3.0 READER'S SUMMARY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NLP EIR AND CRDRP
SEIR
3.3 OVERVIEW OF ISSUES EVALUATED IN THE
SEIR
3.4 SUMMARY OF NEW INFORMATION RELATED
TO NEW SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OR EFFECTS OF GREATER SEVERITY THAN PREVIOUSLY
EVALUATED
3.4.1 TRAFFIC
3.4.1.1 Changes Related to the Construction
Schedule
3.4.1.2 Transport of Phylloxera by
Trucks
3.4.2 NOISE
3.4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.4.4 VISUAL RESOURCES
3.4.4.1 Short-Term Construction-Related
Changes to Cachagua Area Visual Conditions
3.4.4.2 Permanent Changes to Cachagua
Area Visual Conditions
3.4.5 FISH AND AQUATIC LIFE
3.4.5.1 Effects of Reducing Frequency
of High Flows
3.4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
3.5 SUMMARY OF NEW INFORMATION NOT RELATED
TO NEW SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
3.5.1 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY
3.5.2 WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
3.5.3 SOCIOECONOMICS
3.5.4 CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY
3.5.5 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
3.5.6 WATER SUPPLY PERFORMANCE
3.5.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
3.5.8 VEGETATION AND TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE
3.5.9 CACHAGUA LAND USE, RECREATION,
AND PLANNING
As described in Chapter 1, this supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) addresses the deficiencies in the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Final Environmental Impact Report and Statement (referred to here as the New Los Padres [NLP] EIR) noted by the Superior Court of Monterey County and evaluates all issues that were addressed in that EIR to determine whether new information made available since its completion in 1994 indicates that the project would have new significant impacts on the environment. This SEIR expands the discussion of potential climate and air quality impacts of the Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project (CRDRP) on viticulture and includes a technical appendix that addresses various viticulture issues raised by vineyard owners, as directed by the Superior and Appellate Courts. Information on the Cachagua area setting is also expanded. In addition, this SEIR specifically addresses the ramifications of the change in project purpose and the revised construction scenario proposed for the CRDRP. Because of the close relationship between this SEIR and the previous EIR, this chapter provides an explanation of the topics evaluated in each document and where information on particular topics can be found.
3.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NLP EIR AND CRDRP SEIR
The Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) prepared an EIR for the NLP project, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); the Final EIR for that project, including an addendum, was certified in September 1994 (MPWMD 1994a). In May 1995, MPWMD prepared Addendum-2 to the Final EIR, which evaluated more detailed geotechnical and engineering studies, the draft Engineer's Report, microclimate and viticulture issues, and several other items (MPWMD 1995a). In June and October 1995, respectively, MPWMD obtained a Section 404 permit under the federal Clean Water Act and a water rights permit from the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for the NLP project, based on SWRCB Decision 1632.
In July 1995, the SWRCB finalized Order WR 95-10, which determined that 10,730 acre-feet per year (af/yr) of water pumped from the Carmel River is being diverted unlawfully by the California-American Water Company (Cal-Am). In the order, the SWRCB required Cal-Am to obtain appropriative permits for water being unlawfully diverted from the Carmel River, obtain water from other sources of supply and reduce unlawful diversions from the Carmel River, or contract with another agency that already owned appropriative rights to divert and use water from the Carmel River.
In a bond election in November 1995, the electorate failed to authorize MPWMD to construct the NLP project. As a result of that election, the MPWMD Board of Directors instructed its staff to reassess alternatives not related to dam construction while keeping the NLP permits viable. MPWMD held public workshops, reevaluated more than 50 alternatives in early 1996, and developed an action plan for addressing water supply alternatives that emphasized non-dam-related projects. Desalination options and reclamation and use of the Seaside's Groundwater Basin were reevaluated, and MPWMD developed a Preliminary Water Augmentation Plan (MPWMD 1996) based on study results.
