top

2.1.1 ACTIONS BY CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

The SWRCB is the state agency that controls the right to divert, store, use, and distribute waters of the state within its jurisdiction, including certain defined surface and subsurface waters within the Carmel River Basin. As described in Section 4.6 in Chapter 4 of the 1994 NLP EIR, water rights law in California is complex and involves various categories of water rights. Refer to that document (MPWMD 1994a) for background information on types of water rights, permits already held by MPWMD and Cal-Am, MPWMD's application for a water right for the NLP project, complaints filed against Cal-Am in the late 1980s alleging unlawful use of Carmel River Basin water and harm to public trust resources, and hearings held in 1992 on these issues.

2.1.1.1 Chronology of SWRCB Actions

Since the NLP EIR was completed, various actions have been taken by the SWRCB and other agencies regarding the water rights issues mentioned above:

 
• November 1994--The SWRCB continued hearings on MPWMD's application for the NLP project and deferred making a decision on the complaints against Cal-Am until the NLP hearings had been completed.
• July 1995--The SWRCB issued Decision 1632 approving water rights for the NLP project (which became permit 20808). SWRCB issued Order WR 95-10 addressing complaints against Cal-Am.
• Fall 1995--The SWRCB denied requests for reconsideration by various parties; lawsuits were filed by MPWMD, Cal-Am, and a consortium of environmental groups challenging various aspects of the SWRCB determinations (i.e., Order WR 95-10 and Decision 1632).
• October 1997--The SWRCB issued administrative civil liability complaint No. 262.10-03 against Cal-Am, including a $168,000 fine, for exceeding the production goal of 11,285 af/yr from the Carmel River Basin. This complaint was superseded by complaint No. 262.5-6 in August 1998, which requires Cal-Am to sell its Forest Lake Reservoir and implement domestic water system improvements in the Pebble Beach area that will increase water conservation and reclamation, resulting in reduced environmental damage to the Carmel River.
• February 1998--SWRCB issued Order WR 98-04, which amended elements of Decision 1632 (permit 20808) for the NLP project and Order WR 95-10 to reflect the settlement of litigation.
• June 1998--The SWRCB denied a formal request by MPWMD for adjustment to the 11,285-af/yr interim production goal, as allowed by Order WR 95-10, to avoid interfering with previous MPWMD allocation commitments.
• July 1998--MPWMD filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of the SWRCB denial.

Order WR 95-10 determined that the water being pumped from the Carmel River by Cal-Am was subject to SWRCB authority and that Cal-Am did not have a legal right to a large portion of the water being diverted from the Carmel River. The order stated that Cal-Am was not entitled to an estimated 10,730 af/yr of water that was being diverted, and it established actions to be taken by Cal-Am to reduce reliance on Carmel River water. The order further established an interim annual production goal of no more than 11,285 af/yr from surface and subsurface (well) production from the Carmel River Basin, starting in water year 1997, and directed Cal-Am to secure permits for its water use, address the adverse environmental consequences of that use, and begin immediate water conservation.

The order noted that Cal-Am has several options in addressing its obligations:

 
• obtain water rights from an entity such as MPWMD through its NLP project, approved by the SWRCB in Decision 1632;
• build and obtain rights for a project similar to the NLP project; or
• seek new water supplies outside the Carmel River Basin.

2.1.1.3 Decision 1632

In Decision 1632, the SWRCB approved MPWMD's application to appropriate water from the Carmel River with the NLP project. The decision authorized the amount and seasonal timing of diversions and established conditions for project operation that would protect the environmental resources of the Carmel River. The SWRCB found that the proposed operational criteria for the NLP project would maintain flows in the Carmel River and mitigate the adverse effects of the existing diversions. The SWRCB also recommended that the stream be declared as fully appropriated in May-December, meaning that no additional water rights applications for year-round diversions would be approved beyond those identified and no additional demand for water by applicants with junior rights could be met from the Carmel River during those months.

2.1.1.4 Order WR 98-04

In settlement of litigation, the SWRCB in February 1998 issued Order WR 98-04, which affected the NLP project water rights and diversion schedule, described in Decision 1632. Order WR 98-04 restores certain MPWMD water rights that had been revoked, allows use of year-round water diversions from the Carmel River, and extends construction deadlines. These changes ensure that sufficient water rights exist for the reservoir project and allow it to be operated as planned.

