ADDENDUM TO THE CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY COASTAL ... · Addendum to the California...

ADDENDUM TO THE CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY

COASTAL WATER PROJECT EIR

SCH No. 2006101004

For the Marina Coast Water District Tie-in Pipeline

Prepared by:

Water andEnvironment

March 2011

Addendum to the California American Water Company Coastal Water Project EIR Table of Contents

March 2011 MCWD Tie-in Pipeline i

Table of Contents Chapter 1 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Project Overview ............................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need for Project ......................................................................................... 1-1

1.2.1 Addendum Overview ...................................................................................... 1-1 1.2.2 Background/Need for Project .......................................................................... 1-1 1.2.3 Purpose of Project ........................................................................................... 1-1

1.3 Proposed Project ............................................................................................................. 1-2 1.3.1 Construction Activities .................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.2 Mitigation Measures for MCWD Tie-In Pipeline ........................................... 1-3 1.3.3 Construction Schedule ................................................................................... 1-13 1.3.4 Equipment / Staging ...................................................................................... 1-13 1.3.5 Operation and Maintenance ........................................................................... 1-13

1.4 Right-of-Way Issues / Permits Required ...................................................................... 1-13 1.5 CEQA Process .............................................................................................................. 1-13

Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist .................................................................................................... 2-1 Chapter 3 Report Preparation ............................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Report Authors ............................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 References ...................................................................................................................... 3-1

List of Figures Figure 1: Project Location Map ............................................................................................... 1-2

Addendum to the California American Water Company Coastal Water Project EIR

Chapter 1Project Description

March 2011 MCWD Tie-in Pipeline 1-1

Chapter 1 Project Description

1.1 Project Overview As part of the California American Water Company Coastal Water Project (“CWP”), the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) proposes to construct a 12,500-foot conveyance pipeline that would deliver water from the Coastal Water Project to MCWD customers by tying in to the MCWD system at one of MCWD’s existing reservoirs. The revised MCWD Tie-In Pipeline would add about two miles long of pipeline to the 20 miles of pipeline that were included in the CWP EIR.

1.2 Purpose and Need for Project

1.2.1 Addendum Overview

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, California Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”) and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Title 14, chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”), this Addendum to the California American Water Company (CAW) Coastal Water Project (CWP) Final Environmental Impact Report, certified by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) on December 17, 2009 in its Decision No. 09-12-017 (CPUC EIR) has been prepared to addresses refinements to the distribution system component of the Regional Project (“MCWD Tie-In Pipeline”).

1.2.2 Background/Need for Project

On December 17, 2009, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), acting as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), issued CPUC Decision No. 09-12-017 certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the California American Water Company Coastal Water Project (CWP EIR). This EIR describes and evaluates an alternative project known as the Regional Project (“Regional Project”)

As described in the Final EIR, Phase I of the Regional Project contemplates the development, construction, and operation of a regional desalination water supply project. The Final EIR envisions that MCWD, Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA), and California American Water Company (CAW) would own and operate various project components. MCWRA would design and construct, in consultation with CAW and MCWD, a series of wells that would extract brackish source water for conveyance to the desalination plant (“Source Water Wells”). MCWD would own and operate the Brackish Source Water Receipt Point Meter and a portion of the Brackish Source Water Pipeline, the Desalination Plant, the MCWD Meter, the CAW Meter, the MCWD Pipeline, the MCWD Product Water Pipeline, the MCWD Outfall Facilities, and any related facilities. The components of the Regional Project that would be owned and operated by MCWD are herein after referred to as the “MCWD Facilities”. The remainder of the project components would be constructed, owned, and operated by CAW.

The CWP EIR shows a tie-in from the Product Water Pipeline directly to the MCWD system (see Figure 5-3 of the CWP EIR). It has since been determined by the Regional Project engineer that it would be advantageous for the tie-in to occur through one of MCWD’s existing reservoirs. The revised tie-in alignment of the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline was not evaluated in the CWP EIR. This analysis has been conducted to ensure that no new or greater environmental impacts that were not previously disclosed in the CWP EIR would occur as a result of the revised Tie-in Pipeline alignment.

1.2.3 Purpose of Project

As part of the Coastal Water Project, the purpose of the revised MCWD Tie-In Pipeline is to connect the existing MCWD water system to the supply of water from the desalination plant through one of the MCWD reservoirs.




1.3 Proposed Project As part of the Coastal Water Project, Marina Coast Water District proposes to construct a 12,500-foot conveyance pipeline that would deliver water from the Coastal Water Project to MCWD customers by tying in to their system at Reservoir B or C, as shown in Figure 1. The revised MCWD Tie-In Pipeline would add about two miles long of pipeline to the 20 miles of pipeline that were included in the CWP EIR.

The MCWD tie-in to the main 36-inch force main (Transmission Main South) would occur at 1st Street, and would convey water to the MCWD system using a 24-inch diameter pipe installed in existing public right of ways in Marina and Seaside. The pipeline would also include appurtenances to facilitate operations and maintenance including air valves, blowoffs, and isolation valves. An existing connection is already in place, but the size and condition of the connection would be evaluated during final design.

