DOCSLIB.ORG

Interlake Tunnel and Spillway Modification Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interlake Tunnel and Spillway Modification Project Interlake Tunnel and Spillway Modification Project Notice of Preparation/Initial Study April 2016 Monterey County Water Resources Agency 893 Blanco Circle Salinas, CA 93901 Monterey County Water Resources Agency Table of Contents A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2. BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 1 3. PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................... 2 4. PROJECT LOCATION ................................................................................................................................. 2 5. EXISTING FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS ..................................................................................................... 5 5.1 Nacimiento Dam and Reservoir ...................................................................................................... 5 5.2 San Antonio Dam and Reservoir .................................................................................................... 5 5.3 Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.................................................................................................. 5 6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................................ 5 6.1 Project Work Areas ......................................................................................................................... 6 6.2 Project Elements ............................................................................................................................. 6 7. PERMITS AND APPROVALS ........................................................................................................................ 9 8. TOPICS TO BE ANALYZED IN THE EIR ........................................................................................................ 9 9. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS AND PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING .................................................................... 10 10. CONTACT INFORMATION ....................................................................................................................... 11 B. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ....................................................................................................... 12 1. OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................................ 12 2. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ............................................................................... 13 3. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................. 13 4. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ....................................................................................................... 14 C. DETERMINATION .............................................................................................................................. 55 D. LIST OF INITIAL STUDY PREPARERS ............................................................................................ 56 E. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................... 57 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 57 2. AESTHETICS ...................................................................................................................................... 57 3. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES .............................................................................................................. 57 4. AIR QUALITY ..................................................................................................................................... 58 5. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................... 58 6. CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................... 59 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ......................................................................................................................... 59 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .......................................................................................................... 59 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .............................................................................................. 60 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ..................................................................................................... 60 11. MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................ 60 12. RECREATION ..................................................................................................................................... 60 13. UTILITIES ........................................................................................................................................... 60 Initial Study Page i April 2016 Interlake Tunnel and Spillway Modification Project Monterey County Water Resources Agency LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Project Location Figure 2 Project Site Figure 3 Potential Sensitive Receptors in the Project Vicinity Initial Study Page ii April 2016 Interlake Tunnel and Spillway Modification Project Monterey County Water Resources Agency A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Introduction As the lead agency responsible for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) has determined that the Interlake Tunnel and Spillway Modification Project (project or proposed project) could have the potential to result in a significant impact on the physical environment, and is preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental effects of the project while providing ample opportunity for public disclosure and participation in the planning and decision making process. The proposed project consists of a tunnel which would be capable of diverting water from Nacimiento Reservoir to San Antonio Reservoir, and an increase in the elevation of the spillway at San Antonio Reservoir to increase its storage capacity. Further details of the proposed project are provided below. The purpose of the draft EIR process is to identify and evaluate possible environmental impacts of the project, and consider mitigation measures and feasible alternatives to avoid, reduce, or compensate for any significant impacts on environmental resources, while still achieving the primary project objectives. This document, which serves as the Notice of Preparation (NOP) required by CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations (CCR) title 14, section 15000 et seq.) contains a brief description of the project, including its goals and objectives, and possible environmental impacts (as described in the attached Initial Study). It also provides an overview of the opportunities for participation in review of the EIR, along with contact information. 