Order WR 98-04 also amends Order WR 95-10 to maximize production from the Seaside Groundwater Basin and minimize diversions from the Carmel River during low-flow periods to the degree feasible. To keep the Seaside basin from being overtaxed when Carmel River streamflow is plentiful, Order WR 98-04 requires production from the Seaside area to be minimized when Carmel River streamflow is greater than 40 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the Highway 1 Bridge. Order WR 98-04 also calls for Cal-Am to extract water from the wells farthest downstream to the degree feasible and to assess the feasibility of reducing diversions from the Carmel Valley Filter Plant.

back to top
 

2.1.2 ACTION BY CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION REGARDING CAL-AM REQUESTS

In an effort to remain below the SWRCB-imposed production limit, Cal-Am requested and obtained authorization from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to institute a four-phase water conservation program that entails restrictions on outdoor watering and other water waste prohibitions. At the time of the 1997 SWRCB fine, Cal-Am was in Phase III of the program. As a result of the SWRCB action, the program moved into Phase IV and has remained there to date. In May 1998, Cal-Am submitted applications to the CPUC seeking approval of a mandatory water rationing program, aimed primarily at high-use residential water customers, that would set maximum water use amounts, fines, and restrictions in addition to the Phase IV conservation program currently in place. Cal-Am also requested a moratorium on water meter connections, funding for expanded conservation and education activities, and a refined rate structure that severely penalizes heavy water users. On August 6, 1998, the CPUC ruled to dismiss the four Cal-Am applications without prejudice, directed Cal-Am to work more closely with MPWMD to address water demand concerns, and indicated that Cal-Am could resubmit similar applications in the future if necessary. As of September 30, 1998, community water use for water year 1998 complied with annual Cal-Am production goal of 11,285 af set by the SWRCB.

back to top

2.1.3 ACTION BY MPWMD AND OTHER AGENCIES

2.1.3.1 MPWMD Action Regarding Seaside Coastal Subareas

Cal-Am presently maintains eight wells that extract water from the Seaside Coastal Subareas. Based on hydrogeologic studies conducted in 1990 (MPWMD 1990a), MPWMD set the reliable, long-term yield for the Cal-Am system at 4,000 af/yr. Cal-Am production may be higher in some dry years so long as production is reduced in subsequent wet years to allow the basin to recover.

A 1997 hydrogeologic update study (Fugro West 1997a) recommended that the existing estimate of the long-term, sustainable water yield for the subbasin as a whole (Cal-Am and non-Cal-Am combined) should be reduced from 4,505 af/yr to 4,375 af/yr. The report noted that current total production exceeded this amount, but no evidence of seawater intrusion has been detected by MPWMD's network of coastal monitoring wells. One of the key recommendations of the report is that groundwater pumping should be redistributed within the coastal subareas to more effectively maintain production in the basin within its long-term yield. With the wet weather in 1998, MPWMD and Cal-Am have revised operation and management scenarios to reduce extractions from the Seaside Coastal Subareas. The Fugro West recommendation to reduce Seaside production must be balanced with the SWRCB requirement to maximize production from the Seaside area to the degree feasible.

2.1.3.2 Federal Actions Regarding Endangered Species

In 1996 and 1997, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) listed the California red-legged frog and steelhead trout as threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Protection under the ESA also applies to habitat that supports listed species. Thus, these listings could result in requirements to change existing operations or reduce water extractions from the Carmel River. For example, in response to dewatering of tadpole habitat in summer 1997, the USFWS transmitted a letter to Cal-Am and the SWRCB asking that all water diverters along the Carmel River that affect known frog habitat cease water extraction until the tadpoles could mature into adults. In 1998, enforcement action, including a fine, was imposed on Cal-Am for accidental dewatering of a portion of the stream over Labor Day 1997. The listing of the frog and steelhead under the ESA indicates that protection of environmental resources in and along the Carmel River has become increasingly important in recent years.

