3. History of the Project
The Dam is a 106-foot high concrete arch dam located approximately 18.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean on the Carmel River. It was constructed in 1921 and has been operated by Cal-Am since 1966. Historically, the Dam provided water for Cal-Am's customers by diverting the surface flow of the Carmel River at the Dam; however, due to sediment build-up and endangered species concerns, the San Clemente Reservoir last acted as a diversion point to supply water to customers during the 2002-2003 Water Year.9 The dam continues to be used as a diversion for water from the Los Padres Dam as discussed in Section 5.1, San Clemente Dam Usefulness and Section 5.7, Rule 1.1 Violation Concern.
In 1980, Cal-Am was required by the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD), an agency under the California Department of Water Resources, to evaluate the ability of the Dam to safely pass the Probable Maximum Flood and withstand the Maximum Credible Earthquake. Based on the evaluation, DSOD directed Cal-Am in 1992 to improve the Dam so that it would meet current seismic safety standards. Also in 1992, two species present in the Carmel River watershed, the South-Central California Coast steelhead and California red-legged frog, were listed as candidates for study pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The red-legged frog was designated as "threatened" in 1996, followed by the steelhead in 1997.10 In developing its proposal to resolve the seismic safety issue, Cal-Am needed to address potential adverse effects to these species, particularly the listed steelhead, under both a state Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) permitting process.
As the Project proponent, Cal-Am proposed and supported Dam buttressing as its preferred project throughout two EIRs and one EIR/EIS. Cal-Am briefly explored dam removal as an option in the early 1990s, but in its 1995 Preliminary Feasibility Study for DSOD it did engineering studies only on seven dam reinforcing options and a "no action" option. DSOD accepted this study when it initiated a California Environmental Quality Act review.11 It should be noted that Cal-Am had requested that DSOD consider the option of dam removal in its first EIR. DSOD was not in favor of that option because of the danger of impact on the project schedule and downstream damage and that the overall environmental impacts and project costs would be substantial and more significant than buttressing.12 Therefore, Cal-Am pursued buttressing and began incurring costs in that endeavor.
A Draft EIR was first issued by DSOD for review on December 23, 1998. In a letter dated February 12, 1999, the NMFS filed comments stating that (1) in the Draft EIR the selection of alternatives was compromised by flawed or omitted analyses, and (2) a dam removal alternative would be far more beneficial than the preferred alternative of dam buttressing.13 A year later, the NMFS wrote the United States (U.S.) Army Corps of Engineers, with a copy to Cal-Am, that the environmental documentation Cal-Am intended to provide to satisfy the Corps' obligations under federal environmental regulations, specifically the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), was inadequate because "Cal-Am failed to fully develop a dam removal alternative."14
Due to extensive public and agency comments, the DSOD issued a second EIR, referred to as the Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) in 2000. After receiving further critical comments, DSOD withdrew the RDEIR in 2002. With no pending EIR process, DSOD chose to direct Cal-Am in 2002 to undertake interim dam safety actions, which included (1) installing an emergency seismic monitoring system and developing an emergency action plan, and (2) lowering the level of the reservoir behind the Dam through annual water drawdowns. Cal-Am fully implemented these measures by June 2003 and continues them to the present.
A combined EIR/EIS process, designed to meet both federal and state environmental review requirements, was initiated by DSOD in 2004 with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. During the scoping process, a new alternative, dam removal, was added. The San Clemente Dam Seismic Safety Project Draft EIR/EIS was released in 2006. It included the Carmel River Reroute and Dam Removal as Alternative 3. In December 2007, DSOD certified the Final EIR/EIS, and in February 2008, the DSOD confirmed that Alternative 3 would alleviate the dam safety deficiencies.
Since 2000, the Conservancy has funded studies to explore dam removal options. After the 2006 draft EIR/EIS included the reroute and removal option as an alternative, the Conservancy in 2007 funded over $700,000 in studies to further evaluate the feasibility of this alternative to achieve both safety and ecological objectives and to evaluate design changes.15 It was not until 2008 that a dam removal option was developed that was technically and ecologically feasible.16 After the reroute and removal project was confirmed as a feasible alternative to Dam buttressing in 2008, the Conservancy and NMFS engaged Cal-Am in a dialogue about implementing the project. Cal-Am abandoned these discussions in February 2009 due to concerns regarding the availability of state funding to assist with the project. However, the effort resumed in January 2010, and Cal-Am and various federal, state, and local officials signed the San Clemente Dam Removal Project Collaboration Statement. In collaboration with the Conservancy and NMFS, Cal-Am developed the Project contained in this application.
9 See March 28, 2011 data response provided by Cal-Am at Exhibit 23, Attachment 2-3.
10 Exhibit 23, Attachment 4-6 at 1, and Exhibit 4 at 47.
11 Exhibit 4 at 14-15.
12 Exhibit 31.
13 Exhibit 23, Attachment 2-5 at 2.
14 Id. at Attachment 2-6 at 4.
15 Exhibit 3, Chapman Rebuttal Testimony at 4.
16 Exhibit 4 at 41.
