Unless otherwise described, the anticipated completion date for most tasks will be the end of June 2006, when a draft Plan is scheduled to be completed. A Plan must be adopted no later than December 31, 2006.

Acronyms

AF – acre-feet

AFA – acre-feet per annum

AFY – acre feet per year

AMBAG – Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments

ASBS – Areas of Special Biological Significance

ASR – Aquifer Storage and Recovery

AWT – advanced wastewater treatment

BIRP – Begonia Iron Treatment Plant

BMP – best management practice

BSLT – Big Sur Land Trust

CDPR – California Department of Parks and Recreation (see also CSP)

CSIP – Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project

CALTRANS – California Department of Transportation

CAW – California American Water

CAWD – Carmel Area Wastewater District

CCA – Critical Coastal Area

CCC – California Coastal Commission

CCR – Central Coast Region

CDFG – California Department of Fish and Game

CDP – Coastal Development Plan

CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act

CDO – cease and desist order

CRB – Carmel River Basin

CRLF – California red-legged frog

CRMP – Carmel River Management Plan

CRWC – Carmel River Watershed Conservancy

CSA – County Service Area

CSP – California State Parks

CSU – California State University

CSUMB – California State University Monterey Bay

CVSIM – Carmel Valley Simulation Program

CWA – Clean Water Act

CZARA – Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendment

DSOD – California Division of Safety of Dams

DWR – California Department of Water Resources

EIR – Environmental Impact Report

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

GRP – Groundwater Recharge Project

GWR – groundwater replenishment

ICWM – Integrated Coastal Watershed Management

ICWMP – Integrated Coastal Watershed Management Plan

IRWM – Integrated Regional Water Management

IRWMP – Integrated Regional Water Management Plan

LCP – Local Coastal Plan

LUP – Land Use Plan

MBNMS – Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

MCWRA – Monterey County Water Resources Agency

MCWRP – Monterey County Water Recycling Project

MGD – million gallons per day

MM – Management Measures

MOU – memorandum of understanding

MPRPD – Monterey Peninsula Regional Parks District

MPWRS - Monterey Peninsula Water Resource System

MPWMD – Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

MRSWMP – Monterey Regional Storm Water Management Program

MRWPCA – Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency

MURP – Model Urban Runoff Program

NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOP – Notice of Preparation

NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS – non-point source

NTU – nephelometric turbidity units

PBCSD – Pebble Beach Community Services District

RURWP – Regional Urban Recycled Water Project

RM – river mile (measured from the Pacific Ocean)

RWQCB – Regional Water Quality Control Board

SVRP – Salinas Valley Reclamation Project

SBGMP – Seaside Basin Groundwater Management Plan

SFBCDC – San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

SGB – Seaside Groundwater Basin

SSAMP – Sewer System Asset Management Plan

SWQPA – State water quality protection area

SWRCB – State Water Resources Control Board

TAC – technical advisory committee

TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load

USACE – United States Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS – United States Geological Service

WDR – Waste Discharge Requirement

WQPP – Water Quality Protection Program

WMI – Watershed Management Initiative

Table of Contents

Task Description Page No.

1.1. Initial review/editing/feedback for sections 2.0 through 14.0. 5

1.2. Prepare executive summary. 5

2.1. Geographic and political boundaries. 5

2.4. Major water infrastructure. 6

2.6. Important ecological processes and environmental resources. 6

4.3.3. Evaluate water conservation efforts. 8

4.3.4. Expand Seaside Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project 9

4.4. Restore ecosystems. 11

4.4.1. Update the Carmel River Management Plan. 11

4.4.2. Prioritize Carmel River watershed projects. 13

4.5.1. Conduct feasibility studies to eliminate storm water discharges to Pacific Grove and Carmel Bay ASBS 14

4.5.1.1 Pacific Grove ASBS Alternatives Analysis. 16

4.5.1.2 Carmel Bay ASBS Alternatives Analysis, Pebble Beach Company. 19

4.5.5. Seaside Groundwater Basin. 22

4.6.1. Carmel River Parkway Planning- Phase II and III 22

4.7.3. Evaluate barrier beach management options at the Carmel River Lagoon. 24

5.5. Flood and erosion-prone areas. 26

5.5.4. Canyon Del Rey. 26

5.8. Wetlands enhancement and creation projects in the Carmel River watershed. 27

5.13.3. Categorical Plans. 28

6.0 Prioritization of projects within the Region. 29

7.0 Project implementation. 29

7.2. Describe performance measures. 30

8.0 Analysis of Impacts and Benefits. 31

References. 32

feedback for sections 2.0 through 14.0

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Larry Hampson

MPWMD is coordinating the development of a Plan for the Region. A review of existing plans and strategies will help determine which component plans help meet the objectives of the Plan and also conform to IRWM plan standards set by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). A cohesive set of plans and strategies that can form the basis of a functionally equivalent Plan will be identified. Gaps in water management plans and strategies will be identified. To the extent feasible, MPWMD will coordinate work necessary to complete a functionally equivalent Plan.

Task

Description

Deliverables

1.1.a.

MPWMD staff will review various plans and strategies in the Region for water resources management that are in progress or have been previously adopted by participating agencies

· List of local area plans and strategies reviewed

· Brief summary of each plan reviewed

1.1.b.

Identify a set of plans and strategies for a functionally equivalent Plan

Comments on suitability for use in the Region Plan

1.2. Prepare executive summary

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Larry Hampson

Task	Description	Deliverable
1.2.	Prepare executive summary	Executive summary (not to exceed 10 pages)

2.1. Geographic and political boundaries

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Thomas Christensen

MPWMD has established a Geographic Information System (GIS) using ARCVIEW 9.1 that incorporates several sets of data into layers that can be mapped and analyzed. Stakeholders are encouraged to provide their data for the Plan and proposed projects in GIS format for use by all organizations with GIS capability.

Task

Description

Deliverables

2.1.a

MPWMD will revise the GIS and Region map as necessary to show project locations, critical infrastructure, and other information provided by stakeholders

· CD-ROM or DVD with GIS layers

· Paper copy of map at a suitable scale (likely to be in a 24 in. x 36 in. format)

2.1.b

Provide web-ready images

· Images on web site

2.4. Major water infrastructure

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Larry Hampson

No single database currently exists showing major infrastructure, although it is apparent that many agencies are using GIS and AUTOCAD to generate documents. Coordination between agencies responsible for maintaining infrastructure is likely on an as-needed or ad-hoc basis. Synergistic effects from coordinating system upgrades and maintenance activities may be possible. In addition, by mapping and understanding existing facilities, projects involving the use of or affecting existing facilities can be more easily understood.