back to top

2.2 PROJECT FACILITIES

The CRDRP is physically identical to the NLP project proposed by MPWMD in 1994 and formally described in the Final Engineer's Report (MPWMD 1995c). It is notable that the project described in the Final Engineer's Report is a refined version of the project described in the 1994 Final EIR. These refinements are identified below and in several chapters of this SEIR, which reflect the following changes from the 1994 NLP EIR:

 
• revised project design and cost based on additional geotechnical and engineering studies conducted in late 1994 and early 1995, including changed access road configurations;
• revised shape and height of dam (spillway elevation remains the same), and increased ratio of cement in aggregate mix to withstand more severe seismic events;
• revised construction scenario, including number and rate of truck trips and total construction time;
• revised location of construction staging area to reservoir inundation area upstream of dam (rather than downstream of dam), which avoids destruction of 16 acres of wildlife habitat;
• development of Guidelines for NLP Construction Management Plan (MPWMD 1995d), based on consultations with Cachagua area residents and viticulturists in 1994-1995; and
• revised construction, operation, and mitigation measures in accordance with Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and SWRCB water rights permits and orders issued since June-July 1995.

2.2.1 CARMEL RIVER DAM AND RESERVOIR

The Carmel River Dam would be located on the Carmel River approximately 19 miles southeast of the City of Monterey and 7 miles southeast of Carmel Valley Village (Figure 2-1). The site is located approximately 2,400 feet downstream of the existing Los Padres Dam and 24 river miles upstream from the mouth of the Carmel River at Carmel Bay (Figure 2-2). The new reservoir would completely inundate the existing Los Padres Dam and Reservoir.

The Carmel River Dam would be a 282-foot-high, roller-compacted concrete (RCC) dam measuring approximately 1,600 feet along its crest. The top of the dam would be at an elevation of 1,142 feet, and the spillway crest and normal maximum water surface would be 1,130 feet elevation. The dam height and top of dam elevation are different from the values stated in the 1994 NLP EIR because of refined design and analysis performed since that document was prepared (MARK Group 1995). The spillway crest (lake-level) elevation, however, would remain the same. Refinements to the dam design include a change in the configuration of the dam to a straight rather than curved axis. A plan view of the proposed dam is shown in Figure 2-3, and a cross section through the dam is shown in Figure 2-4. The type of dam recommended for the Carmel River Dam site is a straight, gravity-type RCC structure. The gravity-type structural section is designed to remain stable against all overturning and sliding forces. The dam would be designed to withstand the maximum credible earthquake on faults in the region and to meet all requirements of the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). Refer to Chapter 3 of this supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) for additional information on seismic design criteria.

The spillway would be constructed near the center of the dam to allow water in excess of the dam's outlet works capacity to pass safely over the dam. The spillway would consist of a 220-foot-wide overflow structure and would include a stilling basin at the downstream toe of the dam to prevent erosion of the riverbanks. The preliminary design includes a 4-foot-high concrete parapet wall on the dam crest to provide freeboard as protection against wave action at high flood levels.

A multiple-level vertical intake tower structure would be attached to the upstream face of the dam. The multiple withdrawal levels would allow water to be released from different reservoir elevations so that optimum water quality or temperature can be selected. The location of the intake tower is shown in Figure 2-4.

Permanent all-weather access roads would be constructed for the project. One road would extend from the gate between Princes Camp and the existing Los Padres Dam to the top of the dam on the right (east) abutment. A second road would extend from Cachagua Road west of Princes Camp, across the Carmel River to the left (southwest) bank, past the left (west) dam abutment, to the fish collection facilities approximately 3 miles upstream (south), as shown in Figure 2-2.

Three bridges would be constructed at the locations shown in Figure 2-2. The northernmost bridge, crossing the Carmel River about 0.5 mile northwest of the intersection of Cachagua Road and Nason Road, would be approximately 90 feet long. The bridge crossing Danish Creek would between 150-200 feet long. The southernmost bridge, located on the Carmel River at the fish collection facility upstream of the reservoir, would be incorporated into the diversion structure for the fish screens. Final alignments of access roads and precise locations and configurations of bridges would be developed during final design of the project.