The Superior Court of Monterey County ruled in December 1995 that the certification of the NLP EIR was inadequate with regard to the issue of viticulture; the court mandated that the certification of that EIR be set aside and a focused supplemental EIR be prepared addressing this issue alone. (The case was appealed by MPWMD; in August 1997, the Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision and directed MPWMD to prepare a focused supplemental EIR.) The court also stated that the supplemental EIR could review any other issues that MPWMD deemed appropriate. Based on these determinations, the MPWMD Board of Directors in September 1997 rescinded the 1994 and 1995 certifications of the NLP EIR.
In November 1996, Cal-Am proposed to construct the CRDRP as a means to comply with the SWRCB's order. At that time, Cal-Am submitted permit applications to MPWMD, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and the SWRCB.
As a result of these events, this SEIR contains necessary elements to:
3.3 OVERVIEW OF ISSUES EVALUATED IN THE SEIR
This EIR is structured to comply with the Superior Court's direction and minimize the need for readers to refer to multiple documents. New information about an impact topic that has become known since the 1994 NLP EIR was published and that presents the possibility of new significant impacts or of impacts more intensive than previously described is highlighted in a chapter in this SEIR. For example, the revised construction scenario for the CRDRP, developed in 1995, affects construction-related impacts such as traffic, noise, and climate and air quality. Where refined information is developed for an impact topic but conclusions remain the same as those described in the 1994 NLP EIR, the topic is addressed in an appendix. Notable new information is highlighted in this chapter. For example, impacts relating to fish and aquatic life are reviewed in Appendix D, which also includes results of computer simulations using a revised period of record. New fisheries impact information is highlighted in this chapter. Other appendices support information provided in the SEIR chapters.
Chapters 4-11 of the SEIR contain technical analyses of traffic, climate and air quality, noise, cultural resources, socioeconomics, visual resources, growth-inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts based on the proposed project described in Chapter 2. These issues have been analyzed in the SEIR because certain aspects of the project and elements of the environmental setting have changed sufficiently since the 1994 NLP EIR was prepared to present the possibility of new significant impacts or of impacts of greater severity than previously evaluated.
In addition, the SEIR contains appendices addressing technical analyses of water supply alternatives; water supply performance; hydrology and water quality; fish and aquatic life; vegetation and terrestrial wildlife; Cachagua land use, recreation, and planning; traditional Esselen cultural properties; acoustics; and potential effects on Cachagua Valley vineyards. These issues are evaluated in appendices to the SEIR because conditions have not changed sufficiently since the 1994 NLP EIR was prepared to be considered significant new impacts in these areas. One exception is the analysis of project flow effects on channel substrate and benthic invertebrates that are important steelhead food sources. This new analysis required by the settlement agreement, is contained in Appendix D and summarized in Section 3.4.4 below. This summary also provides a review of geology and seismicity, which do not warrant a full appendix or chapter because the issues can be described succinctly.
3.4 SUMMARY OF NEW INFORMATION RELATED TO NEW SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OR EFFECTS OF GREATER SEVERITY THAN PREVIOUSLY EVALUATED
Chapter 4 contains a full evaluation of traffic impacts attributable to the CRDRP. The changes documented in the SEIR relate to the revised construction schedule proposed in the Final Engineer's Report (MPWMD 1995c) and the potential for transport of phylloxera by trucks to local vineyards.
3.4.1.1 Changes Related to the Construction Schedule
The Final Engineer's Report calls for, among other things, a seven-stage construction schedule that is estimated to total 20 months, rather than the 22 months described in the NLP EIR (the estimated number of months needed to transport cement was reduced from 10 months to 8 months). The Final Engineer's Report also determined that the 6-month construction period for actual raising of the dam would require a 6-day work week rather than the 5-day work week described in the NLP EIR. This SEIR concludes that impacts of construction traffic would be significant and unavoidable (as did the NLP EIR); in addition, these construction schedule changes would intensify the severity (albeit reduce the duration) of truck traffic impacts compared to the conclusion reached in the NLP EIR.
3.4.1.2 Transport of Phylloxera by Trucks
The potential for trucks to transport phylloxera (an insect that feeds only on grapevines and thrives on grape roots growing in moist soil) to Cachagua-area vineyards is also evaluated. The SEIR concludes that the risk is extremely remote and, therefore, less than significant.
