ITEM:		ACTION ITEMS
13.	CONFIRM SCOPE OF WORK AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR EIR ON MPWMD AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY PROJECT
Meeting Date:			April 18, 2005	Budgeted:	$135,700 contract
From:			David A. Berger,	Program/	***
			General Manager	Line Item No.:
Prepared By:			Henrietta Stern	Cost Estimate:	$147,720 revised
General Counsel Approval: N/A
Committee Recommendation: Administrative Committee did not review due to time constraints
CEQA Compliance: CEQA process underway

SUMMARY: The Board will consider amending the current contract with Jones & Stokes Associates (JSA), the consulting firm that is helping to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the District's proposed aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project.  The contract changes are based on March 18, 2005 Board direction on the amended EIR scope of work and final project description, which were developed in response to public and agency comments on the December 2004 EIR Notice of Preparation (NOP).  The most significant change is the document will be a combined EIR and Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) to facilitate compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as recommended by the U.S. Army in its comments on the NOP and subsequent consultation. This change adds a modest cost and additional time for federal review of the document.

No change is recommended to the contract with Padre Associates, the second consultant working on the EIR. However, staff plans to authorize use of contingency funds in the current contract, due to the need for more meetings and research on the project description, based on U.S. Army and California American Water (Cal-Am) comments.

Exhibit 13-A is a cover letter dated April 4, 2005 from JSA describing the key changes that have been made to the original scope or work and contract approved by the Board in October 2004. Exhibit 13-B is the revised scope of work dated April 4, 2005; shaded text indicates new or revised information since October 2004. Exhibit 13-C is a table showing a revised cost estimate of $146,720, which is $11,020 more than the $135,700 contract limit approved by the Board in October 2004.

Exhibit 13-D is a detailed EIR schedule showing key milestones as well as intermediate products and deadlines for District consultants and staff. The revised goal for EIR/EA certification is late January 2006 rather than late August 2005. This five-month delay is primarily due to: (1) the need to wait for important setting and habitat information to be available in June 2005, rather than duplicating the effort to obtain the information independently; and (2) additional time for required federal review of the Administrative Draft and Administrative Final EIR/EA. Staff and consultants have crafted a timeline that is aggressive, but also realistic, based on currently available information. Key assumptions for this timeline include:

Ø The MPWMD Board will hold special meetings when needed to facilitate forward progress on the EIR. These are noted in the schedule.

Ø Extensive substantive comments are not submitted on the Draft EIR/EA that will entail significant research, computer modeling or work effort to respond.

Ø The U.S. Army will hold to the two-week review timelines they provided to District consultants in the preparation of this schedule.

RECOMMENDATION: The Board should authorize staff to amend the contract with JSA based on the revised Scope of Work, cost estimate and schedule provided in Exhibits 13-A, B, C and D.

BACKGROUND: At its March 21, 2005 meeting, the Board received an update on the MPWMD ASR Project, and provided policy direction on the scope of study for the ASR EIR, based on comments received on the NOP that was circulated beginning December 13, 2004. The March 2005 action was based the February 2005 Scoping Report that summarized written and oral comments received on NOP. Please refer to the March 21, 2005 Board packet (Action Item #16) for detailed information.

At the recommendation of the U.S. Army, Environmental Management Division, District staff and consultants have met or consulted via phone with representatives from the U.S. Army, City of Seaside, City of Del Rey Oaks, Fort Ord Reuse Authority (FORA) and Cal-Am in February and March 2005 to (1) clarify infrastructure plans to avoid conflicts, with emphasis on pipeline alignments and well locations; (2) better understand the federal and local permitting process for the Phase 1 ASR project; (3) discuss the technical details of MPWMD and Cal-Am ASR concepts; and (4) exchange technical information and identify ways to avoid duplication.

A positive outcome of these communications is new information provided by FORA in late March 2005 about the planned re-alignment of General Jim Moore Boulevard (GJM). Revised plans dated November 2004 show that the new GJM does not impact the District’s ASR well as the previous July 2004 version transmitted to MPWMD had shown.

The Phase 1 ASR concept envisions a maximum diversion of 2,022 acre-feet per year (AFY) from the Carmel River in a very wet year (i.e., 2,500 gallons per minute for 183 days between December 1 and May 31); and a maximum extraction from the Seaside Basin of 1,690 AFY in dry periods (i.e., 2,500 gpm for 153 days). Average values would be lower and depend on long-term weather conditions. The Phase 1 values are based on 2004 or previous information, and are subject to change in the EIR based on more recent technical studies and planned hydrologic modeling.

Approval from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is needed for a long-term ASR project that diverts excess winter flow from the Carmel River. The District’s two water rights Petitions for Change submitted to the SWRCB identify 7,300 AFY maximum diversion from the river in a wet year (i.e., 20 cfs diverted every day in the December 1 through May 31 period). This amount is significantly larger than the Phase 1 project. Future EIR(s) and Petition(s) would be needed to build a larger project (i.e., Phase 3 ASR) to divert the full 7,300 AFY amount. The SWRCB has indicated that it will notice the current MPWMD Petitions for Change on April 8, 2005.