Figure 1: MCWD Tie-In Pipeline Location Map




1.3.1 Construction Activities

The revised MCWD Tie-In Pipeline would be located within existing roadway rights-of-way. The pipeline would be installed using standard open-cut trenching techniques using speed shoring or trench box bracing. Trench width would be approximately four feet, with active work areas of about five feet on one side of the trench and 10- to 12-feet on the other side for access by trucks and loaders, resulting in a construction zone approximately 25 feet wide. The pace of work is estimated at 100 feet per day along the entire route, and the overall active work zone on any given work day would average 300 to 600 feet in length.

Excavated trench materials would be sidecast within approved work areas and reused as appropriate for backfill. After the Tie-In Pipeline construction and installation is complete, pavement would be restored to preconstruction conditions. Other measures implemented prior to, during and after construction of the Tie-In Pipeline are discussed in the following sections.

1.3.2 Mitigation Measures for MCWD Tie-In Pipeline

MCWD has adopted mitigations as part of their Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program for the MCWD Facilities. The following mitigation measures would be applicable to the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline.

Water Quality Measures

Measure 4.1-1 from CWP EIR The project sponsor will implement the following:

For construction activities in the proximity to the Elkhorn Slough, Moro Cojo Slough, and old Salinas River, the project sponsor will implement additional erosion control measures such as stabilizing slope, preventing or minimizing stream bank or channel disturbance through selection of narrowest crossing location, or placing work areas at least 50 feet from the stream channel (CASQA, 2003). (NOTE: this portion of the mitigation measure is not applicable to the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline, but the second bullet would be applicable).

The project sponsor will develop and implement a monitoring program as required under the General Construction Permit. The project sponsor will require the contractor to conduct inspections of the construction site prior to anticipated storm events and after the actual storm events. During extended storm events, the inspections will be conducted after every 24-hour period. The inspections will be conducted to identify areas contributing to stormwater discharge, to evaluate whether measures to reduce pollutant loadings identified in the SWPPP are adequate and properly installed and functioning in accordance with the General Construction Permit, and to determine whether additional control practices or corrective maintenance activities are needed.

Measure 4.1-2 from CWP EIR The project sponsor shall implement the following measures:

Notify the RWQCB prior to discharge of the extracted groundwater and provide the results of the tests performed; and

Conduct treatment of the extracted groundwater as required under the permit issued by the RWQCB.

Geotechnical Measures

Measure 4.5-1 from CWP EIR: : A California licensed geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist will conduct geotechnical investigations of all Project facilities and pipeline alignments prior to the final design and prepare recommendations applicable to foundation design, earthwork, backfill and site preparation prior to or during the project design phase. The investigations will specify seismic and geologic hazards including potential ground movements and co-seismic effects (including liquefaction). The recommendations of the geotechnical engineer will be incorporated into the design and specifications in accordance with California Geological Survey Special Publication 117 and shall be implemented by the




construction contractor. The construction manager will conduct inspections and certify that all design criteria have been met in accordance with the California Building Code as well as applicable City and County ordinances.

Measure 4.5-2 from CWP EIR: All project elements and pipeline facilities will comply with applicable policies and appropriate engineering investigation practices necessary to reduce the potential detrimental effects of expansive soils, and corrosivity. Appropriate geotechnical studies will be conducted by California licensed geotechnical engineers or engineering geologists using generally accepted and appropriate engineering techniques for determining the susceptibility of the sites to unstable, weak or corrosive soils in accordance with the most recent version of the California Building Code. A licensed geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist will prepare recommendations applicable to foundation design, earthwork, and site preparation prior to or during the project design phase. Recommendations will address mitigation of site-specific, adverse soil and bedrock conditions that could hinder development. Project engineers will implement the recommendations and incorporate them into project specifications. Geotechnical design and design criteria will comply with the most recent version of the California Building Code (CBC) and applicable local construction and grading ordinances. Once appropriately designed and subsequently constructed, in accordance with local and state building code requirements, the resultant improvements will have the structural fortitude to withstand the potential hazards of expansive soils or corrosivity without significant damage.

Measure 4.5-4 from CWP EIR: : During the design phase for all Regional Project components that require ground-breaking activities, the project sponsor will perform site-specific design-level geotechnical evaluations which will include slope stability conditions and provide recommendations to reduce and eliminate any potential slope hazards, if any, in the final design and if necessary, throughout construction. For all pipelines located in landslide hazard areas, appropriate piping material with the ability to deform without rupture (e.g. ductile steel) will be used. For all other facilities a geotechnical evaluation will be conducted and the geotechnical evaluations will include detailed slope stability evaluations, which could include a review of aerial photographs, field reconnaissance, soil testing, and slope stability modeling. Facilities design and construction will incorporate the slope stability recommendations contained in the geotechnical analysis conducted by California licensed geotechnical engineers or engineering geologists. Final slope stabilization measures, determined by the licensed geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist in accordance with California Building Code requirements, may include, without limitation, one or more of the following:

Appropriate slope inclination (not steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical)

Slope terracing

Fill compaction

Soil reinforcement

Surface and subsurface drainage facilities

Engineered retaining walls

Buttresses

Erosion control measures

Mitigation measures included in the geotechnical report will be incorporated into the project construction specifications and become part of the project.