Chapter 6 fully evaluates the impacts of the CRDRP on noise levels in the surrounding area. In summary, the revised construction scenario involves approximately twice as many noise-generating vehicles (mostly cement trucks), but the cement delivery period would be 2 months shorter. The SEIR concludes (as did the NLP EIR) that the impact of construction noise would be significant and unavoidable; in addition, these construction schedule changes would intensify the severity (albeit reduce the duration) of noise impacts compared to the conclusions reached in the NLP EIR. (Background information on acoustics is provided in Appendix I.)
Chapter 7 evaluates the impacts of the CRDRP on cultural resources. The SEIR builds on the analysis in the NLP EIR and evaluations conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act by providing additional information about the significance of previously identified cultural resources and traditional cultural properties identified more recently (Appendices H and K). The SEIR provides more definitive conclusions about the significance of effects and more explicit mitigation measures than did the previous evaluations. In summary, the proposed project would result in significant impacts that can be reduced through a comprehensive set of mitigation measures but not to a less-than-significant level.
Chapter 9 evaluates the proposed project's impacts on the visual resources of the project area. The conclusions of the SEIR differ from those of the NLP EIR (which found that visual impacts would be less than significant); this analysis determines, based on further evaluation, that the CRDRP would result in a significant unavoidable visual impact.
3.4.4.1 Short-Term Construction-Related Changes to Cachagua Area Visual Conditions
The proposed project has three categories of construction-related visual impacts: visual impacts of the construction staging area, visual impacts of nighttime lighting, and visual impacts on trail users. Most of the construction-related activities would take place upstream of the proposed dam and therefore would not be visible from public rights-of-way. Public access to the Ventana Wilderness would be temporarily restricted through the Los Padres Dam area because of public safety concerns associated with construction-related activities such as blasting and use of heavy equipment. Because public access would be restricted, views from these trails would not be available except to a limited number of people under controlled conditions.
Light and glare during the construction period may disturb the nighttime views of nearby residents; this would detract from the rural character of the area and draw attention to the project site as viewed from neighboring residences in Princes Camp and the surrounding residential area. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable because it could be reduced by preparing and implementing a visual quality plan to reduce nighttime light impacts, but not to a less-than-significant level.
3.4.4.2 Permanent Changes to Cachagua Area Visual Conditions
The proposed dam and appurtenance facilities may be intermittently visible and may strongly influence viewsheds from such locations as Princes Camp, especially for motorists traveling along Cachagua Road and for recreational users on the Carmel River and Rattlesnake Trails. Where visible, the dam would intrude on the moderate relative vividness, intactness, and unity of natural views. Specifically, the dam's appearance as a monolithic, lightly colored, and engineered structure contrasts strongly with the vegetated rough terrain of the natural hills. Development of the proposed dam and related appurtenance facilities would substantially change the visual character and quality of the landscape from a limited number of vantage points. The profound change in the landscape is considered significant and unavoidable because it could be mitigated by preparing and implementing a visual quality plan to shield views of the dam, but this would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Appendix D evaluates the proposed project impacts on the fish and aquatic resources of the Carmel River Basin. Although the simulated period of record was changed from 1902-1992 to 1958-1996 at the request of environmental litigants, the conclusions are very similar to those identified in the NLP EIR. New discussions in this SEIR include the listing of steelhead as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act and the effect of the CRDRP on benthic invertebrate diversity resulting from a reduction in the frequency of high flows (see discussion below and Section D.4.2.4). In summary, the CRDRP would have both beneficial and significant adverse effects on fish and aquatic life from different elements of the project.
3.4.5.1 Effects of Reducing Frequency of High Flows
With operation of the proposed CRDRP, bed mobility in the three affected reaches would be reduced by 18-35% at the 1.5-year return interval flow. This means that 18-35% less of the riverbed would be mobilized at frequent high-flow intervals. With less of the bed mobilized, more habitat would be available for case-building caddisflies, which may be resistant to steelhead predation. Currently, predicting and quantifying precisely how the change in riverbed mobilization would affect populations of drifting insects is not possible, but increases in populations of predator-resistant insects could reduce the numbers of drifting insects. This could reduce species richness and diversity, leading to lower population densities of drifting species and less food for steelhead. Thus, this impact is considered potentially significant and must be confirmed by more detailed study.