DISCUSSION: The proposed scope of work reflects the following Board direction provided to staff at the March 21, 2005 meeting:

Ø The District’s EIR should be amended to focus only on Phase 1 ASR (one additional well at existing test site within the next 1-2 years) and not discuss potential future Phases 2 and 3 at this time. Once more concrete information is known about the land use setting in the area of potential ASR facilities, future ASR phases can be defined and addressed at the project level in a future EIR. To avoid duplication of effort and reduce costs, the District EIR should, as much as possible, use information developed by Cal-Am/RBF for the Proponent’s Environmental Assessment (PEA) for the CWP. The PEA is scheduled for completion and submittal to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in June 2005.

Ø Consultant contracts should be amended to include NEPA compliance concurrent with the CEQA document. Discussions with the U.S. Army indicate this would be the most efficient way to obtain federal permits needed for the Phase 1 ASR project.

Ø The ASR project purpose should remain focused on near-term goals (Phase 1). The immediate need is for ASR to serve as an essential tool to manage and protect the Seaside Basin and help reduce pumping impacts to the Carmel River. The EIR should be focused to facilitate timely approval and construction of Phase 1.

Ø The ASR project description should not be driven by Cal-Am’s CWP, but should be compatible with the CWP, as possible. MPWMD and Cal-Am consultants continue to exchange technical information and revise their respective project descriptions based on the best available information.

Ø The EIR should not include detailed technical studies that are beyond the scope of an EIR; these will be performed as part of subsequent permit processes.

Ø The District should assertively protect its existing ASR well site and ability to successfully construct Phase 1.

An important associated topic is the immediate need for approvals of an above-ground, near-term Cal-Am pipeline to the District's Santa Margarita test well site to ensure a secure water supply in Summer 2005. District staff and consultants concurred on the following plan of action:

Ø The proposed above-ground Cal-Am pipeline to the Santa Margarita Test Injection Well should be built in Summer 2005 along the west side of GJM. District staff has been assisting Cal-Am with this project, in consultation with the City of Seaside and U.S. Army.

Ø The Phase 1 ASR project should also receive water from the same above-ground pipeline in the near-term, not a permanent below-ground pipeline as described in the NOP, due to the significant uncertainty of where GJM will be located in the future. Staff envisions Phase 1 as a means to address immediate basin management issues while allowing detailed operational testing of the two-well couplet in a full-scale production setting. District staff strongly believes that all efforts should be made to preserve the current injection well site based on the expense to install, test and maintain it (over $1 million expended by MPWMD to date), and the vital contribution it makes to the community by helping to restore the depleted Seaside Basin and reduce pumping impacts to the Carmel River (thereby reducing SWRCB fines to the community, the threat of moratoria, etc.).

Ø Once more definitive information is known about the final location of the new GJM road alignments, the fate of the CWP, and proposed major developments on former Fort Ord, a meaningful plan for Phase 2 and 3 ASR can be formulated, including siting of a permanent below-ground pipeline.

IMPACT ON RESOURCES: The revised JSA scope of work entails $11,020 more than envisioned in the October 2004 contract limit ($146,720 as compared to the current $135,700 limit). Since nearly all the new expenses will not be experienced until after July 1, 2005, they can be incorporated into the FY 2005-06 budget. JSA calculates that about $80,000 of its contract budget will be spent by June 30, 2005.  This includes all of Tasks 1-5 ($17,050 total), $55,000 of Task 6, $3,600 of Task 13, $3,600 of Task 14, and $750 of Task 15 (see Exhibit 13-C). Thus, an amount of $66,700 (rounded) would be needed in FY 2005-06.

Padre Associates estimates that $35,500 (rounded), or 90% of the currently approved $39,400 contract limit (including a $9,990 contingency) will be spent in FY 2004-05; and the remaining $3,900 (rounded) will be spend in FY 2005-06. The $9,990 contingency amount will likely be used, but no additional to the contract limit is needed. The Padre cost will not change substantially by the deletion of Phases 2 and 3 from the EIR because their tasks already focus on engineering details and water quality assessments for Phase 1 ASR.

Overall, the total estimated ASR EIR expenditure for FY 2004-05 is now $115,500, which is $24,500 lower than the $140,000 assumed to be spent this fiscal year. The FY 2005-06 budget will need to include $70,600 for the ASR EIR effort. This is $26,400 lower than the initial rough estimate of $97,000 developed before more detailed information was available. This new information will be incorporated into the 2005-06 proposed budget.

EXHIBITS

13-A Cover letter dated April 4, 2005 from JSA

13-B JSA Revised Scope of Work – April 2005

13-C Table showing revised cost estimate for MPWMD

13-D Detailed work schedule for ASR/EIR

U:\staff\word\boardpacket\2005\2005boardpackets\20050418\ActionItems\13\item13.doc