The new reservoir would extend about 2.7 miles upstream from the new dam, including the 1-mile length of the existing Los Padres Reservoir. Thus, 1.7 miles of the Carmel River would be changed from a stream environment to a lake environment. In addition, 0.4 mile of Danish Creek would be flooded. The net result is that 2.1 miles of stream habitat would be covered by the new reservoir. When filled, the new reservoir would cover 266 acres, compared with 55 acres for the existing reservoir.

The new reservoir would cover nearly 4 acres of land within the existing Ventana Wilderness. Another 19 acres of wilderness land would be needed to accommodate the access road and provide a buffer to other wilderness areas. To offset this impact, 143 acres of comparable land now owned by Cal-Am adjacent to the Ventana Wilderness would be exchanged for the 23 acres affected by the proposed project. This 6-to-1 exchange of land was authorized by the U.S. Congress in 1990.

Once this land exchange is completed, the proposed dam, reservoir, and fish collection facilities would be built on property owned by Cal-Am. Certain access roads, most of the fish collection facilities downstream of the dam, and possibly a small portion of the dam itself would be located on property now owned by private individuals, which would be purchased by Cal-Am. The project cost estimates include funds to compensate property owners for loss of their property.

2.2.2 FISH COLLECTION FACILITIES

Migrating fish would be assisted during both upstream and downstream migration. A "trap-and-truck" system would be used to help upstream-migrating adult steelhead trout pass around the dam. Facilities for upstream migration would consist of a fish weir (barrier dam) and ladder approximately 700 feet downstream of the crest of the Carmel River Dam, a trapping and holding facility, and a specially equipped tank truck for hauling. Federal and state agency biologists and engineers have participated in the design of these facilities. Fish transportation densities and methods would be based on the experience gained by MPWMD in its ongoing steelhead rescue programs on the Carmel River. See Appendix D, "Fish and Aquatic Life", for more information.

Downstream migration of fish toward the ocean would be accomplished by collecting fish at a facility upstream of the new reservoir, then transporting them in trucks to a release point downstream of the new dam. To protect the quality of aquatic life, the proposed dam would have multiple outlets so that water can be released from different reservoir elevations to maintain adequate water temperature and water quality (e.g., dissolved oxygen levels).

Detailed information regarding the proposed fish collection facilities is included in two reports: a conceptual design and cost estimate (Bechtel Corp. 1991) and a design review and updated cost estimate (The MARK Group 1995).

2.2.3 OTHER PROJECT COMPONENTS

In addition to the facilities described above, the project contains several other components. Refer to Chapter 4 of the 1994 NLP EIR, the Addendum-2 update prepared by MPWMD in May and August 1995, and the 1995 Final Engineer's Report for more background information (MPWMD 1994a, 1995b, 1995c).

2.2.3.1 Cal-Am Production

The CRDRP is proposed by Cal-Am as a "no growth" project, in keeping with the current MPWMD production limit of 17,641 af/yr for Cal-Am service derived from the Monterey Peninsula Water Resources System (MPWRS).

2.2.3.2 Water Conservation Program

The project design assumes successful implementation of MPWMD's long-term water conservation program, which includes ordinances, public education, and wastewater reclamation. The long-term goal is a 15% reduction in projected per capita use by 2020 (that is, 15% less demand than projected levels if conservation were not practiced). Using Cal-Am production in 1988 as a baseline, a potential savings of 3,900 af was estimated, based on an expected future Cal-Am production of 26,000 af/yr (MPWMD et al. 1989). A revised analysis by MPWMD staff in 1994 concluded that approximately 3,400 af could be saved, assuming future Cal-Am production of 21,000 af/yr with a new water project (MPWMD 1997a). MPWMD is working with Cal-Am and other regional agencies to achieve this goal.

Wastewater reclamation is an important component of MPWMD's water conservation program. MPWMD was one of several entities that sponsored a reclamation project in Del Monte Forest to reduce potable water use by 800 af/yr of metered sales by applying reclaimed water on golf courses and open space in the Pebble Beach area. Of the 800 af saved, 380 af of metered sales is slated as an entitlement to the Pebble Beach Company and two other fiscal sponsors of the project. The remaining 420 af of metered sales is available to MPWMD for use as drought reserve or for allocation to new water uses. To date, MPWMD has declined to allocate this water source.