2. Background MCWRA is responsible for managing, protecting, and enhancing water supply and water quality, as well as providing flood protection, in the County of Monterey. MCWRA was formed under Chapter 699 of the Statutes of 1947 as the Monterey County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District). In 1990, the District was renamed the MCWRA and its mandate was updated to provide for the control of flood and storm waters, conservation of such waters through storage and percolation, control of groundwater extraction, protection of water quality, reclamation of water, exchange of water, and the construction and operation of hydroelectric power facilities. Construction of Nacimiento Dam was completed in 1957 and San Antonio Dam in 1967. Both dams, and the associated reservoirs, were constructed and are owned by MCWRA and serve as flood control, water conservation, and recreation facilities. Nacimiento Reservoir fills approximately three times faster than San Antonio Reservoir, resulting in the possibility of unused storage in San Antonio Reservoir when Nacimiento Reservoir is at capacity and releasing flood spills. A tunnel connection would provide the conveyance means to transfer water from Nacimiento Reservoir to San Antonio Reservoir Initial Study Page 1 April 2016 Interlake Tunnel and Spillway Modification Project Monterey County Water Resources Agency before it is spilled in a flood release. Additionally, water could be transferred from Nacimiento Reservoir at appropriate times to maximize the net storage of the combined reservoirs. The project has been under consideration since the late 1970s and was included in the MCWRA July 1991 Water Facilities Capital Plan as an approach to better manage flood and conservation flows in the Salinas River watershed. More recently, the project was included in the 2013 Greater Monterey County Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. In May 2014, a group of Salinas Valley growers revitalized the urgency for the project
Load more

Recommended publications
  • San Antonio and Nacimiento Rivers Watershed Management Plan
    San Antonio and Nacimiento Rivers Watershed Management Plan October 2008 Prepared by the Nacitone Watersheds Steering Committee and Central Coast Salmon Enhancement, Inc. Prepared for the Monterey County Water Resources Agency and the State Water Resources Control Board Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part through an agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the State Water Resources Control Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendations for use. (This page intentionally left blank) 2 Acknowledgements Facilitation of the Nacitone Watersheds Planning Process was managed by Traci Roberts of the Monterey County Farm Bureau. Stephnie Wald of Central Coast Salmon Enhancement prepared the watershed management plan with grateful assistance of Nicole Smith, Elise Torres, and Sarah Paddack. The preparation of the management plan was guided by Steering Committee Co-chairs Duane Wolgomott and Phil Humphrey. Ken Ekelund of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency managed the SWRCB grant that funded the Nacitone Watersheds Management Plan. Each member of the Steering Committee also contributed valuable information and assistance and is acknowledged below. Ann Beckett, Lockwood resident Marilyn Breland, Heritage Ranch resident Bill Capps, Nacimiento Regional Water Management Advisory Committee Terry Chavis, Heritage Ranch resident Ken Ekelund, Program Manager, Monterey County
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion for the South-Central California Coast Steelhead Endangered Species Management Component for Camp Roberts
    April 10, 2020 Refer to NMFS No: WCRO-2019-02686 William M. Meyer, Colonel United States Army Installations & Environment National Guard Bureau 111 South George Mason Drive Arlington, Virginia 22204-1373 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion for the South-Central California Coast Steelhead Endangered Species Management Component for Camp Roberts Dear Colonel Meyer: Thank you for your letter of September 17, 2019, requesting initiation of consultation with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) for the South-Central California Coast Steelhead Endangered Species Management Component for Camp Roberts in southern Monterey and northern San Luis Obispo counties, California. This consultation was conducted in accordance with the 2019 revised regulations that implement section 7 of the ESA (50 CFR 402, 84 FR 45016). In the enclosed biological opinion, NMFS concludes the proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened South-Central California Coast (S-CCC) steelhead nor likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for this species. However, NMFS anticipates take of S-CCC steelhead will occur as a result of project activities. An incidental take statement with non-discretionary terms and conditions is included with the enclosed biological opinion. Please contact William Stevens of the NMFS North-Central Coast Office in Santa Rosa, California at (707) 575-6066, or [email protected] if you have any questions concerning this consultation, or if you require additional information.
    [Show full text]
  • 05 Section B Region Description
    GREATER MONTEREY COUNTY INTEGRATED REGIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Region Description Section B: Greater Monterey County Region Description B.1 REGIONAL BOUNDARY B.1.1 Description of Greater Monterey County IRWM Regional Boundary and its Relation to Neighboring Regions The Greater Monterey County Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) region includes the entirety of Monterey County exclusive of the Pajaro River Watershed IRWM region and the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay IRWM region established under Proposition 50. The Greater Monterey County IRWM region also includes a small portion of San Benito County where the Salinas River watershed extends outside of Monterey County. Generally, the region includes the entire Salinas River watershed north of the San Luis Obispo County line, all of the Gabilan and Bolsa Nueva watersheds in the northern part of the county, and all of the coastal watersheds of the Big Sur coastal region within Monterey County. Areas within Monterey County that are not represented in this IRWM Plan (but that are represented in other IRWM Plans) include: the Pajaro River watershed, represented in the Pajaro River Watershed IRWM Plan; and the Carmel River watershed, the San Jose Creek watershed, areas overlying the Seaside Groundwater Basin, and all areas within the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District jurisdictional boundary (including the Monterey Peninsula cities of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Del Rey Oaks, Pacific Grove, Monterey, Sand City, and Seaside), which are represented in the Monterey Peninsula, Carmel Bay, and South Monterey Bay IRWM Plan. The Greater Monterey County IRWM region lies entirely within the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) district and is part of the IRWM Central Coast Funding Area.