Hazardous Materials Measures

Measure 4.6-1a from CWP EIR: Within one year prior to construction of facilities requiring excavation of more than 50 cubic yards of soil, the contractor shall retain a qualified environmental professional to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with ASTM Standard 1527-05 to evaluate subsurface conditions that could be expected during construction. For all pipeline alignments,




including the Transmission Main South and the Intake Pipeline, the contractor shall retain a qualified environmental professional to update the environmental database review to identify environmental cases, permitted hazardous materials uses, and spill sites within one-quarter mile of the pipeline alignment. Regulatory agency files will be reviewed for those sites that could potentially affect soil and groundwater quality within the project alignment.

If these preliminary environmental reviews indicate that a release of hazardous materials could have affected soil or groundwater quality at a project site, the contractor shall retain a qualified environmental professional to conduct a Phase II environmental site assessment to evaluate the presence and extent of contamination at the site, in conformance with state and local guidelines and regulations. If the results of the subsurface investigation(s) indicate the presence of hazardous materials, additional site remediation may be required by the applicable state or local regulatory agencies, and the contractors shall be required to comply with all regulatory requirements for facility design or site remediation.

In addition, the environmental professional will perform a site reconnaissance and assess the need for Phase II soil sampling at locations with the potential to have subsurface contamination identified in the RBF Hazardous Materials Assessment (2005). These locations may not be identified through a regulatory agency database search, and include stained soil near the aboveground petroleum pipeline at the plant site, the railroad right-of-way, and near Highway 1. As above, pertinent findings shall be reported to the applicable state or local regulatory agencies and additional remediation may be required based on the findings of these investigations.

Measure 4.6-1b from CWP EIR: Based on the findings of the environmental review required by Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a, the project sponsor shall prepare a project-specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP) in accordance with 29 CFR 1910 to protect construction workers and the public during all excavation, grading and construction services. This plan shall be submitted to the project sponsor for review. The HSP shall identify the following, but not be limited to:

A summary of all potential risks to construction workers and maximum exposure limits for all known and reasonably foreseeable site chemicals;

Specified personal protective equipment and decontamination procedures, if needed;

Safety procedures to be followed in the event suspected hazardous materials are encountered;

Emergency procedures, including route to the nearest hospital;

The identification of a site health and safety officer and responsibilities of the site health and safety officer

Measure 4.6-1c from CWP EIR: The contractor shall have a site health and safety supervisor fully trained pursuant to the HAZWOPER standard (29 CFR 1910.120) be present during excavation, grading, trenching, or cut and fill operations to monitor for evidence of potential soil contamination, including soil staining, noxious odors, debris or buried storage containers. The site health and safety supervisor must be capable of evaluating whether hazardous materials encountered constitute an incidental release1 of a hazardous substance or an emergency spill. The site health and safety supervisor shall direct procedures to be followed in the event that a hazardous materials release with the potential to impact worker health and safety is encountered. These procedures shall be in accordance with hazardous waste operations regulations and specifically include, but are not limited to, the following: immediately stopping work in the vicinity of the unknown hazardous materials release, notifying Monterey County Department of

1 An incidental release is a release of a hazardous substance which does not pose a significant safety or health hazard to employees in the immediate vicinity or to the employee cleaning it up, nor does it have the potential to become an emergency within a short time frame. Incidental releases are limited in quantity, exposure potential, or toxicity and present minor safety and health hazards to employees in the immediate work area or those assigned to clean them up.




Environmental Health (MCDEH), and retaining a qualified environmental firm to perform sampling and remediation.

Measure 4.6-1d from CWP EIR: The applicant and its contractor shall coordinate with the future property owner at the time of construction and obtain a legal Right of Entry. The contractor shall comply with all provisions established in that agreement and all regulations regarding excavation, digging, and development within the former Fort Ord.

Measure 4.6-1e from CWP EIR: The applicant or its contractor shall develop a materials disposal plan specifying how the applicant or its contractor will remove, handle, transport, and dispose of all excavated material in a safe, appropriate, and lawful manner. The plan must identify the disposal method for soil and the approved disposal site, and include written documentation that the disposal site will accept the waste. This plan shall be submitted to the project sponsor for review and approval.

The applicant or its contractor shall develop a groundwater dewatering control and disposal plan specifying how the applicant or its contractor will remove, handle, and dispose of groundwater impacted by hazardous substances in a safe, appropriate and lawful manner. The plan must identify the locations at which potential groundwater impacts are likely to be encountered (based on the results of Mitigation Measure 4.6-1a), the method to analyze groundwater for hazardous materials, and the appropriate treatment and/or disposal methods. This plan shall be submitted to the project sponsor for review and approval.

Traffic Measures

Measure 4.7-1 from CWP EIR: The following requirements will be incorporated into contract specifications for the project:

The contractor(s) will obtain any necessary road encroachment permits prior to construction of each project component and will comply with conditions of approval attached to project implementation. As part of the road encroachment permit process, the contractor(s) will prepare a Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan in accordance with professional engineering standards and submit the plan (for work in the public right-of-way) to the agencies with jurisdiction over the affected roads, as well as the project sponsor, for review and approval. The specific plan will be developed on the basis of detailed design plans for the approved project, but elements of the plan could include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

Develop circulation and detour plans to minimize impacts to local street circulation. This could include the use of haul routes that maximize truck traffic on arterials and other major roads (which conversely limits the use of local roadways to the extent possible), and the use of signing and flaggers to guide vehicles through the construction zone.

Control and monitor construction vehicle movements through the enforcement of standard construction specifications by periodic onsite inspections.