2.4. Major water infrastructure
Task	Description	Deliverables
2.4.a	MPWMD will conduct a survey of stakeholders in the Region concerning locations of major water infrastructure, infrastructure conditions, life expectancy, and proposed infrastructure maintenance, upgrade and replacement projects. Ask stakeholders to estimate the quantity of water passing through the infrastructure.	· Copy of survey and responses provided by stakeholders
2.4.b	Based on survey results, identify the following: major trunk lines for water supply, sanitary sewer, and storm water; pumping facilities; storage facilities; and known point source discharges to local streams and the ocean.	· Infrastructure map layers (if provided by stakeholders)
2.4.c	Based on estimates provided by stakeholders and/or other methods, estimate the total quantity of water handled by all water systems, including municipal water supply, wastewater, storm water, individual wells and septic systems.	· Estimate of total quantity of water in Region

2.6. Important ecological processes and environmental resources

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Dave Dettman and Thomas Christensen

The Region includes a diverse assemblage and mosaic of plant and animal species. Terrestrial vegetation within the region ranges from rocky onshore Coastal Bluff Scrub and Active Dune at elevations near zero to Maritime Coast Range Ponderosa Pine Forest and Santa Lucia Fir Woodland at elevations above 3,000 feet in the upper Carmel River Basin. As highlighted by the California Native Plant Society and the California Department of Fish and Game, several rare, endemic tree species occur in the region including Santa Lucia Fir, Monterey Cypress, Gowen Cypress, Bishop Pine and Monterey Pine. Low rainfall and inflow during the Mediterranean-type dry season limits the extent of aquatic habitats but four coastal lagoons and surrounding wetlands persist throughout the year, including the Carmel River Lagoon, El Estero Lake, Del Monte Lake, and Laguna del Rey (Robert’s Lake). Thirteen stream basins drain the region including, Wildcat Canyon, Gibson Creek, San Jose Creek, Carmel River, Pescadero Creek, Stillwater Creek, Fan Shell Creek, Seal Rock Creek, Sawmill Gulch Creek, Josselyn Canyon Creek, Aguajito Canyon, Iris Canyon, and Canyon del Rey. Riparian forest/woodland and meadow habitats are distributed along the bottomland of most stream courses in these watersheds, with exceptions where roads, housing, commercial development and other human activities have encroached or displaced native flora.

For the Plan, the list of species from Tasks 2.6.a-c will be used to prioritize projects submitted for funding under Proposition 50.

2.6. Important ecological processes and environmental resources
Task	Description	Deliverables
2.6.a	Conduct thorough review of the distribution and abundance of Special-Status Species (SSS) within the region based on existing information from the California Department of Fish and Game, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Natural Diversity Database, and the California Native Plant Society	· A GIS based distribution map and list of the Special-Status plant and animal species within the Region.
2.6.b	Assess potential effects of water management strategies/projects on Special-Status species and for any species potentially affected, conduct site specific surveys to confirm potential effects	· Site specific surveys and assessments
2.6.c	Develop specific measures to compensate for potential impacts and to restore or enhance Special-Status species	· List and description of potential impacts and measures to restore and to enhance Special Status species

4.3.3. Evaluate water conservation efforts

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Rob Cline

Through its Conservation program, MPWMD has enacted and enforces several ordinances designed to conserve water on an ongoing basis as well as during drought conditions. MPWMD also provides assistance to other agencies and the general public in understanding water conservation and encourages conservation by providing small water saving devices free and through rebate programs offered for larger fixtures. The following study of water savings associated with various ultra-low consumption retrofits will be completed for inclusion into the Plan.

4.3.3. Evaluate water conservation efforts
Task	Description	Deliverables
4.3.3.a.	Summarize the findings from reports prepared by other agencies related to the following list of water conservation retrofits/installations, including an analysis that quantifies the average water savings/cost (cost/benefit) associated with a comprehensive CII (Commercial/Industrial/Institutional) Conservation Program. The following water saving retrofits are to be evaluated: 1. Weather-Based Irrigation Controller Program 2. High-Efficiency/Dual Flush Toilet Replacement Program 3.Municipal/Public, and Large Landscape Irrigation System Upgrades 4. Pre-rinse spray valve 5. Cooling tower conductivity controllers 6. Water softener retrofit from timed-regeneration to demand initiated regeneration 7. Zero water consumption urinals 8. High-efficiency commercial clothes washers	· Monthly progress/status reports. · Comprehensive documentation of conservation and rebate programs which foster the use of the aforementioned conservation technologies
4.3.3.b	Prioritize potential retrofit programs based on cost/benefit	· Prioritized list of water saving retrofits based on a cost/benefit ratio and other variables which may affect considering these technologies in an expanded conservation program
4.3.3.c	Develop proposal to expand District conservation program on a priority basis determined by cost/benefit	· Proposal
4.3.3.d	Identify key issues, problems, and criteria for past and/or existing successful implementation of these water conservation programs	· Final document detailing water conservation program recommendations, conclusions, and potential problems that have been identified in the review of multiple studies and research compiled by various agencies.

4.3.4. Expand Seaside Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Joe Oliver

MPWMD has been studying the Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) concept in the Seaside Groundwater Basin (SGB) since 1996. The concept entails diverting excess winter flows from the Carmel River Basin (CRB) and pumping the water approximately six miles to the hydrologically separate SGB, where the water is injected into specially constructed ASR wells for later recovery during dry periods. Prior to injection, the diverted water is treated so that the injectate meets potable drinking water standards. This water banking can result in less water being extracted from the CRB in the dry season, which results in reduced impacts to Carmel River resources from groundwater extraction.

MPWMD’s efforts have included hydrogeologic testing and construction of pilot and full-scale test injection wells. This testing has found that the SGB can be successfully used to store water for future delivery and use in the California American Water (CAW) system. Since the MPWMD began formal injection testing in 1998, approximately 1,450 acre-feet (AF) of CRB water have been diverted and injected into the SGB. Recent studies conducted by the MPWMD and CAW have confirmed that present groundwater pumping significantly exceeds the long-term (“safe”) yield of the SGB, and the coastal area of the basin is currently at risk of seawater intrusion.