As part of Cal-Am's monitoring and mitigation program, benthic surveys should be conducted at designated reference sites before project construction begins and annually for the first 20 years of project operation to estimate species richness, species diversity, and population densities of benthic insects. If the number of species, species diversity, and population density of high-rate drifters remain at preproject (existing) levels, adequate food will be available for juvenile steelhead and no additional mitigation will be required. If monitoring shows a decline in the number of drifting insects over a 20-year period, Cal-Am should implement a program to mitigate for the change. Appropriately sized riverbed material should be deposited below the proposed Carmel River Dam and the existing San Clemente Dam to increase bed mobility to levels that existed before construction of the new dam. Currently, the costs of implementing this program are unknown. These efforts should reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
The SEIR examines the cumulative impacts of implementing the CRDRP and the Seismic Retrofit Project at San Clemente Dam (SRSCD). The SRSCD is being proposed by Cal-Am to comply with the California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) requirements that call for the dam to withstand a maximum credible earthquake and pass the probable maximum flood. This project entails, among other appurtenant facilities and actions, thickening the dam on the downstream side and providing abutment protection. The project is proposed to be completed by 2002, one year before construction of the CRDRP; even if these schedules were to change, Cal-Am proposes to separate their construction by at least one year.
The SEIR concludes that significant cumulative impacts would occur in the areas of sedimentation and traffic. Sedimentation impacts would likely be reduced to a less-than-significant level through a coordinated sediment management plan. Traffic impacts are not anticipated to be mitigated to a less-than-significant level because of the cumulative effects of adding truck traffic on already congested roadways (Carmel Valley Road and Highway 1) for a protracted period. Both projects are, however, proposing the implementation of construction management plans to reduce construction-period traffic impacts.
3.5 SUMMARY OF NEW INFORMATION NOT RELATED TO NEW SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS
In fall 1994, MPWMD retained a team of consultants headed by The MARK Group to perform geotechnical and engineering studies for the NLP project that would refine and augment information contained in the 1994 Final EIR. The scope of work covered by that firm's report (The MARK Group 1995) includes extensive field investigations of foundation conditions beneath the dam; the availability of borrow materials for construction of the dam; the regional and site-specific geology, including analysis of faults; and detailed geologic mapping and excavation of exploratory trenches along the Cachagua fault to determine its potential for movement. Information from the field investigations was used to conduct an analysis of earthquake characteristics for dam design, testing of available concrete materials for use in the dam, and engineering analyses of stresses and stability for dam design.
The dam is located in a seismically active zone, and several potentially active faults are present near the dam site. The Cachagua and Tularcitos faults are located nearest to the dam site. The Tularcitos fault shows evidence of movement in the late Quaternary period (approximately 2 million years ago) and probably in the Holocene epoch (approximately 11,000 years ago) and is considered active. As part of The MARK Group studies, a regional and site-specific investigation was conducted to evaluate the present level of activity on the Cachagua fault. Compelling geologic and geomorphic evidence suggests that the Cachagua fault has not moved since at least the late Pleistocene (85,400-213,500 years ago). Based on the findings of The MARK Group's investigations, the Cachagua fault is considered not active; therefore, The MARK Group did not include the Cachagua fault in its evaluation of the maximum credible earthquake and peak horizontal ground acceleration for dam design.
The MARK Group determined that the maximum credible earthquake would be most likely to occur on the Tularcitos fault with a magnitude of 6.8. An earthquake of this magnitude could generate a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.51g. The NLP EIR reported a maximum credible earth quake of 6.75 magnitude and a peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.44g for the Tularcitos fault. Thus, The MARK Group analysis results in slightly more conservative values (i.e., a more severe seismic event) to be accommodated in the dam design based on analysis of the Tularcitos fault.