Install traffic control devices where traffic conditions warrant, as specified in applicable jurisdiction’s standards (e.g., the Caltrans Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones).

Schedule truck trips outside of peak AM and PM peak commute hours to the extent feasible, and as needed to avoid adverse impacts on traffic flow (i.e., if agencies with jurisdiction over the affected roads identify highly congested traffic flow during their review of the encroachment permit applications). The frequency of truck trips (loaded or empty) shall be no greater than one every two minutes during the peak AM and PM peak commute hours.

Post advanced warning signs of construction activities to allow motorists to select alternative routes.




Arrange a telephone number with knowledgeable personnel to address public questions and complaints during project construction.

Store all equipment and materials in designated contractor staging areas on or close to the worksite, in such a manner to minimize obstruction to traffic.


The following element shall be included in the Traffic Control and Safety Assurance Plan prepared in compliance with Mitigation Measure 4.7-1:

Where possible, limit the pipeline construction work zone to a width that, at a minimum, maintains alternate one-way traffic flow past the construction zone.

If alternate one-way traffic flow cannot be maintained past the construction zone, install detour signs on alternative routes around the closed road segment.

Publish notices of the location(s) and timing of road closures in local newspapers, and on available web sites, to allow motorists to select alternative routes.

Limit lane closures during peak hours to the extent possible.

Restore roads and streets to normal operation by covering trenches with steel plates outside of allowed working hours or when work is not in progress.



Identify locations that provide sufficient parking capacity to accommodate parking demand by construction workers (within the construction zone or, if needed, at a nearby location with transport [e.g. shuttle vans] provided between the parking location and the worksite).



Comply with roadside safety protocols to reduce the risk of accidents. Provide “Road Work Ahead” warning signs and speed control (including signs informing drivers of state-legislated double fines for speed infractions in a construction zone) to achieve required speed reductions for safe traffic flow through the work zone. Construction personnel shall be trained to apply appropriate safety measures as described in the plan.

To the extent feasible, perform construction that crosses on-street and off-street bikeways (and sidewalks and pathways for pedestrians) in a manner that allows for safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians. Alternatively, provide safe detours to reroute affected bicycle/pedestrian traffic.

Measure 4.7-5 from CWP EIR: The following requirements will be incorporated into contract specifications:


Maintain access for emergency vehicles at all times. Coordinate with facility owners or administrators of sensitive land uses such as police and fire stations, transit stations, hospitals, and schools. Provide advance notification to local police, fire, and emergency service providers of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities that could affect the movement of emergency vehicles on area roadways.




Provide flaggers in school areas at the start and end of the school day if and when pipeline installation would occur at designated school zones.

Maintain access for private driveways to the maximum extent feasible.



Coordinate with Monterey-Salinas Transit so the transit provider can temporarily relocate bus routes or bus stops in work zones as it deems necessary.

Provide advance notification to UPRR of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities that could affect the movement of trains on the tracks between Dolan Road and SR 156.

Measure 4.7-7 from CWP EIR: Prior to construction of project components, the applicant and the affected jurisdiction(s) shall enter into an agreement that will detail the pre-construction conditions for all routes that will be used by project-related vehicles and the post-construction requirements of the rehabilitation program. Roads damaged by project construction will be repaired to a structural condition equal to that which existed prior to construction activity.

Air Quality Measures

Measure 4.8-1a from CWP EIR: require its construction contractor(s) to implement a dust control plan that shall include a minimum of the following dust control measures:

Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.

Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials and require trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.

Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.

Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.

Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.

Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).

Enclose, cover, or water twice daily exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.)

Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.

Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.

Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.

Post a publically visible sign that specifies the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond to complaints and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District shall also be visible to ensure compliance with District rules.

Wheel washers shall be installed and used by truck operators at the exits of the construction sites to the ASR well facilities and the Terminal Reservoir/ASR pump station sites.

Measure 4.8-1c from CWP EIR: Idling Restrictions. On road vehicle idling time shall be minimized and shall not exceed a five minute maximum. Additionally, off road engines will not idle for longer than five minutes per Section 2449(d)(3) of Title 13, Article 4.8, Chapter 9 of the California Code of




Regulations. To enforce this measure project sponsor(s) shall ensure that all construction workers are aware of vehicle idling restrictions.

Measure 4.8-5a from CWP EIR: Aerodynamic Efficiency for Trucks. Trucks and trailers that would be used after year 2013 to haul equipment and materials to construction sites associated with the project would be required to be retrofitted with the best available aerodynamic efficiency technology and/or CARB approved aerodynamic efficiency technology to reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel efficiency by reducing aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance pursuant to CARB’s Climate Change Scoping Plan Discrete Early Action T-7.

Construction Noise Measures

Measure 4.9-1b from CWP EIR: The construction contractor shall limit all non-ASR well development construction related activities to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Saturdays, or as agreed upon by the local jurisdiction.

Measure 4.9-1c from CWP EIR: The contractor shall assure that construction equipment with internal combustion engines have sound control devices at least as effective as those provided by the original equipment manufacturer. No equipment shall be permitted to have an un-muffled exhaust.