An ASR project is viewed by MPWMD as one way to improve water management capabilities to the benefit of CRB natural resources and SGB long-term water supply sustainability. In 2001, the MPWMD filed a petition with the State Water Resources Control Board to secure water rights to divert excess winter flows from the CRB for injection, storage and recovery from the SGB. In 2004, the MPWMD filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for its proposed ASR project in the SGB. In 2005, the MPWMD prepared a draft Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) for Phase 1 of the District’s ASR project. The tasks shown below reflect ongoing work that is needed to continue the planning effort on the Phase 1 ASR project, as related to the IRWMP.

4.3.4. Expand Seaside Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project
Task	Description	Deliverables
4.3.4.a	Conduct hydrologic modeling using the MPWMD CVSIM model to evaluate the environmental benefits of operating the Phase 1 ASR project under selected scenarios: 1. No Project 2. Optimize CRB benefits 3. Optimize SGB benefits 4. Balance CRB and SGB benefits	· Technical memorandum on CVSIM modeling results
4.3.4.b	Continue preparation of the EIR/EA on the Phase 1 ASR Project: 1. Respond to draft EIR/EA comments 2. Prepare final EIR/EA document	· Copy of EIR/EA Response to Comments document · Copy of Final Phase 1 ASR EIR/EA
4.3.4.c	Prepare preliminary Phase 1 ASR site plans: 1. Expanded Phase 1 project site 2. Temporary intertie pipeline route 3. Alternative location Phase 1 project site (if needed) 4. Preliminary design drawings of onsite chemical/utility building (if needed)	· Phase 1 ASR project preliminary site plan · Phase 1 ASR project temporary intertie pipeline route site plan
4.3.4.d	Continue work on Phase 1 ASR project permit applications and notifications: 1. City of Seaside Conditional Use Permit 2. City of Seaside Architectural Review (if needed) 3. County of Monterey Well Construction Permit 4. Marina Coast Water District - project notification 5. Fort Ord Reuse Authority - project notification 6. Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency - project notification 7. California Regional Water Quality Control Board discharge permit (if needed) 8. California State Water Resources Control Board water rights permits 9. California Department of Health Services - WY 2006 ASR work authorization 10. California EPA Department of Pesticide Regulation – project notification 11. US EPA Underground Injection Control - project notification 12. US Army amended easement for Phase 1 ASR project.	· Copy of City of Seaside Conditional Use Permit application · Copy of California State Water Resources Control Board temporary water right permit for WY 2006 ASR work · Copy of State Department of Health Services authorization for WY 2006 ASR work · Copy of progress report on US Army property acquisition request for Phase 1 ASR project.

4.4. Restore ecosystems

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Dave Dettman and Thomas Christensen

As described in Section 2.6, the Region is host to a number of special status and sensitive species. Work for this task will focus primarily on the Carmel River watershed and other dysfunctional areas in the Region, where the cumulative effect of human influences in the Region has resulted in fragmented environments. The Watershed Action Plan for Carmel River Watershed Assessment included a list of 57 recommended projects and measures for helping to restore ecosystem function in the Carmel River Basin (CRWC, 2004). These projects and measures will be prioritized as described in section 4.4.2. Other inland watershed areas in the Region with known dysfunction include the Canyon del Rey watershed (along Highway 68), which is described in section 5.5.4. Coastal areas with unnamed streams or relatively small drainage areas leading to ASBS will also be studied (see section 4.5.1 and 4.5.2).

4.4. Restore ecosystems
Task	Description	Deliverables
4.4.a	Develop criteria to prioritize projects and restoration site locations that will benefit Special Status Species (SSS) and sensitive species. Develop criteria and project features for benefiting SSS in the vicinity of specific water supply projects.	· Enhancement criteria and prioritized list of projects and associated restoration site locations for Special Status Species
	Seek agency input concerning whether these criteria would protect and enhance abundance and distribution of SSS.	· Agency evaluation of criteria and list

4.4.1. Update the Carmel River Management Plan

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Larry Hampson and Thomas Christensen

As described in Section 2.6, the Carmel River is host to a number of sensitive species. Degradation of the Carmel River riparian corridor due primarily to water extraction has been well-documented by MPWMD and others. The lower 27 miles of the river require intensive management efforts by a number of government and private agencies. There are currently several plans either in effect or in the process of being implemented in the watershed to protect, enhance and restore the resources of the river. These include:

► The Carmel River Management Plan (CRMP), which was adopted in 1984 by MPWMD to halt the decline of steelhead in the river, restore stream bank stability, and enhance the value of the riparian corridor. The CRMP focused on 15.5 miles of the river from the ocean to River Mile 15.5, near Carmel Valley Village.

► The Carmel River Watershed Action Plan, which was completed in 2005, and is discussed in Section 4.4.3.

► The Carmel Valley Master Plan (CVMP), which was adopted in 1986 and contains policies concerning land use in the watershed.

Since the adoption of the CRMP and the CVMP in the 1980’s, there have been significant advancements in the field of river restoration and watershed management. In addition, protection of CRLF and steelhead under the Federal and State ESA in the 1990’s has resulted in a dramatic shift in priorities of several groups involved in activities along the river including Cal-Am, MPWMD, BSLT, State Parks, Monterey County, MPRPD, and CRSA.

4.4.1. Update the Carmel River Management Plan
Task	Description	Deliverables
4.4.1.a	Evaluate the effectiveness of the CRMP to restore the resources of the Carmel River riparian corridor and mitigate for impacts due to water extraction.	· Report on restoration and mitigation activities along the Carmel River and the effectiveness of these activities to mitigate for the impacts of water extraction
4.4.1.b	Describe physical and biological constraints to restoration activities. Evaluate and recommend appropriate restoration techniques and activities in the future to apply to the Carmel River.	· List of recommended restoration techniques for the Carmel River.
4.4.1.c	Revise the CRMP to incorporate new information concerning threatened species, watershed management, and BMPs for activities within the riparian corridor of the Carmel River.	· Updated Carmel River Management Plan