The properties of the maximum earthquake that the dam would be designed to withstand were estimated by evaluating active and potentially active faults in the region, and a dynamic analysis was performed on the dam to evaluate the required roller-compacted concrete (RCC) strength and cement content. Modifications were made to the preliminary design of the dam based on topography and available geotechnical information. Modifications included changing the shape of the dam from a curved to a straight alignment to accommodate site topography and to improve conditions beneath the foundation.
DSOD has been consulted throughout the geotechnical investigations and preliminary design of the project. A formal review by DSOD will occur during final design; the project design must be approved by DSOD before dam construction can begin. Therefore, the seismic issues are considered less than significant. As described in the NLP EIR (Section 6.3.1), significant erosion is anticipated that can be mitigated through implementation of erosion control practices.
3.5.2 WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES
Appendix A summarizes and assesses the feasibility of alternatives evaluated previously in light of new information; this appendix also reviews additional alternatives proposed since the NLP EIR was prepared in light of the revised project objectives. Appendix A summarizes the technical and legal feasibility of more than 70 water supply and demand reduction alternatives. It then evaluates in more detail the environmental, drought protection, cost, and other feasibility characteristics of selected individual-project and combination water resource plans that could reduce adverse impacts associated with the CRDRP. This evaluation complies with the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(5)(A). Appendix A also presents comparative information about alternative water supply plans that could be used as a springboard for more detailed evaluations by other agencies to identify a long-term contingency plan should the proposed CRDRP not come to fruition. The July 1995 SWRCB decisions (Order WR 95-10 [provided in Appendix G of this SEIR] and Decision 1632), the November 1995 election in which voters failed to approve the NLP project, and CPUC workshops on alternatives held in summer 1997 greatly influenced MPWMD's evaluation of non-dam-related alternatives. The protocol to evaluate alternatives was developed in consultation with and concurrence by CPUC staff.
As described in Section 15126(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR should:
describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the [proposed] project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.
"Feasible" is defined in 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".
As part of the alternative evaluation process, more than 100 computer simulations were performed for individual and combination projects, including desalination projects of various sizes, injection/recovery in the Seaside Basin, dredging Los Padres Reservoir to full capacity, and increasing conservation and reclamation efforts to permanently reduce community water use. The goal of the simulations was to determine which individual and combination projects could result in no more than 3,376 af/yr of diversions by Cal-Am from the Carmel River Basin, unless noted otherwise. This amount is Cal-Am's recognized water right under SWRCB Order WR 95-10. Unless noted otherwise, all simulations assumed that community water demand was at the existing Cal-Am total system production limit of 17,641 af/yr set by MPWMD as part of its Water Allocation Program. All simulations assumed that no water would be available for new construction on legal lots of record or remodels.
Based on these efforts, four options were selected for more detailed evaluation and discussion (the order of the options is not intended to suggest any preference):
Option 1 would involve a 10.5-million-gallon-per-day (MGD) stand-alone desalination project in either Marina or Moss Landing, the existing amount of Cal-Am system production (17,641 af/yr), and the current maximum Cal-Am diversions from Carmel River Basin for municipal supply (3,376 af/yr).
Option 2 would consist of a 9.0-MGD desalination project, injection/recovery in Seaside Basin with existing Cal-Am facilities for treating and transferring water from Carmel Valley to the Seaside Basin, the existing amount of Cal-Am system production, and the current maximum Cal-Am diversions from Carmel River Basin for municipal supply and up to 3,780 af/yr for injection/recovery.
Option 3 would involve an 8.0-MGD desalination project, injection/recovery in Seaside Basin with existing Cal-Am facilities as under Option 2, dredging Los Padres Reservoir to original capacity (gain of 854 af storage), the existing amount of Cal-Am system production, and an increased amount of Cal-Am diversions from Carmel River Basin for municipal supply (4,230 af/yr maximum, reflecting assumed water rights gained from increased reservoir storage) and up to 3,780 af/yr for injection/recovery.
Option 4 would include a 7.5-MGD desalination project, injection/recovery in Seaside Basin as under Options 2 and 3, dredging Los Padres Reservoir as under Option 3, decreased Cal-Am system production of 16,850 af/yr from additional reclamation and conservation efforts that would permanently reduce water use by 800 af, and an increased amount of Cal-Am diversions (4,230 af/yr maximum) from Carmel River Basin for municipal supply and up to 3,780 af/yr for injection/recovery.