Measure 4.9-1d from CWP EIR: Residences and other sensitive receptors within 500 feet of a construction area shall be notified of the construction schedule, in writing, at least two weeks prior to the commencement of construction activities. The project sponsor or the contractor shall designate a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator shall determine the cause of the complaint and ensure that reasonable measures are implemented to correct the problem. A contact number for the noise disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously placed on construction site fences and included in the construction schedule notification sent to nearby residences.

Land Use Measures

Measure 4.10-1c from CWP EIR: Disturbed areas shall be restored after construction to minimize permanent effects. The project sponsor shall repave roads and sidewalks with asphalt or concrete for directly affected road sections only, replace uncontaminated soil that was removed, and replant areas where vegetation was removed with the same or comparable species.




Measures to Minimize Disruption to Existing Utilities

Measure 4.11-1a from CWP EIR: Prior to excavation, the project sponsor or its contractor will locate overhead and underground utility lines, such as natural gas, electricity, sewage, telephone, fuel, and water lines, that may reasonably be expected to be encountered during excavation work.

Measure 4.11-1b from CWP EIR: The project sponsor or its contractors will find the exact location of underground utilities by safe and acceptable means, including the use of hand and modern techniques as well as customary types of equipment. Pursuant to state law the project sponsor or its contractor shall notify Utilities Service Alert (USA). Information regarding the size, color, and location of existing utilities must be confirmed before construction activities begin. Detailed specifications shall be prepared as part of the design plans to include procedures for the excavation, support, and fill of areas around utility cables and pipes. All affected utility services shall be notified of construction plans and schedule. Arrangements shall be made with these entities regarding protection, relocation, or temporary disconnection of services.

Measure 4.11-1c from CWP EIR: The project sponsor shall comply with all conditions of its utility excavation or encroachment permits and shall include such conditions in construction contract specifications.

Measure 4.11-1d from CWP EIR: The project sponsor or its contractors will confirm the specific location of all high priority utilities (i.e. pipelines carrying petroleum products, oxygen, chlorine, toxic or flammable gases; natural gas in pipelines greater than 6 inches in diameter, or with normal operating measures, greater than 60 pounds per square inch gauge; and underground electric supply lines, conductors, or cables that have a potential to ground more than 300 volts that do not have effectively grounded sheaths) and such locations will be highlighted on all construction drawings. In the contract specifications, the project sponsor will require that the contractor provide weekly updates on planned excavation for the upcoming week and identify when construction will occur near a high priority utility. On days when this work will occur, the project sponsor’s construction managers will attend tailgate meetings with contractor staff to review all measures—those identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and in the construction specifications—regarding such excavations. The contractor’s designated health and safety officer will specify a safe distance to work near high-pressure gas lines, and excavation closer to the pipeline will not be authorized until the designated health and safety officer confirms and documents in the construction records that: (1) the line was appropriately located in the field by the utility owner using as-built drawings and a pipeline-locating device, and (2) the location was verified by hand by the construction contractor.

Measure 4.11-1e from CWP EIR: While any excavation is open, the project sponsor or its contractors will protect, support, or remove underground utilities as necessary to safeguard employees.

Measure 4.11-1f from CWP EIR: The project sponsor or its contractors will notify local fire departments any time damage to a gas utility results in a leak or suspected leak, or whenever damage to any utility results in a threat to public safety.

Measure 4.11-1g from CWP EIR: The project sponsor or its contractors shall contact utility owner if any damage occurs as a result of the project and promptly reconnect disconnected cables and lines with approval of owner.

Measure 4.11-1h from CWP EIR: The project sponsor shall observe Department of Health Services (DHS) (this agency is now the California Department of Public Health [CDPH]) standards, which require: (1) a 10-foot horizontal separation between parallel sewage and water mains (gravity or force mains); (2) a 1-foot vertical separation between perpendicular water and sewage line crossings; and (3) encasement of sewage mains in protective sleeves where a new water line crosses under or over an existing wastewater main.




Measure 4.11-1i from CWP EIR: The project sponsor or its contractors shall coordinate final construction plans and specifications with affected utilities, such as PG&E. If any interruption of service is required, the project sponsor or its contractors shall notify residents and businesses in the project corridor of any planned utility service disruption two to four days in advance, in conformance with county and State standards.

Measures to Minimize Solid Waste

Measure 4.11-3a from CWP EIR: The project sponsor shall encourage project facility design and construction methods that produce less waste, or that produce waste that could more readily be recycled or reused.

Measure 4.11-3b from CWP EIR: The project sponsor shall include in its construction specifications a requirement for the contractor to describe plans for recovering, reusing, and recycling wastes produced through construction, demolition, and excavation activities.

Measures for Protection of Cultural Resources

Measure 4.13-1a from CWP EIR: Pre-Construction Survey. The project sponsor shall perform pre-construction surveys for any project components not yet surveyed due to lack of access or modifications in project component siting (e.g., new pipelines, staging areas, access roads, facilities). If resources are discovered during survey, Mitigation Measures 4.131-b-f shall be followed.

Measure 4.13-1b from CWP EIR: Avoidance. The project sponsor will seek to avoid cultural resources as the preferred mitigation measure. Avoidance of cultural resources would result in less-than-significant levels of impacts to identified cultural resources. All design-level engineering and construction drawings will be prepared in consultation with a cultural resource specialist. Facilities, staging areas, and any activity involving ground disturbance shall be located to avoid resources. To ensure that no inadvertent damage occurs to avoided cultural resources, the cultural resource boundaries shall be marked as exclusion zones both on the ground and on construction maps. This would include resources within 30 meters of the proposed project component.