2.2.3.3 Other Cal-Am System Improvements

To maintain adequate water diversion capabilities at the existing San Clemente Dam, a maintenance dredging program (averaging about 20 af/yr) is assumed to be carried out by Cal-Am. Alternatively, water could be diverted using wells (possibly a radial well, or Ranney collector) placed in the sedimented area. Presently, Cal-Am is evaluating various options for maintaining adequate storage in San Clemente Reservoir as part of a separate EIR being prepared on the proposed seismic retrofit of the dam required by DSOD. That EIR, when it is issued, will contain detailed information on this issue. As directed in a letter from Cal-Am dated June 30, 1998, and in subsequent discussions of an interagency technical committee, this SEIR includes the assumption that action will be taken by Cal-Am to manage sediment and maintain minimal storage in San Clemente Reservoir.

2.2.3.4 Recreation

Recreational activities similar to those allowed at the existing Los Padres Reservoir are envisioned as part of the CRDRP. These would include fishing (as allowed by the California Department of Fish and Game), hiking, equestrian use, and boating in nonmotorized inflatable craft that can be carried to the reservoir. Boating in motorized craft, swimming, and camping at the reservoir area would be prohibited, as would all motorized activities. To maintain the rugged setting, facilities such as restrooms, vehicular boat ramps, and parking near the reservoir are not planned. A management plan for the reservoir area would be developed during final design of the project.

The existing parking area, road, and trail providing access to the Ventana Wilderness would be replaced by a new access road and a parking area near Cachagua Road. These changes would add approximately 0.75 mile to the distance between the public parking area and the Ventana Wilderness boundary. Access to the wilderness would be restricted to some degree during construction for safety reasons.

back to top

2.3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND SCHEDULE

Cal-Am has applied for permits for the project described in the Final Engineer's Report (MPWMD 1995c), which incorporates the preliminary design prepared by The MARK Group in 1995. The MARK Group report presents a construction plan and schedule that includes a construction period of 20 months. Assuming an April start date, the dam construction would be completed by late the following year. Filling of the reservoir would be completed by spring of the third year. One season of normal or near-normal rainfall would be enough to fill the reservoir. If more than one season were required to fill the reservoir, or if a substantial construction delay were to occur, filling of the reservoir would be delayed accordingly.

A significant change from the 1994 NLP EIR, based on The MARK Group's evaluation, is the relocation of the construction staging area to within the new reservoir inundation area, between the existing dam and the new dam site. This change would substantially reduce project construction impacts because the NLP project was initially anticipated to involve construction staging downstream of the new dam. Most of the contractor's construction facilities and activities would be located upstream of the axis of the new dam. Only those facilities required for construction of the outlet works, spillway stilling basin, fish collection facilities for migrating adult steelhead, and portions of the access roads would be located downstream.

The MARK Group report describes a multiple-phase construction plan for the project. Basic aspects of the construction plan include the following:

 
• A detailed written description and drawings depicting the construction sequence are provided in Section 10.0 of The MARK Group's 1995 report.
• A detailed construction schedule is provided in The MARK Group's report, with project construction completed within a 20-month period. This schedule depicts a total construction period 2 months shorter than the 22-month schedule described for the NLP project in the 1994 NLP EIR. However, the updated information provided in The MARK Group's report anticipates that during the critical construction period of May-October in the second year, a 6-day-per-week schedule would be required, rather than 5 days per week. The construction plan and schedule would be further refined during final design. Refer to Chapter 4, "Traffic", for a detailed discussion of the construction scenario.

2.4 PROJECT OPERATION

Project operation refers to the manner and timing by which the project satisfies community water demand and environmental requirements. It relates to water storage, releases from the reservoir, diversion from the river, pumpage from wells, and transmission and treatment of surface water and groundwater supplies. MPWMD, in cooperation with Cal-Am and several resource agencies, developed the Carmel Valley Simulation (CVSIM) computer model, which is used to predict water supply performance, river flows at various locations, groundwater storage and pumping, and other parameters based on various management procedures and assumptions.