For more detailed information on these options, refer to Section A.4 of Appendix A.
Thirteen unmitigated adverse effects specific to the CRDRP could be avoided or reduced (in some cases, fully mitigated) by water supply alternatives, particularly Options 1 and 2. Conversely, these options involve adverse impacts on the environment, some of which may not be mitigable. The identified hydrologic, fishery, and vegetation impacts of the CRDRP cannot be fully mitigated by any of the alternative options, but certain construction effects and cultural resources effects of CRDRP could be fully mitigated. The dredging component of Options 3 and 4 could result in construction impacts similar to or more severe than those of the CRDRP, particularly those impacts related to truck traffic. Growth-inducing effects would be similar under Options 1-4 and the CRDRP.
Options 1-4 would involve potential impacts on ocean biota, coastal dune habitats and dependent species, wetland and slough environments, and energy use and related air quality impacts because of the large desalination project that forms the cornerstone of each option. The water supply reliability of Options 1-4 is of concern in an extended power outage because these options depend on electricity. Assuming power can be produced reliably, Options 1-4 provide superior levels of drought protection to the CRDRP, but at much higher cost.
In conclusion, the alternative options (particularly Options 1 and 2) would provide a lawful water supply in compliance with SWRCB Order WR 95-10, provide superior drought protection (assuming the availability of reliable power), and avoid or reduce nearly all adverse impacts of the CRDRP. However, the feasibility of Options 1-4 is questionable to such a degree that these options may not be reasonably considered as viable. This recommendation is based on extremely high costs (more than double the net present value of the CRDRP) and the resulting hardship to ratepayers; questionable site suitability for large desalination projects; lack of supporting infrastructure; noncompliance with regional air quality plans; location outside MPWMD or Cal-Am boundaries; lack of property ownership with potential competition for desalination sites (and possibly well sites) from other agencies; and environmental concerns related primarily to brine discharge, energy consumption, and habitat impacts. For more information on these conclusions, refer to Section A.4 in Appendix A.
Chapter 8 contains new information relative to the proposed project financing and the effects of Cal-Am's proposed financing plan on ratepayers. It also summarizes alternative financing proposals being reviewed by MPWMD.
The potential effects of the new dam and reservoir on microclimate and viticulture were raised during preparation of the NLP EIR. The court ruled that the EIR was deficient in this area and ordered a focused supplement on this issue to be prepared. This SEIR rectifies that deficiency. Chapter 5 analyzes the potential effects that construction of a new dam and reservoir in the upper Carmel River watershed would have on climate and air quality at existing vineyards downstream in the Cachagua Valley. Specifically, the following effects are analyzed (and supporting information is provided in Appendix J): changes in temperature, changes in relative humidity, frequency and severity of frosts, and frequency of nighttime fog. The SEIR concludes that the project would have imperceptible effects on microclimate and viticulture and that these impacts are less than significant.
The SEIR also updates the analysis of air quality effects from vehicle emissions based on the revised construction scenario. The impacts would not be intensified as a result, and the impact conclusions (significant and unavoidable impacts for the generation of emissions of small particulate matter) remain valid.
Chapter 10 addresses the complex issue of the growth-inducing effects of the proposed project. This chapter considers the planned project purposes and proposed water supply performance and concludes that, although no water would be directly made available for growth as had been planned with the NLP project, decisions by MPWMD, the CPUC, and the SWRCB could allow water to be indirectly made available for growth with the CRDRP. The amount of water that could be made indirectly available for growth from the CRDRP is estimated as 799 af of metered sales (equivalent to 859 af of Cal-Am production). This amount is derived from the reasonable possibility that a new Cal-Am production limit of 18,500 af/yr could be set by MPWMD, based on the 16,000-af/yr Carmel River diversion limit contained in SWRCB Order WR 98-04, hydrogeologic studies of the Seaside Basin, and prudent conjunctive management of the water resources system. The 18,500-af/yr amount is 859 af greater than the existing Cal-Am production limit of 17,641 af/yr.