Measure 4.13-1c from CWP EIR: Evaluation for CRHR. If avoidance is determined to be infeasible, the project sponsor shall retain a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the potentially significant resources for CEQA “importance” or eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The purpose of further action will be to define a course of action to satisfy CEQA requirements for an Assessment of Effects. In the case of prehistoric archaeological sites, evaluation may be completed by examining existing records and reports, detailed recording, and/or excavation to determine data potential of the sites. Historic resource mitigation measures may include further study to evaluate the sites, detailed recording, and/or excavation. Resources found not to be “important” would require no further management. If cultural resources are considered “important” per CEQA or eligible for the CRHR, then a data recovery program shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels as required by CEQA Guidelines. Data recovery could include excavation and detailed analysis and/or further research, depending on the nature and type of the site. Excavated materials would be curated at an appropriate facility, such as Sonoma State University or San Francisco State.

Measure 4.13-1d from CWP EIR: Cultural Resources Treatment Plan (CRTP). The project sponsor shall develop a Cultural Resources Treatment Plan (CRTP) for all known and newly discovered cultural resources within areas of direct impact of project activities, including but not limited to those detailed below. This plan will be sent to the project sponsor for review and approval.

Procedures for protection and avoidance of Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs), evaluation and treatment of the unexpected discovery of cultural resources including Native American burials;

Provisions and procedures for Native American consultation;

Detailed reporting requirements by the project Archaeologist;




Curation of any cultural materials collected during the project; and

Requirements to specify that archaeologists and other discipline specialists meet the Professional Qualifications Standards mandated by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP).

Avoidance. Implementation of the CRTP shall ensure that known and recorded cultural resources eligible for listing on the CRHR or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be avoided during construction and operation and maintenance if feasible. If cultural resources are considered “important” per CEQA or eligible for the CRHR or NRHP and cannot be avoided, then a data recovery program shall be implemented to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels as required by CEQA Guidelines. Data recovery could include excavation and detailed analysis and/or further research, depending on the nature and type of the site. Specific protective measures shall be defined in the CRTP to reduce the potential adverse impacts on any presently undetected cultural resources to less-than-significant levels.

The CRTP shall define construction procedures for areas near known/recorded cultural sites eligible for the CRHR or NRHP. Wherever a tower, access road, equipment, etc., must be placed or accessed within 100 feet of a recorded, reported, or known archaeological site eligible or potentially eligible for the CRHR, the site will be flagged on the ground as an ESA (without disclosure of the exact nature of the environmental sensitivity [i.e., the ESA is not identified as an archaeological site]). Construction equipment shall then be directed away from the ESA, and construction personnel shall be directed not to enter the ESA. Archaeological monitoring of project construction shall be focused in the immediate vicinity of the designated ESAs during initial mass grading operations or deep excavations such as foundation footings.

Construction Personnel Training. Construction supervisory personnel shall be notified of the existence of these resources and required to keep personnel and equipment away from these areas. The project sponsor -assigned qualified archeologist shall be notified prior to initiation of construction activities. Periodic monitoring of cultural resources to be avoided shall be completed by a qualified archeologist to ensure that no inadvertent damage to the resources occurs as a result of construction or construction-related activities. The timing and frequency of this monitoring shall be at the discretion of the archaeologist. During construction and operations, personnel and equipment shall be restricted to the project work site.

Construction Monitoring. Archaeological monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist familiar with the types of historic and prehistoric resources that could be encountered in the Monterey Bay area. Monitoring shall occur in all areas of ground disturbing activity that occur within 30 meters of a cultural resource exclusion zone during initial mass grading operations or deep excavations such as foundation footings. A Native American monitor may be required at all culturally sensitive locations. Decisions regarding the necessity of a Native American monitor shall be based on consultation with Native American groups and individuals prior to ground disturbing activities in culturally sensitive areas.

Measure 4.13-2 from CWP EIR: Training and Reporting. Prior to the initiation of construction or ground disturbing activities, all construction personnel shall be alerted to the possibility of buried cultural remains, including prehistoric and/or historic resources. During construction and operations, personnel and equipment shall be restricted to the project work site. Personnel shall be instructed that upon discovery of buried cultural materials, work in the immediate area of the find shall be immediately halted and the project sponsor shall be notified. Once the find has been identified by a qualified archaeologist, then the project sponsor shall make the necessary plans for treatment of the find(s) and for the evaluation and mitigation of impacts if the find is found to be important per CEQA (Appendix K). Application of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1b would be appropriate if the find can be avoided. In the case that the find can’t be avoided, Mitigation Measures 4.13-2c-d shall be implemented.

Measure 4.13-3 from CWP EIR: Human Remains. If buried human remains are encountered during construction, work shall be immediately halted, and the project sponsor and the Monterey County coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, then the Native




American Heritage Commission (NAHC) will be notified within 24 hours as required by Public Resources Code 5097. The NAHC shall notify designated Most Likely Descendants (MLD). The MLD is responsible for providing recommendations for the treatment of the remains within 48 hours of being granted access to the find.

1.3.3 Construction Schedule

Construction of the Proposed Tie-in Pipeline is anticipated to start at the soonest, by mid-2013. The active construction period would be about 15 months, potentially occurring sometime between June 2013 and December 2014, depending on the availability of funding.