Two basic concepts guide the operation of the proposed CRDRP, which would work in tandem with other Cal-Am system components. These are conjunctive use and bypass.

Conjunctive use means that surface supplies are managed in coordination with groundwater supplies so that benefits to the total resource are maximized. For example, instead of diverting and piping most of the streamflow captured at San Clemente Dam (6 miles downstream), about half of the streamflow is allowed to run the length of the river and is captured by wells in the Lower Carmel Valley. This provides benefits to stream-dependent fish and wildlife and maintains groundwater storage in the Lower Carmel Valley, an important source of water in a drought.

Bypass refers to set amounts of flow that must be maintained at different points along the river. When inflow into the reservoir is greater than the amount that must be released to maintain these streamflows, water can be stored. When inflow does not reach these levels, water must be passed through the reservoir and allowed to flow downstream. In most years, inflow often exceeds the bypass levels.

Federal and state permits for the CRDRP include conditions that require releases of water from the reservoir to protect environmental resources, with an emphasis on steelhead. The releases are timed to meet the needs of steelhead at various stages in the species' lifecycle. These flows also benefit other stream-dependent plants and animals, as well as the recreational and aesthetic resources of the river. As shown in Tables 2-1, 2-2, and 2-3, which depict the operating schedule required by the SWRCB for the NLP project, the amount of water released would vary depending on the time of year and the type of water year (i.e., wet, normal, dry, or critically dry). The water release schedule has been developed in cooperation with federal and state fishery agencies. Any future change in this schedule would have to be approved by the same agencies and the SWRCB.

back to top

2.4.1 REVISIONS TO CVSIM MODEL FOR THIS SEIR

The CVSIM computer model is described in detail in Appendix 5, Volume III of the NLP EIR (MPWMD 1994c). This section summarizes the revisions to the CVSIM model and its assumptions that were made between March 1994 and January 1998. This current version (Version 5.1) was used to generate the simulations that are evaluated in this SEIR. An MPWMD technical memorandum is being prepared that provides a more detailed description of the revisions that were made to the CVSIM model for this SEIR. The substantive changes include the following:

 
• The period of record for the Carmel River mainstem and tributary inflows was extended by 4 years to include water years 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996.
• The period of analysis for the simulations was shortened to 39 water years, covering the period from October 1, 1957, through September 30, 1996. This shorter period of analysis was specified at the request of the environmental litigants and is included in the February 1998 settlement agreement, as well as the resulting SWRCB Order WR 98-04.
• The exceedance frequencies for the long-term unimpaired flow record at the San Clemente Reservoir site were updated to include water years 1993-1996. The long-term record includes reconstructed, unimpaired flows from water years 1902-1996, a 95-year period. The exceedance frequencies for streamflow during this period are used to classify each water year by type (i.e., normal or better, below normal, dry, or critically dry).
• The elevation area capacity values for San Clemente Reservoir were updated to reflect the significant sedimentation that occurred as a result of the January and March 1995 storm events in the Upper Carmel River Basin. Specifically, the total storage capacity in San Clemente Reservoir at the current spillway elevation with the flashboards lowered (525 feet above mean sea level) was reduced from 316 af to 147 af.
• The target storage capacity used to trigger maintenance dredging in Los Padres Reservoir was increased from 1,712 af to 2,000 af. This increase was made to compensate for the loss of storage capacity in San Clemente Reservoir due to sedimentation caused by the 1995 flood events.
• Operation of Cal-Am's existing reservoirs was refined to better manage the limited available surface water storage and optimize downstream releases. Operational decisions regarding the maximum allowable diversions from San Clemente Reservoir to the Carmel Valley Filter Plant and the minimum required release from San Clemente Reservoir to the Carmel River are based on Los Padres Reservoir storage and spill, water year type, and flow at the Carmel River lagoon.
• Operation of Cal-Am's production wells in the Upper Carmel Valley was modified to allow the Carmel Valley Village area to be served from Cal-Am's Russell wells rather than diversions from San Clemente Reservoir. This option is used during critically dry periods or when storage in Los Padres Reservoir is less than 1,100 af. This type of operation is consistent with the "replumbing" concept described in Condition 6 of SWRCB Order WR 95-10.
• The maximum pumping capacities for Cal-Am's production wells in the Carmel Valley and Seaside coastal areas were updated to reflect current conditions.
• Operation of Cal-Am's production wells in the Seaside Coastal Subareas was revised to comply with Condition 4 of SWRCB Order WR 95-10 (i.e., maximize production from the Seaside Basin within the long-term yield of the basin). Specifically, a production target of 4,000 af/yr from Cal-Am's wells in the Seaside coastal area was specified.
• An option was developed to include the proposed Seaside injection/recovery program in Cal-Am's operations. With this option, water in excess of the proposed instream flow requirements for the Carmel River would be transmitted to the Seaside Coastal Subareas for injection and subsequent recovery. The amount of water available for recovery is constrained by available transmission, injection, and production capacities.