The potential growth-related impacts of the CRDRP are considered less than significant with regard to schools, wastewater capacity, and solid waste because infrastructure is available. However, indirect incremental growth from the CRDRP could contribute to existing regional and local traffic and air quality problems, which are presently significant and adverse. These regional impacts could be mitigated through careful planning and actions by appropriate land use agencies and infrastructure providers, but these measures are beyond the authority of MPWMD to implement. MPWMD could consider taking actions to allocate water in phases in coordination with regional air quality management plans or traffic congestion plans. The success of measures taken by agencies with authority over traffic and air quality issues is unknown, so this impact could remain significant and unavoidable.
3.5.6 WATER SUPPLY PERFORMANCE
Appendix B reviews and updates information provided in Chapter 5 of the NLP EIR (MPWMD 1994a). This appendix reviews the water supply context of the Monterey Peninsula and compares the proposed project to the No-Project (existing) Alternative in terms of water supply yield for drought protection, legality of supply (i.e., ability to obtain legal water rights as required by SWRCB Order WR 95-10), and environmental protection. The goal of providing an adequate water supply for the river environment has increased in importance as a result of recent state mandates that public agencies protect public trust (i.e., environmental) resources and in light of recent listings of threatened species by federal agencies.
In summary, the CRDRP would make substantially more water available for drought protection, lawful water rights, and environmental protection compared to the No-Project Alternative. The frequency, duration, and severity of rationing would be reduced substantially, reflecting the increased drought protection gained by having a larger reservoir. The CRDRP would meet the drought protection standard set by consensus of the MPWMD Board of Directors in 1993; the No-Project Alternative, on the other hand, could not meet this standard. The CRDRP would legalize existing supply and result in full compliance with SWRCB Order WR 95-10, whereas the No-Project Alternative would not. Year-round streamflow to the lagoon would be present in most years with the CRDRP, but entirely absent under the No-Project Alternative. In nearly all years, more aquifer storage would be available in the Carmel Valley with the CRDRP than under the No-Project Alternative, especially in June through December, and this would indirectly benefit non-Cal-Am well owners.
3.5.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Appendix C is a complete update of the hydrology and water quality analysis that was provided in the NLP EIR. No new significant effects would result from the new information or events that have occurred since 1994. The appendix updates data for rainfall; streamflow; water resources development (including new information on existing reservoir storage since the storms of 1995 and 1997); stormflow; channel geometry; bank erosion; Carmel River Lagoon hydrology, water quality, and enhancement projects; Carmel River water quality; the Carmel Valley alluvial aquifer, including hydrology and groundwater quality; and Seaside Groundwater Basin hydrology and water quality.
In addition to these updated data, the SEIR contains a streamflow analysis that considers daily simulated values for the 39-year period 1958-1996, as requested by environmental litigants that were part of the February 1998 settlement agreement (SWRCB Order WR 98-04 [provided in Appendix G]). Although this period is shorter than the 1902-1992 period evaluated in the NLP EIR, it contains a wide variety of rainfall and runoff conditions. Appendix C also contains a detailed analysis of project impacts on the magnitude of frequent flows, which could have an adverse effect on the aquatic food chain (see discussion related to aquatic life in Section 3.4.5 and Appendix D, "Fish and Aquatic Life").
In summary, the CRDRP would improve streamflow conditions in the Carmel River compared to no-project conditions, especially the amount and duration of streamflow in the Lower Carmel Valley during the dry season. There would be a lack of riverflow in the Lower Carmel Valley in certain drought years. The CRDRP would consistently provide improved aquifer storage in the Lower Carmel Valley, except in certain months during the most severe droughts, and would not change the groundwater storage amounts of the Seaside Coastal Subareas. The impacts on channel geometry and sediment transport are the same as those described in the NLP EIR.