1.3.4 Equipment / Staging

Construction of pipeline would require, but would not be limited to, use of the following equipment: excavator, crane, backhoe, front-end loaders, dump trucks, diesel generator, water truck, flat-bed truck, compactors, and trucks for soil hauling. A staging area would be established at Reservoir B and/or at 1st Street near Highway 101 for storage of pipe, construction equipment, and other materials.

1.3.5 Operation and Maintenance

Pipeline operation and maintenance activities would be similar to those currently taking place for the existing MCWD water system.

1.4 Right-of-Way Issues / Permits Required The proposed Tie-In Pipeline would be sited within existing roadway rights-of-way in the City of Marina, the City of Seaside, and the former Fort Ord. Encroachment permits from the Cities of Marina and Seaside and from the Fort Ord Reuse Authority are expected to be required. An encroachment permit from Caltrans for the crossing of Highway 1 would also be needed as would a Rights of Entry Permit from the California State Parks. The westernmost portion of the pipeline is in the Coastal Zone and would require a Coastal Development Permit.

1.5 CEQA Process This Addendum to the California American Water Company Coastal Water Project EIR has been prepared to evaluate the potential effects, both beneficial and adverse, of construction of MCWD Tie-In Pipeline. This Addendum is in the format of an environmental checklist, prepared in compliance with Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines of 1970 (as amended), and California Administrative Code, Title 14, Division, Chapter 3.

Pursuant to Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, a “lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.”

The conditions in Section 15162 include the following:

(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken; or

(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:

(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;




(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;

(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project; or

(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.

This Addendum has been prepared for the California Coastal Commission, as a responsible agency for the Regional Project. The Addendum has been prepared in lieu of a subsequent EIR because no new or more significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the CWP EIR have been identified, nor have any new mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the CWP EIR been identified. This Addendum provides a focused review of the potential environmental impacts of the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline.


Chapter 2Environmental Checklist


Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist

1. Project Title: Coastal Water Project /Regional Project- Marina Coast Water District Tie-In Pipeline

2. Project Sponsor’s Name & Address: Marina Coast Water District 11 Reservation Road Marina, CA 93933 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jim Heitzman

Marina Coast Water District 11 Reservation Road Marina, CA 93933

(831) 384-6131

4. Project Location: The Proposed MCWD Tie-In Pipeline is on public right-of-way on the following streets along the southern boundary of the City of Marina and the former Fort Ord: 1st Street, General Jim Moore Boulevard, Light Fighter Drive, Colonel Durham Street, 6th Avenue, and Gigling Road. The pipeline alignment starts just west of Highway 1, within an easement owned by the Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC), and extends to MCWD Reservoir B on 6th Avenue just north of Colonel Durham Street or to Reservoir C on Gigling Road east of 6th Street.

5. General Plan Designation: Not applicable – project is located within public right-of-

way 6. Zoning: Not applicable – project is located within public right-of-

way 7. Description of Project: As part of the Coastal Water Project, the Marina Coast Water District

(MCWD) proposes to construct a 12,500-foot conveyance pipeline that would deliver water from the Coastal Water Project to MCWD customers by tying in to their system at Reservoir B or C.

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting. There is Habitat Reserve and Other Open Space west of the

pipeline alignment. The connection with the Transmission Line South occurs within the Coastal Zone in a TAMC right-of-way, but immediately crosses Highway 1. A large portion of the alignment crosses currently vacant lands of the former Fort Ord, which are planned for future Regional Commercial, Public/Institutional, Mixed Use (City of Seaside 2004). North of the pipeline alignment the City of Marina has planned Office/Research, Retail/Service, Public Facilities, and Parks and Recreation uses (City of Marina 2007).

9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or

participation agreement). Encroachment permits from the Cities of Marina and Seaside and from the Fort Ord Reuse Authority would be required for construction in roadways. An encroachment permit from Caltrans would be required for the crossing of Highway 1, and a Right of Entry is




required from the State Parks Department. A Coastal Development Permit would be required from the California Coastal Commission.




Environmental Analysis Checklist for MCWD Tie-in Pipeline

The following Environmental Analysis Checklist (Checklist) has been prepared to determine if the Final EIR for the California American Water Company Coastal Water Project adequately addresses impacts of the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD) Tie-In Pipeline. The Checklist evaluates the adequacy of the earlier evaluation contained in the CWP EIR, document pursuant to Section 21166 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.

Issues and Supporting Data Sources:

Location where Project’s impact(s) were addressed in Coastal Water Project

Final EIR

Do Project Modifications Involve New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts?

Any New Circumstances Involving New Significant Impacts or Substantially More Severe Impacts?

Any New Information Requiring New Analysis

or Verification?

Prior Environmental Document’s Mitigations Implemented or Address

Impact?

1. Aesthetics

Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

4.12-24 6.12-7

No No No N/A

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway?

4.12-24 6.12-7

No No No N/A

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

4.12-24 6.12-7

No No No N/A

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

4.12-29 6.12-11

No No No N/A

Discussion: All of the facilities associated with the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline would be located underground and would have no long-term visual impacts. The CWP EIR acknowledges that construction of project facilities would temporarily degrade the existing visual character of the construction zone, but because these effects would be short term, they are considered less than significant. The MCWD Tie-In Pipeline would not result in any new impacts that were not addressed in the CWP EIR.