    [Show full text]
  • San Antonio and Nacimiento Rivers Watershed Management Plan
    San Antonio and Nacimiento Rivers Watershed Management Plan October 2008 Prepared by the Nacitone Watersheds Steering Committee and Central Coast Salmon Enhancement, Inc. Prepared for the Monterey County Water Resources Agency and the State Water Resources Control Board Funding for this project has been provided in full or in part through an agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the State Water Resources Control Board, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendations for use. (This page intentionally left blank) 2 Acknowledgements Facilitation of the Nacitone Watersheds Planning Process was managed by Traci Roberts of the Monterey County Farm Bureau. Stephnie Wald of Central Coast Salmon Enhancement prepared the watershed management plan with grateful assistance of Nicole Smith, Elise Torres, and Sarah Paddack. The preparation of the management plan was guided by Steering Committee Co-chairs Duane Wolgomott and Phil Humphrey. Ken Ekelund of the Monterey County Water Resources Agency managed the SWRCB grant that funded the Nacitone Watersheds Management Plan. Each member of the Steering Committee also contributed valuable information and assistance and is acknowledged below. Ann Beckett, Lockwood resident Marilyn Breland, Heritage Ranch resident Bill Capps, Nacimiento Regional Water Management Advisory Committee Terry Chavis, Heritage Ranch resident Ken Ekelund, Program Manager, Monterey County
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2. Background
    Chapter 2 Background This chapter describes the Monterey County Water Resources Agency’s (MCWRA’s) jurisdiction and authorities, water management responsibilities, projects and programs, and related planning activities to provide context for the Salinas River Long-Term Management Plan (LTMP). MCWRA is a flood control and water agency whose mission and approach to water management balances water supply, flood protection, and environmental sensitivity. MCWRA owns and operates a range of flood control, water supply, groundwater augmentation, and hydroelectric facilities. The agency manages flood and stormwater through its operations at the Nacimiento and San Antonio Dams, conserves such waters through percolation and storage, monitors groundwater extraction, and supports groundwater recharge of the Salinas Valley. Under the Monterey County Water Resources Agency Act (Agency Act), MCWRA has jurisdiction over matters pertaining to water and water supply within the Salinas Valley and is authorized to work as a conjunctive-use agency, utilizing both aboveground and belowground storage facilities to ensure water supply reliability (Section 2.2, Jurisdiction and Funding Mechanisms). One of MCWRA’s highest priorities is water conservation operations, primarily by maximizing the amount of groundwater recharge into the Salinas Valley aquifers, largely achieved through timely reservoir releases and a reduction in groundwater pumping through the operation of the Salinas River Diversion Facility (SRDF) (Section 2.3.1.1, Reservoirs). As described in Section 2.3.1.2, Groundwater Recharge, management of Nacimiento and San Antonio Dams is now focused primarily on the regulated release of water from those reservoirs to maintain Salinas River streamflow to maximize groundwater recharge from the streambed, operate the SRDF, and provide flows for steelhead.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Salinas Watershed Action Plan
    Upper Salinas - Las Tablas Resource Conservation District Upper Salinas River Watershed Action Plan Final Report to the State Water Resources Control Board TABLE OF CONTENTS Upper Salinas Watershed Action Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1-1 A. What is the Watershed Action Plan? 1-1 B. Who Should Use This Action Plan 1-2 C. How the Plan Was Prepared 1-2 D. Background and History 1-2 E. Changes in the Valley 1-7 F. Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Project 1-12 G. Completing the Plan: The US-LT RCD and USWC 1-14 H. Findings and Summary List of Problems 1-15 I. Organization of the Plan 1-16 CHAPTER 2 Setting, Planning Area and Land Use 2-1 A. Physical Setting of the Upper Salinas Valley 2-1 B. The Planning Area 2-3 C. Land Ownership in the Upper Salinas River Watershed 2-8 D. Landuse Issues 2-8 E. Economic Issues Impacting the Watershed 2-11 CHAPTER 3 Wildlife and Vegetation A. Wildlife 3-1 A.1 Invertebrates 3-1 A.2 Fish 3-2 A.3 Reptiles and Amphibians 3-7 A.4 Birds 3-10 A.5 Mammals 3-14 B. Riparian Vegetation 3-16 8.1 Value of the Riparian Vegetation 3-16 8.2 Changes in Riparian Vegetation 3-18 8.3 Climatic Changes and Their Impact on Vegetation 3-24 8.4 Depletion of the Riparian Vegetation 3-25 CHAPTER 4 Erosion, Sediment, and Channel Conditions 4-1 A. Purpose for Channel and Erosion Study 4-1 B. Channel Study Methodology 4-1 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Interlake Tunnel Powerpoint Presentation
    Interlake Tunnel Project 10/22/14 1 Contents 1. Background – current facilities 2. Project description and function 3. Baseline and tunnel scenario modeling 4. Project benefits / opportunities 5. Project cost estimate 6. Proposed financing plan 7. Comparison of costs with other projects 8. Project development schedule 9. Water rights position 10. Next steps and requirements 2 Existing Surface Water Supply 2 reservoirs, Salinas River, and Salinas River Diversion Facility Description Average SRDF Annual Amounts Salinas River Salinas (AFY) San Antonio Average annual 200,000 controlled release from reservoirs Nacimiento (baseline) Less -40,000 Evapotranspiration & Conveyance losses SRDF deliveries -6,000 Ground water 154,000 recharge Provides flood control, minimum flows, and conservation releases 3 Current Situation at Reservoirs Unused storage Nacimiento Reservoir San Antonio Reservoir • Nacimiento fills 3 x faster than San Antonio • San Antonio has unused storage • Excess water spilled to ocean 4 Tunnel Project Fundamentals 60,000 AF additional storage by raising San Antonio spillway 10’ Increased net storage Nacimiento Reservoir San Antonio Reservoir Increases net storage of reservoirs provides flood control and reduces flood spills 5 Interlake Tunnel Lake San Antonio Monterey County San Luis Obispo County Proposed tunnel alignment • ~ 12,000 feet • 10’ diameter • Concrete lined • Gravity flow tunnel Lake Nacimiento 6 Portals and Tunnel Profile (conceptual) Ground surface Tunnel Nacimiento portal San Antonio portal Portal Elevation (TBD)
    [Show full text]