3.5.8 VEGETATION AND TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE
Appendix E provides updated information on several developments in vegetation and terrestrial wildlife since the NLP EIR was published. On April 28, 1995, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) accepted the MPWMD Riparian and Wetland Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, which describes enhancement of a 46-acre area upstream of the existing San Clemente Dam to compensate for the significant impact of the loss of wetland and riparian habitats resulting from implementation of the NLP project. This mitigation plan is a condition of the Corps Section 404 permit and SWRCB water rights permit and supersedes Attachment 9-C (Riparian Habitat Mitigation Plan) and Attachment 9-D (Wetland Habitat Enhancement Plan) in Volume II of the NLP EIR (MPWMD 1994b).
The construction staging area planned for the CRDRP would be developed upstream of the proposed dam structure. This proposed location replaces the original staging area, which would have been located downstream of the future dam face. This revised construction staging scenario would avoid impacts on 16 acres of upland forest that were described in the NLP EIR. Therefore, Attachment 9-E (Construction Staging Area Mitigation Plan) in Volume II of the NLP EIR and Mitigation Measure 9.3.1-6 of the NLP EIR are no longer required.
In May 1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service listed the California red-legged frog as threatened, and MPWMD has conducted surveys for the species as described in Appendix E of this SEIR. This listing and additional survey information do not, however, change the impacts or mitigation measures identified in the NLP EIR; MPWMD treated the red-legged frog as an important species in its initial evaluation of the NLP. The October 1994 Conference Opinion and the required "reasonable and prudent measures" contained therein form the basis of CRDRP mitigation measures such as biological monitoring and removal of frogs from harm's way by a qualified biologist, training of construction workers, habitat enhancement as part of the Riparian and Wetland Plans, and other measures addressing bullfrog predators. Additional measures may be required as part of ongoing, formal Section 7 consultation that was initiated in October 1997. It is expected that the significant impacts on the California red-legged frog can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
3.5.9 CACHAGUA LAND USE, RECREATION, AND PLANNING
As noted previously, the transportation, air quality, and noise setting
of the Cachagua area, including identification of sensitive land uses (e.g.,
vineyards and residences), are described in the appropriate topic chapters.
Appendix F also updates background information relative to agricultural
land uses in the Cachagua area. Appendix F focuses on the land use designations
and concludes that the proposed project is consistent with the land use
designations and compatible with the nearby land uses of resource conservation
and public/quasi-public land uses. The impacts of construction (e.g., traffic,
noise, air quality, visual resources) are addressed in the chapters relating
to the relevant topic areas.
back to top
List of Acronyms
supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) (3-1)
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Final Environmental Impact
Report and Statement (referred to here as the New Los Padres [NLP] EIR)
(3-1)
Carmel River Dam and Reservoir Project (CRDRP) (3-1)
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD) (3-1)
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (3-1)
California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (3-1)
acre-feet per year (af/yr) (3-1)
the California-American Water Company (Cal-Am) (3-1)
Cal-Am (3-1)
the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) (3-2)
Seismic Retrofit Project at San Clemente Dam (SRSCD) (3-6)
California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams
(DSOD) (3-6)
roller-compacted concrete (RCC) (3-7)
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) (3-12)
List of Citations
MPWMD 1994a (3-1)
MPWMD 1995a (3-1)
MPWMD 1995c (3-3)
The MARK Group 1995 (3-6)
MPWMD 1994a (3-11)
List of Tables
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Index
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NLP EIR AND CRDRP SEIR 3-1
Phylloxera 3-4
NOISE 3-4
CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-4
VISUAL RESOURCES 3-4
FISH AND AQUATIC LIFE 3-5
High Flows 3-5
drifting insects 3-5
GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 3-6
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES 3-7
SOCIOECONOMICS 3-10
CLIMATE AND AIR QUALITY 3-10
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS 3-10
WATER SUPPLY PERFORMANCE 3-11
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3-11
CACHAGUA LAND USE, RECREATION, AND PLANNING 3-12
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NLP EIR AND CRDRP SEIR 3-1
Phylloxera 3-4
NOISE 3-4
CULTURAL RESOURCES 3-4
VISUAL RESOURCES 3-4
FISH AND AQUATIC LIFE 3-4
High Flows 3-5
drifting insects 3-5
GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 3-5
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES 3-6
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 3-8