4.4.2. Prioritize Carmel River watershed projects

Responsible party/person: CRWC/Clive Sanders

4.4.2. Prioritize Carmel River watershed projects
Task	Description	Deliverable
4.4.2.1.0	Confirm TAC members participation (15 people)	· Conduct outreach via telephone, email and meetings as necessary to convey scope and purpose for 6 meetings; update contact list for TAC members and distribute
4.4.2.2.0	Hire a technical writer to support TAC process and development of final WAP	· Contract; approved work plan
4.4.2.3.0	Reconvene the Technical Advisory Committee
4.4.2.3.1	First Meeting: Establish a work schedule for 6 meetings (1x/month). Review Watershed Action Plan and related Public Comments. Develop plan for two public workshops including topics and suggested speakers.	· Establish schedule for 6 meetings and 2 public workshops between February and July; assign areas of expertise on TAC for review
4.4.2.3.2	Second meeting – prioritize actions for Sedimentation (9 Actions), Flow (7 Actions), and Steelhead (6 Actions). Develop matrix table with required agency participation for each action	· Initiate revisions to Action Plan Table; develop expanded written descriptions for each action
4.4.2.3.3	Third meeting – prioritize actions for Habitat (11 Actions) Public Outreach and Education (4 Actions), Water Quantity (2 Actions) and Groundwater (2 Actions), and Cross Cutting Actions (14 Actions). Develop matrix table w/ required agency participation and other organizations likely to participate.	· Complete revisions to Action Plan Table; complete expanded written descriptions for each action
4.4.2.3.4	Fourth meeting – review model projects that can serve as guidance for local project development	· Written descriptions of model projects for each action plan or for each action plan category with contact information; Revised Watershed Action Plan with incorporated model project descriptions
4.4.2.3.5	Fifth meeting – review sources of funding that can potentially support implementation of actions	· List of potential granting agencies and public and private sources of funding for project implementation
4.4.2.3.6	Sixth and final TAC meeting to review public comments and revise the CRWC Action Plan
4.4.2.4.0	Hold two public workshops to review process and to provide opportunity for public input; review final draft of the priority ranking and new information developed for the Carmel River Watershed Action Plan
4.4.2.4.1	Hold first public workshop following the first TAC meeting; review the Carmel River Watershed Action Plan and schedule of meetings for Prioritization Plan, including plans for a follow-up final Public Workshop.	· Sign-up sheet with names of public participants
4.4.2.4.2	Hold second Public Workshop following the fifth meeting to review the Priority Ranking of Actions and gather public input	· Sign-up sheet with names of public participants; written public comments
4.4.2.5.0	August – Publish final Carmel River Watershed Action Plan including all information developed through the TAC and Public Review Process	· Revised CRWC Carmel River Watershed Action Plan document and post on the CRWC website; send link to other agency and organization websites

4.5.1. Conduct feasibility studies to eliminate storm water discharges to Pacific Grove and Carmel Bay ASBS

Responsible party/person: City of Monterey/Tom Reeves and John Guertin; City of Pacific Grove/Steve Leicker; Pebble Beach Co./Roxayne Spruance.

The State of California has designated certain areas of the ocean as Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS). These are areas of the ocean that due to their rich biota, have been afforded special protection. One of those protections is a prohibition to all “waste” discharges.

The cities of Monterey, Pacific Grove and the Pebble Beach Company have been notified by the State Water Resources Control Board that discharges of storm water that contain “waste” will either be highly regulated or prohibited from entering the ASBS that flank these communities. At the time of writing this scope of work, the regulatory structure surrounding ASBS is in a state of flux. But it is anticipated that dry weather and perhaps wet weather diversions of storm drain flows will be one of the options that will be available.

Another facet of the ASBS regulatory program is monitoring of discharge as well as receiving water quality. The Pebble Beach Company has previously gathered water quality data.

The Cities as well as Pebble Beach Company have applied for and received state funding under Proposition 50 for an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. In an effort to work in an integrated fashion, these entities have come together to administer a contract for the preparation of an alternatives analysis. Since Monterey’s storm drainage reaches the Pacific Grove ASBS through indirect means via the City of Pacific Grove’s drainage system and is commingled with drainage from Pacific Grove, these two cities have chosen to look at the analysis as though both city’s systems were under one governance.

By virtue of the fact that both the Carmel Bay and Pacific Grove ASBS are considered “Critical Coastal Areas”, in addition to viewing each as a separate study area, an analysis of the possible regional benefits and uses of storm water runoff from the study area is also to be conducted.

The results of the analysis will be used to guide the cities, the Pebble Beach Company and the State Water Resources Control Board throughout the decision making process of complying with the California Ocean Plan. In addition, the Cities of Monterey and Pacific Grove want to have a review performed on the alternatives analysis in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) so that both cities will know with certainty which alternative is the best and which require mitigation and what those mitigation activities would be. In an effort to better understand the impact their storm water discharges may be having on the beneficial uses of the receiving waters, the Pebble Beach Company wants to expand their discharge and receiving water testing.

Fortunately, the Monterey Bay area is home to some of the world’s premiere marine and oceanographic institutes. Hopkins Marine Station is located within Pacific Grove; the Monterey Bay Aquarium is located within the City of Monterey; and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute is located in Moss Landing. These resources are available and are to be used by the selected consultant during the analysis and report preparation.

Overall Analysis

In addition to the analysis for the Carmel and Pacific Grove ASBS as individual areas, an overall examination of the possibilities to combine systems such as reuse of storm water in the overall Pebble Beach/Pacific Grove/Monterey study area and adjacent areas as opposed to looking at each ASBS region as a stand-alone is to be performed. Alternatives should include but not be limited to treatment and injection either in local drinking water aquifers or into the Salinas Valley aquifer to help combat salt water intrusion.

Note: see text following this table for more detail on the scope of tasks below.

4.5.1. Conduct feasibility studies to eliminate storm water discharges to Pacific Grove and Carmel Bay ASBS Pacific Grove ASBS Alternatives Analysis
Task	Description	Deliverables
4.5.1.a	Meet with Interested Staff and Refine Alternatives	· Status report
4.5.1.b	Compile Existing Information	· Status report
4.5.1.c	Prepare Schematic Representation of Alternatives	· Status report
4.5.1.d	Refine Concepts With Interested Staff	· Status report
4.5.1.e	Perform Water Quality Testing	· Status report
4.5.1.f	Prepare Draft Report	· Status report
4.5.1.g	Review Draft Report by Interested Staff	· Status report
4.5.1.h	Submit Final Report	· Final Report

4.5.1.1 Pacific Grove ASBS Alternatives Analysis

The Pacific Grove ASBS has as its southerly boundary the Monterey/Pacific Grove city limit line and it extends to the north to Asilomar Avenue in Pacific Grove. Approximately 93 acres of the City of Monterey drain into Pacific Grove and from there, into the Pacific Grove ASBS.