2.5 PROJECT COSTS

The estimated costs for the CRDRP provided in this SEIR are based on information submitted by Cal-Am in its application to the CPUC (March 1997), as revised in April 1998. For clarity, this SEIR provides estimated costs in terms of present (1998) dollars, as well as costs projected into the future to the years in which they are anticipated to occur (construction starting in 2003 and ending in 2005, with the first year of operation in 2006).

Capital costs are shown in Table 2-4. Cal-Am provided estimated capital costs in terms of future dollars in the years in which they are expected to be expended. For example, costs for construction, construction management, and inspection are in 2004 dollars to represent the midpoint of project construction; final design costs are in 2001 dollars. These future costs are shown, along with the costs converted to 1998 dollars, assuming a future cost escalation rate of 3% per year. Capital costs include the dam and appurtenant facilities, power supplies, access roads, and property required for the project that is not currently owned by Cal-Am. Capital costs for mitigation measures include the structures, equipment, and materials needed to carry out mitigation efforts for fisheries, vegetation and wildlife, cultural resources, traffic, and other project impacts. Notable among these are the costs for fish collection facilities. As shown in Table 2-4, direct project costs in 1998 dollars total $104,863,000. Indirect project costs, including Cal-Am's financing charges, planning and permitting costs, and legal fees, total $2,609,000 in 1998 dollars. Capital costs projected to the years in which they are anticipated to be spent total $124,614,000 for direct project costs and $2,915,000 for indirect project costs.

The average annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost estimates are provided in Table 2-5. O&M costs include labor, materials, supplies, energy, and other associated costs for the operation and maintenance of the project. Similar to the capital costs described above, the O&M estimates include annual costs associated with the project mitigation measures. The source of the O&M costs is the Final Engineer's Report (MPWMD 1995c). In 1998 dollars, the total O&M costs are estimated to be $1,641,000 per year. Total O&M costs projected to the anticipated first year of project operation (2006) total $2,079,000 per year.

To represent the costs in different time frames, cost escalation factors were used. Costs estimated as of a given date were escalated or reduced at a rate of 3% per year based on long-term cost trends for construction, operation, and maintenance of dam and reservoir projects.

Information about the impact of the proposed reservoir project on water rates for Cal-Am customers is included in Chapter 8, "Socioeconomics".

back to top

2.6 PROJECT TIMELINE

A variety of steps must occur before project implementation, as described in the following list (timelines are estimates). The basic implementation steps, at a minimum, include the following:

 
• Spring 1999: MPWMD certifies the Final EIR (incorporating the 1994 NLP EIR and this SEIR) and makes a determination on Cal-Am's permit application for the CRDRP; CPUC begins formal hearing process
• February 2000: CPUC makes a determination on the CRDRP (240 days from certification of EIR)
• Spring 2002: Final design is completed in 2 years, assuming CPUC approval in early 2000
• 2003-2005: Project construction (2 years); completion anticipated in summer 2005
• Winter/spring 2006: Reservoir filling; project operation begins

2.7 NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

CEQA requires that the No-Project Alternative be analyzed in an EIR. The 1994 NLP EIR evaluated the No-Project Alternative in detail and should be referred to for background information. This SEIR evaluates the impacts of the No-Project Alternative based on refinements since 1994. Section 15126(A)(d)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines defines the No-Project Alternative as "existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services". Based on this definition, this SEIR assumes that the No-Project Alternative includes the following elements:

 
• all existing Cal-Am facilities;
• maintenance of minimal storage at existing reservoirs in accordance with Cal-Am's letter of June 30, 1998;
• continuation of the existing memorandum of agreement and quarterly water supply strategy for Cal-Am facility operations to meet community needs while minimizing environmental impacts;
• Cal-Am system management consistent with SWRCB Order WR 95-10 and Order WR 98-04;⁽¹⁾
• maintenance of the existing Cal-Am production limit of 17,641 af/yr as set by MPWMD;
• continuation of the existing MPWMD conservation and mitigation programs; and
• seismic retrofit of San Clemente Reservoir, including sediment management.

The costs of the No-Project Alternative would be greater than those described in Section 4.5 of the 1994 NLP EIR (i.e., zero capital costs and $775,000 per year for O&M costs). Significant future capital and O&M expenditures are anticipated because of the requirement that Cal-Am retrofit the existing San Clemente Dam to meet current seismic safety standards and address the potentially serious environmental damage that could result from increased sedimentation in the reservoir and uncontrolled releases of sediment into the stream reaches below the dam. Cal-Am has been working with state and federal fishery agencies to develop means, such as sluice gates built into the retrofitted dam, to pass sediment through the dam in a controlled manner. Cost information is being developed by Cal-Am and state agencies as part of separate environmental review and permitting processes for that project.
 
 List of Acronyms
Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project (CRDRP) (2-1)
New Los Padres (NLP) (2-1)
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD (2-1)
environmental impact report [EIR] (2-1)
acre-feet per year (af/yr) (2-1)
the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (2-1)
cubic feet per second (cfs) (2-4)
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) (2-4)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (2-5)
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS (2-5)
federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (2-5)
roller-compacted concrete (RCC) (2-6)
Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) (2-7)
supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) (2-7)
Monterey Peninsula Water Resources System (MPWRS) (2-8)

List of Citations
MPWMD's Final Engineer's Report for the reservoir project (MPWMD 1995c) (2-1)
MPWMD 1990a (2-5)
(Fugro West 1997a) (2-5)
Final Engineer's Report (MPWMD 1995c) (2-5)
MARK Group 1995 (2-6)
(Bechtel Corp. 1991 (2-8)
MARK Group 1995 (2-8)
MPWMD 1994a, 1995b, 1995c (2-8)
MPWMD 1995c (2-13)
 
List of Tables
2-1, 2-2, and 2-3, (2-11)
Table 2-4 (2-13)
Table 2-5 (2-13)

List of Figures
Figure 2-1 (2-6)
Figure 2-2 (2-6)
Figure 2-3 (2-7)
Figure 2-4 (2-7)
Figure 2-4 (2-7)
Figure 2-2. (2-7)
Figure 2-2 (2-7)

List of Miscellaneous Stuff
Appendix D, "Fish and Aquatic Life", (2-8)

Index
CRDRP has three primary objectives: 2-1
Order WR 95-10 2-3
Decision 1632 2-3
Order WR 98-04 2-4
California red-legged frog 2-5
steelhead trout 2-5
CARMEL RIVER DAM AND RESERVOIR 2-6
Ventana Wilderness. 2-7
FISH COLLECTION FACILITIES 2-8
Water Conservation Program 2-9
Other Cal-Am System Improvements 2-9
San Clemente Reservoir 2-9
seismic retrofit 2-9
Recreation 2-9
CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND SCHEDULE 2-10
The MARK Group in 1995 2-10
PROJECT OPERATION 2-10
Bypass refers to set amounts of flow that must be maintained at different points along the river.
2-11
CVSIM computer model 2-11
Seaside injection/recovery program 2-13
PROJECT COSTS 2-13
PROJECT TIMELINE 2-14
No-Project Alternative 2-14

1. Order WR 98-04 was issued after final computer modeling output for the Draft SEIR evaluation of no-project impacts was completed, so some inconsistencies may exist. Other inconsistencies with Order WR 95-10 may exist in certain simulated years because of the difficulty of translating the complex regulatory setting into computer code.

 
Previous Chapter  |   Next Chapter