The City of Pacific Grove owns and operates a municipal golf course, which is a large water user. Pacific Grove also owns land that used to house the City’s sewage treatment plant. This plant was taken out of service after a regional plant was constructed and the necessary conveyance system was constructed.

The geology of the watersheds of Pacific Grove and Monterey and Monterey are somewhat variable. But typically, they consist of shallow soils on top of granitic rock near the shore. As one moves away from the shoreline, soil depths increase and consist of sands, clayey sands/silts and sandy/silty clays. Infiltration rates are to be investigated via existing records.

Another asset that is held by the local water purveyor, California American Water Company, is an unused reservoir located between David Avenue in Monterey and Hillcrest Avenue in Pacific Grove. The City of Monterey has previously explored using this reservoir as a storm water retention basin with the goal of harvesting that water for landscape irrigation. With the advent of the ASBS restrictions, this option should once again be explored.

The twenty-one options are described below and broken down in attached Alternatives Matrix. Each option must be examined as it pertains to each City and in some cases to both cities.

Options 1 and 2 would examine the treatment of dry weather flows at a package treatment plant to be located somewhere in the City of Pacific Grove. One option would include looking at treatment of both Monterey and Pacific Grove flows and the other would look at treatment of Pacific Grove dry weather flows only.

Options 3, 4, and 5 would examine the treatment of dry and wet weather flows at a package treatment plant to be located somewhere in the City of Pacific Grove. One option would look at pumping and treating both cities’ flows, the other two options would look at doing the same for each City’s flows individually.

Options 6,7, and 8 would look at pumping dry weather flows to the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) regional sewage treatment plant in Marina for both cities, and for each city individually.

Options 9, 10 and 11 would look at pumping dry and wet weather flows to the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) regional sewage treatment plant in Marina for both cities, and for each city individually.

Options 12 and 13 would look at diverting all flows out of the ASBS and into Monterey waters not in or adjacent to the ASBS. These options would include analysis of options for both cities collectively, or for Monterey alone.

Options 14 and 15 would look at the “do nothing” approach for each city individually. These options would not require analysis during this stage of the feasibility study, but would be looked at during a later phase when environmental review is considered.

Options 16 and 17 would look at diversion of a mixture of sanitary sewage and stormwater to a package plant in Pacific Grove. This could include discharges from both cities or just from Pacific Grove. The idea of using sanitary sewage during the dry weather season to supplement flows would allow a package plant with nonpotable water reuse for needs of the City of Pacific Grove.

Options 18, 19, and 20 would look at treatment of all sanitary sewage and stormwater at MRWPCA. This could include discharges from both cities or from either city individually.

Option 21 would look at diverting all flows out of the ASBS and into Pacific Grove waters not in or adjacent to the ASBS. This option would look at just Pacific Grove drainage and would have to be done in conjunction with a separate alternative for the City of Monterey.

Option 22 would look at the reuse of the California American reservoir as a storm water detention facility that would serve the upper New Monterey drainage basin. This would be coupled with diversion of the lower New Monterey/Lighthouse/Cannery Row flows outside of the ASBS by any of the applicable means in options 1 through 21.

Each of these options must be analyzed to get an idea of the order of magnitude for engineering needs, overall costs, and potential routing options.
PACIFIC GROVE ASBS ALTERNATIVES MATRIX

#	Option	Pacific Grove Flows	Monterey Flows
1	PG Treats Dry weather flow & uses in PG.	X	X
2		X
3	PG Treats Dry & Wet Weather Flows	X	X
4		X
5			X
6	MRWPCA Treats Dry Weather Flow	X	X
7		X
8			X
9	MRWPCA Treats Dry & Wet Weather Flows	X	X
10		X
11			X
12	Divert Out of ASBS (into Monterey Waters)	X	X
13			X
14	Do Nothing	X
15			X
16	Treat all Sanitary Sewage & Stormwater in PG	X	X
17		X
18	Treat all Sanitary Sewage & Stormwater at MRWPCA	X	X
19		X
20			X
21	PG Diverts Outside of ASBS but within PG	X
22	Utilize Cal Am reservoir for storage & reuse of Upper New Monterey storm drainage and divert flows from lower New Monterey/Cannery Row using one of the applicable options above		X

4.5.1.2 Carmel Bay ASBS Alternatives Analysis, Pebble Beach Company

The Carmel Bay ASBS extends from Pescadero Point to the north to Granite Point located in the Point Lobos Marine Reserve. This ASBS encompasses some of the best know scenery of the shores of the Pebble Beach and its world-famous golf courses. Stillwater Cove is one of the water bodies within the Carmel ASBS. As the name implies, the waters are often quite still because of the shelter afforded by the natural land forms. Stillwater Cove has had a history of beach posting and closures during the summer bathing season. Marine mammals and birds flourish in this environment and are likely the cause for the vast majority of these postings and closures. Assertions regarding the quality of runoff waters from the golf courses have also been made.

The Pebble Beach Company has been very sensitive to these assertions and has been monitoring runoff water quality for approximately ten years. The Pebble Beach Company has also been developing practices to reduce the amount of runoff and to increase the quality of the runoff waters. In addition, the Pebble Beach Company has a history of monitoring discharge water quality and has developed a significant data resource. The Pebble Beach Company wants to begin gathering receiving water data along with more extensive testing of the discharge waters.

In addition, the Pebble Beach Company wants to analyze how best to handle wet and dry weather flows so as to eliminate storm water as well as non-storm water discharges.

The project scope is to analyze the feasibility of all options for addressing the ASBS regulatory restrictions including:

· installation of new treatment plants onsite to treat storm water in Pebble Beach

· diversion of all dry weather flows from the Pebble Beach coastline

· the diversion of storm water to nearby existing wastewater treatment facilitates

· the diversion of storm water to the Carmel River

· the no-project alternative (allow storm water to drain into Carmel Bay)

· other options as appropriate

In addition, sampling of receiving as well as storm water is to be conducted as detailed in the following matrix:

Pebble Beach 2005-2006 SAP, Storm #1 Alternative A: 4 stormwater outfall sites, 2 offshore sites; 3 w/ Table B constituents
Station	Palmero Way	Stillwater Cove	18th Hole PBGL	South PBGL	Stillwater Cove Offshore*	Whalers Cove Offshore*
pH	X	X	X	X	X	X
Total Suspended Solids	X	X	X	X	X	X
Total Organic Carbon	X	X	X	X	X	X
Oil & Grease	X	X	X	X	X	X
MBAS (surfactants)	X	X	X	X	X	X
Ammonia as N	X	X	X	X	X	X
Nitrates as NO3	X	X	X	X	X	X
Total Phosphorus as PO4	X	X	X	X	X	X
Turbidity	X	X	X	X	X	X
Settleable Solids	X	X	X	X	X	X
Organochlorine Pesticides & PCBs	X	X	X	X	X	X
Chlorothalonil	X	X	X	X	X	X
Pentachloronitrobenzene	X	X	X	X	X	X
Organophosphorus Pesticides	X	X	X	X	X	X
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine (a triazine)		X			X	X
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds		X			X	X
Volatile Organic Compounds EPA 624		X			X	X
Volatile Organic Compounds EPA 8260		X			X	X
Total Metals (Al, Sb, As, Be, Cd, Cr III, Co, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mn, Mo, Ni, Se, Ag, Tl, Sn, Ti, V, Zn)		X
Total Metals in Seawater					X	X
Other Total Metals (Hg, Cr VI, CN)		X			X	X
Dithiocarbamates	X	X	X	X	X	X
Triclopyr	X	X	X	X	X	X
Carbaryl	X	X	X	X	X	X
Acute Toxicity (1 marine species)		X			X	X
Chronic Toxicity (3 marine spp.)		X			X	X
Indicator Bacteria (Total & Fecal Coliform, Enterococcus)		X			X	X
* Salt Water Samples

This study will include at a minimum: stormwater testing; acquisition and analysis of other required data; and watershed analysis. For each option, an analysis of technical feasibility, a cost estimate and estimate of construction time are to be completed.

4.5.5. Seaside Groundwater Basin

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Darby Fuerst

The adjudication of the water rights in the Seaside Basin began in August 2003 when California American Water (Cal-Am), an investor-owned public utility and the largest pumper of groundwater in the basin, filed a complaint for determination of its water rights in relation to the rights of other pumpers in the basin. In its complaint, Cal-Am indicated that the basin was in a state of overdraft. The District filed a motion to intervene in the adjudication to protect the basin and the public interest in September 2003. This motion was granted and, following mediation discussions, the case went to trial in Monterey in December 2005. A Tentative Decision was issued in January 2006. The Tentative Decision addressed the “safe yield” and “operating yield” of the basin and the composition of the watermaster. MPWMD is a member of the watermaster board. The Tentative Decision requires the watermaster to complete a monitoring and management plan for the Basin. MPWMD anticipates cooperating with and assisting the watermaster to incorporate relevant elements of the Tentative Decision and accommodate the continuing jurisdiction of the court. The following tasks are designed with this in mind.

4.5.5. Seaside Groundwater Basin
Task	Description	Deliverable
4.5.5.a	Review Principles and Procedures in Tentative Decision for developing the Seaside Basin Monitoring and Management Plan (Exhibit A, Tentative Decision)
4.5.5.b	Assist watermaster in development of Basin Monitoring and Management Plan	Draft recommendations for Monitoring and Management Plan
4.5.5.c	Prepare final recommendations for Basin Monitoring and Management Plan	Final Technical Memorandum or report

4.6.1. Carmel River Parkway Planning- Phase II and III

Responsible party/person: Big Sur Land Trust/Bill Leahy

Summary

This project is located in the lower reaches of Carmel River from the vicinity of Highway 1 at RM 1 to approximately Rancho Cañada at RM 2. The goal of this project is to determine the phasing and sequencing of a series of identified projects that will serve to restore riparian functions and habitat in the lower reaches of Carmel River and cultivate awareness and commitment to land and water conservation through access, demonstration, and education. A component of this task is to complete a scope of work for a hydrologic/geomorphic study of the lower Carmel River to facilitate flood control projects complementary to the Parkway plan.

This project consists of site specific planning to increase parkland access, reduce flooding of residential and commercial areas, and restore riparian and wetland habitat on the lands surrounding the Highway One bridge crossing of the Carmel River at the mouth of the Carmel River. A Carmel River Parkway Community Vision Plan has been recently completed by The Big Sur Land Trust and funding has been secured to implement Phase I restoration. This project will support execution of phase II of the Parkway Plan, which consists of further planning for hydrologic and geomorphic analyses, negotiations for land owner agreements, planning for trails and bridges, impact reports, permits, funding agreements, raising community awareness, and assessment of implementation.

Phase III, which is not a part of this task, will consist of implementation and construction of improvements. The Parkway Planning involves three project components: trails, restoration, and education. Existing parklands will be connected through a series of approximately ten new trails providing increased public access. Riparian and wetland restoration will be conducted. An assessment and potential restoration of oak woodland, redwood forests, and Monterey pine forests will also be performed. An education site will be established including learning, interpretation, and visitor services to inform the public of the rich diversity in the Carmel River Watershed.

4.6.1. Carmel River Parkway Planning- Phase II
Task	Description	Deliverable
4.6.1.a	Agency meetings facilitated; agreement on scope of work for meetings reached; landowner outreach completed; funding prospects identified.	· Stakeholders/landowner list · Meeting minutes · Description of funding prospects
4.6.1.b	Scope of work for technical design and engineering plans developed; hydrology/geomorphology contractors interviewed and selected; permit applications developed; community awareness of, and readiness for implementation.	· Proposed scope of work for hydraulic/geomorphic analyses · Copies of permit applications

COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS

Partnerships and agreements will be formed with key landowners, including:

§ Three park agencies

§ California State Parks

§ Monterey County Parks

§ Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District

§ Private land owners / business owners

Partnerships formed with jurisdictional entities

§ Flood control/water management agencies

§ Monterey County Water Resources Agency

§ Monterey Peninsula Water Management District

§ Community Service Area 50

§ Monterey County Public Works

§ FEMA

Expertise, community support and resources will be shared with a number of organizations, including:

§ Department of Fish and Game

§ California State University Monterey Bay (Watershed Institute, Return of the Natives)

§ RisingLeaf Watershed Arts

§ Carmel Unified School District

§ Carmel River Steelhead Association

§ Audubon Society

§ Monterey County Agriculture and Historical Land Conservancy

4.7.3. Evaluate barrier beach management options at the Carmel River Lagoon

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Dave Dettman and Larry Hampson

The Carmel River flows into a lagoon just downstream of Highway 1 and drains into the Carmel Bay through a barrier beach. It has been a practice, dating back to as early as the 1920’s, to open the Carmel River mouth mechanically and with shovels to prevent flooding of low-lying areas and structures around the lagoon. Since approximately the 1960’s, Monterey County has been responsible for opening the mouth. This practice has come under increasing scrutiny by resource agencies as several impacts to sensitive species in the lagoon environment have been identified.

Barrier beach management activities usually occur in three different phases during the year. These phases include: barrier beach management in fall/early winter prior to initial breaching event; winter and early spring maintenance activities at inflows greater than or equal to 20 cfs; and late-spring and summer at inflows less than 20 cfs.

A number of impacts to steelhead are associated with rapid changes in lagoon stage after a breach occurs. For activities associated with mechanical breaching, Monterey County must now obtain permits from several regulatory agencies and develop a long term plan to avoid or mitigate take of steelhead. In addition, several other protected species, most notably California red-legged frogs, brown pelican, and snowy plover, breed or temporarily reside in the lagoon.

The existing relationship for storage volume and elevation is based on 1994 topography and is out of date. In 1996 and 2004, restoration projects were carried out to enhance and increase aquatic and riparian habitats, which resulted in an increase in lagoon storage volume. The increase in volume associated with the 1996 project is not known. Approximately seven acres of the south arm were dredged, but a large flood in 1998 filled a significant portion of the excavation in with silt. The most recent project, which was completed by CDPR in 2005, may have increased the storage volume by approximately 200% at monthly median water surface elevations, depending on season. It is estimated that instantaneous peak outflows from the lagoon immediately after breaching may range up to 10,000 cfs. A reduction in lagoon stage from flood level to a sustained lower level can require several hours and depends on inflow and ocean conditions. Outflow during this period can result in several thousand cubic yards of sand being washed out of the sandbar and into the near-shore environment.

In addition to effects on sensitive species in the lagoon, manipulation of the barrier beach may affect the interaction between the river and ocean in Stewart’s Cove, which is immediately north of the lagoon mouth. Erosion of the bluff along Scenic Road, which parallels the cove, threatens to undermine the road and also impairs access to the beach.

In 2005, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed to develop a long-term plan to manage the baech and protect Scenic Road. The TAC is comprised of the landowner (CDPR) and several public agencies responsible for managing and regulating activities in the vicinity of the lagoon. Information and studies acquired in association with this task will be used in developing the long-term management plan for the Lagoon.

Since 1991, MPWMD has collected data on streamflow into the lagoon, lagoon water surface elevation, lagoon volume, lagoon mouth configurations, ocean tides, and buoy data (MPWMD October 2005). This data would be used in the following Planning Grant tasks:

4.7.3. Evaluate barrier beach management options at the Carmel River Lagoon
Task	Description	Deliverable
4.7.3.a	Conduct topographic and bathymetric survey of the Lagoon and update the Lagoon storage volume versus elevation data (stage).	· Updated storage volume vs. stage relationship. · Topographic map
4.7.3.b	Review hydrodynamics of the Lagoon during three seasonal management periods. Describe factors associated with controlling water surface elevation in the Lagoon.	· Report on factors controlling water surface elevations.
4.7.3.c	Provide results of (a.) and (b.) at a meeting of the TAC	· Copy of presentation

5.5. Flood and erosion-prone areas

Responsible party/person: MCWRA/Elizabeth Krafft and Tom Moss, MPWMD/Larry Hampson

Several areas within identified flood zones in the Region are subject to localized flooding that can cause erosion damage to streambanks, loss of riparian habitat and damage to infrastructure. Flooding occurs most often as a result of undersized storm drainage facilities or from locating infrastructure in areas prone to flooding. Channel erosion is common in wet and extremely wet years in many of the Region’s major streams when high flows occur. Using existing Monterey County Flood Insurance Study maps and land use planning maps, areas within the Region will be identified for projects that could meet multiple Plan objectives.

5.5. Flood and erosion-prone areas
Task	Description	Deliverable
5.5.a	Identify areas within the Region that can be used to convey or detain floodwaters, restore natural floodplain processes, and enhance wetland and riparian values.	· A map in GIS-compatible format showing potential areas for multiple use projects consistent with the task description.

5.5.4. Canyon Del Rey

Responsible party/person: MCWRA/Elizabeth Krafft and Tom Moss, MPWMD/Larry Hampson

The Canyon del Rey drainage along the Highway 218/Highway 68 corridor has several constricted areas and impediments to flood flows that result in bank erosion and flooding of low-lying structures. Overlying soils in the watershed are primarily sedimentary in the upper watershed and highly erodible, even at relatively low flows. Significant head cutting, which may have been caused from drainage facilities under and adjacent to major roads, is apparent at the Laguna Seca golf course adjacent to Highway 68. This has contributed to an increased sand load, bank erosion within the stream channel, and may have resulted in elevated siltation rates downstream.

5.5.4. Canyon Del Rey
Task	Description	Deliverable
5.5.4.a	Identify and map key areas of constriction, erosion, and impediments to flow.	· A map in GIS-compatible format showing locations consistent with the task description.
5.5.4.b	Recommend drainage improvements and methods to stabilize eroding banks and reduce siltation along the channel	· Report on recommended improvements.

5.8. Wetlands enhancement and creation projects in the Carmel River watershed

Responsible party/person: CRWC/Clive Sanders

The Carmel River watershed is host to a number of sensitive species as described in a comprehensive assessment of the watershed completed in 2004 by the Carmel River Watershed Conservancy and others (Carmel River Watershed Conservancy, Inc., 2004; Smith, D.P., Newman, W.B., Watson, F.G.R., and Hameister, J., 2004; and MPWMD, October 2004). Several non-functioning and at-risk riparian areas were identified along the main stem and tributaries. As part of the assessment, a complete set of ortho-photos of the watershed was produced that can be used in conjunction with topographic information to further assess the watershed for potential enhancement sites.

Planning Grant Tasks:

5.8. Wetlands enhancement and creation projects in the Carmel River watershed
Task	Description	Deliverable
5.8.a	Identify and prioritize wetlands enhancement and creation projects and/or areas that can benefit sensitive species, increase percolation and retention of surface waters, and treat surface water pollution. It is anticipated that information from the 2004 Carmel River Watershed Assessment and other appropriate information will be used.	· A prioritized list of projects and/or areas that can be enhanced for the benefit of sensitive species.
5.8.b	Identify potential restoration and enhancement sites for on site inspections. It is anticipated that satellite imagery and ortho-photos of the watershed will be used to locate problem areas adjacent to streams and riparian areas.	· A map showing where potential sites are located.
5.8.c	Document potential restoration and enhancement sites with photographs, appropriate species surveys, and other data gathering methods as appropriate. Only those sites where landowner permission is granted will be surveyed.	· Reports of site visits including photos, surveys, and other technical information.

5.13.3. Categorical Plans

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Larry Hampson

In the past few years, there have been local efforts to quantify and manage water demand, update general plans in some areas of the Region, carry out watershed planning, deal with storm water issues, and update flood management plans. It appears that virtually every stakeholder in the Region has one or more planning documents used in carrying out programs and projects. A description of the known categories and partial list of documents is contained in the draft Plan.

Planning Grant Tasks:

5.13.3. Categorical Plans
Task	Description	Deliverable
5.13.3.a	Contact stakeholders to request that they provide current planning documents.
5.13.3.b	Identify water management strategies and priorities described in local plans and provide a summary of planning documents used in the Region.	· Summary of categorical plans used in the Region including a brief description of each plan, local priorities, and strategies described in each plan
5.13.3.c	Review management strategies proposed in the IRWM Plan for consistency with local planning strategies and programs. Determine whether there may be conflicts or synergistic effects from implementation of local plans.	· Comparison of local planning strategies and strategies proposed in the IRWM Plan
5.13.3.d	Make stakeholder planning documents available over the internet.	· Web site with links to local plans or information on how to obtain local plans

6.0 Prioritization of projects within the Region

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Larry Hampson. Note: the stakeholder group and TAC will be responsible for Tasks a., b., and c.

Stakeholders in the Region initiated a process to prioritize projects as part of the development of a Prop. 50 Implementation Grant application submitted to DWR/SWRCB in July 2005. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of a subset of the stakeholder group was established to guide the development of the prioritization process. It is anticipated that this process will require refinement as the IRWM Plan is developed.

Planning Grant Tasks:

6.0 Prioritization of projects within the Region
Task	Description	Deliverable
6.0.a	Review current method for ranking priorities/projects and consider additional criteria for evaluating projects.	· Criteria for ranking priorities and projects
6.0.b	Hold a minimum of two workshops involving the stakeholder group to establish a list of priorities and projects. Retain a professional facilitator as required to conduct workshops.	· Meeting minutes from workshops
6.0.c	Complete a feasibility matrix that evaluates cost, effectiveness, constraints, impacts, environmental benefits.	· Priority/project matrix
6.0.d	Propose a process and schedule for reviewing and reprioritizing projects.	· Process and schedule for future reprioritization
6.0.e	Identify problems and issues within the Region that have or are likely to take a long term approach to resolving.	· Summary of long-term issues/projects

7.0 Project implementation

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Larry Hampson. Note: the stakeholder group and TAC will be responsible for Tasks b., and c.

At present, the stakeholders are an ad hoc group that came together for the express purpose of applying for Prop. 50 funds. However, this group also recognizes that there are long term benefits from an integrated approach to solving water related problems. There are currently no plans or proposals to form a permanent stakeholder group, but several of the stakeholders have long-term responsibilities in the Region for carrying out the strategies being evaluated in the Plan (e.g., the Cities, Monterey County, special districts, and other long-term groups). Long-term implementation of the Plan can be made possible by the formal adoption of the Plan by each of these agencies.

The stakeholder group proposed 17 individual projects in the Prop. 50 Implementation Grant application submitted to DWR/SWRCB in July 2005. Each project was consistent with at least one objective or strategy proposed in the draft Plan and each project was evaluated in a workshop setting by the stakeholder group. Each project proponent is responsible for funding and carrying out their respective projects. It is anticipated that a somewhat similar process will be used to determine a desired suite of projects and to complete the IRWM Plan. It is proposed that each stakeholder group provide documentation of the adoption of the Plan (e.g., a copy of a resolution).

Planning Grant Tasks:

7.0 Project implementation
Task	Description	Deliverable
7.0.a	Develop a standard format for project proposals that will assist in evaluating a project for conformance with the Plan. Solicit project proposals from stakeholders.	· Copies of project proposals
7.0.b	Conduct at least two meetings of a TAC or stakeholder group to evaluate the feasibility and schedule for the proposed suite of projects. Review suite of projects for consistency with IRWM standards, interdependence between projects, and consistency with the planning Region priorities. Provide results of project prioritization and, if necessary, recommendations to improve performance of the suite of projects to the governing bodies of the stakeholders	· Minutes of TAC/stakeholder meetings · Recommended suite of projects, including project summaries, budget, and schedule
7.0.c	Evaluate the feasibility of forming and maintaining a permanent stakeholder group.	· Recommendations about establishing a long-term stakeholder group

7.2. Describe performance measures

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Larry Hampson. Note: the stakeholder group and TAC will also be responsible for this item.

Each project proponent will be expected to describe project goals, performance measures and a monitoring schedule that is applicable to each project.

Planning Grant Tasks:

7.2. Describe performance measures
Task	Description	Deliverable
7.2.a	Establish project performance goals and review schedule	· Written requirements for describing goals, performance measures, monitoring programs and procedure for project review.
7.2.b	Develop a procedure to submit, review, and track project information.	· Procedure to submit, review, and track project information.
7.2.c	Identify agency(ies) responsible for monitoring project performance	· Recommendations concerning appropriate oversight agencies

8.0 Analysis of Impacts and Benefits

Responsible party/person: MPWMD/Larry Hampson.

Environmental issues associated with management strategies, objectives, and projects will be described as the Plan is developed and projects are identified. As presently drafted, the Plan and several of the current projects associated with the Plan focus on resolving key issues, which are discussed in Section 3.0 in the Plan. However, these key issues may be revised during Plan development. As part of each project description, stakeholders will be asked to summarize potential impacts and benefits from each project.

Based on the range of anticipated plan elements and projects, the IRWMP will include, but not be limited to, an analysis of potential benefits to and impacts on:

level of groundwater in the Seaside Coastal Basin
streamflow in the lower Carmel River
stormwater runoff and discharge into Areas of Special Biological Significance
distribution of state special status species within the region.

Planning Grant Tasks:

8.0 Analysis of Impacts and Benefits
Task	Description	Deliverable
8.0.a	Conduct impact analysis of Plan elements and strategies.	· Preparation of a section in the IRWM Plan on Impacts and Benefits