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

2. Agricultural Resources

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

4.10-54 6.10-17

No No No N/A

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

4.10-56 6.10-20

No No No N/A

c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

4.10-54 6.10-17

No No No N/A

Discussion: The MCWD Tie-In Pipeline would be constructed completely in public right-of-way and would not affect any agricultural lands either directly or indirectly. Because there would be no impacts to agricultural resources, the MCWD pipeline would not result in any new impacts that were not addressed in the CWP EIR.

3. Air Quality

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

4.8-16 6.8-2

No No No N/A

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

4.8-19 6.8-2

No No No Yes, see

Measures 4.8-1a, 4.8-1c and 4.8-5a






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

9-13 No No No Yes, see


d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

4.8-28 6.8-6

No No No Yes, see


e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

4.8-35 6.8-9

No No No N/A

Discussion: The MCWD Tie-In Pipeline would have no operational emissions or odors. All impacts associated with the pipeline would occur as a result of construction. The CWP EIR has already determined that construction-period emissions of PM10 would result in a significant, unavoidable impact on both a project and cumulative basis. Even with implementation of mitigation, the Regional Project would have maximum daily construction emissions of PM10 of about 100 pounds per day (page 6.8-3 of the CWP EIR). About 1/3rd of the PM10 emissions would be produced by equipment and fugitive dust from construction of over 20 miles of pipelines that were evaluated as part of the CWP EIR. The MCWD Tie-In Pipeline would be about two miles long, and would be expected to have associated PM10 emissions of about 3 pounds per day. This would be a minor change in the total PM10 emissions, and would not result in an air quality impact that is substantially more severe than was already addressed in the CWP EIR. Mitigation would be implemented to minimize emissions to the extent possible. The alignment for the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline is generally not located close to sensitive receptors. The majority of the alignment passes through vacant land on the former Fort Ord. There are a limited number of receptors along Colonel Durham Street, including the Monterey College of Law and Christian Memorial Community Church. Construction of the pipeline would move past these receptors relatively quickly and would not be subject to the MBUAPCD recommendation to conduct risk assessments for construction sites that are active for more than one year. This impact would be less than significant. With respect to the emissions sources other than fugitive dust associated with construction, their related emissions are generally included in the emissions inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans and would not be expected to impede attainment or maintenance of ozone and carbon monoxide standards in the Monterey Bay Area. Therefore, other construction-related emissions would also be less than significant. The CWP EIR found that temporary odors associated with the use of diesel equipment during construction would be less than significant, and the impacts of constructing the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline would be the same as for other pipelines.






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

4. Biological Resources

Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

4.4-67 6.4-8

No No No N/A

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

4.4-74 6.4-11

No No No N/A

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

4.4-76 6.4-12

No No No N/A

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites?

4.4-78 6.4-13

No No No N/A

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

4.4-78 6.4-14

No No No N/A

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No No No N/A






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

Discussion: The MCWD Tie-In Pipeline would be constructed entirely within paved public right-of-way or disturbed landscaped areas. The vast majority of the pipeline would be installed in public roadways. The pipeline connection to the reservoirs crosses about unpaved landscaped area adjacent to the tanks. The area does not contain habitat for any sensitive species. No trees would need to be removed to construct the pipeline. The MCWD Tie-In Pipeline would thus not result in any new impacts to biological resources. All impacts were addressed in the CWP EIR. There would be no impacts to biological resources associated with the MCWD tie-in pipeline.

5. Cultural Resources

Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

4.13-16 6.13-9

No No No Yes, see

Measures 4.13-1a-d and 4.13-2

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

4.13-16 6.13-9

No No No Yes, see


c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

4.13-23 6.13-4

No No No Yes, see


d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

4.13-24 6.13-15

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.13-3

Discussion: The project area is within the area surveyed for cultural resources in association with the CWP EIR and the Environmental Impact Report for Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP) (MCWD 2004). The RUWAP EIR identifies the area east of General Jim Moore Boulevard as an area of archaeological sensitivity. Most of the rest of the pipeline alignment has low to medium potential for archaeological resources. Because the alignment is paved, surface reconnaissance for cultural resources is not possible. The MCWD Tie-In Pipeline has the same potential to affect historic and archaeological resources as the other pipelines described in the CWP EIR. Mitigation included in the CWP EIR would be applicable to the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline and would be implemented to ensure that impacts are less than significant with mitigation.

6. Geology and Soils

Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:

--






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

4.5-26 6.5-2

No No No N/A

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 4.5-28 6.5-4

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.5-1

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

4.5-36 6.5-7

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.5-1

iv) Landslides? 4.5-32 6.5-6

No No No N/A

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

4.5-27 6.5-2

No No No N/A

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

4.5-27 6.5-4

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.5-1

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

4.5-29 6.5-4

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.5-2

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

4.5-27 6.5-2

No No No N/A

Discussion: The project area is within the area evaluated for geotechnical hazards in association with the CWP EIR and the Environmental Impact Report for Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP) (MCWD 2004). Mitigation measures identified in the CWP EIR would be applicable to the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline and would address potential impacts associated with groundshaking, liquefaction, and expansive soils. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

4.6-23 6.6-6

No No No N/A

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of hazardous materials into the environment?

4.6-27 6.6-8

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.6-1a through 4.6-1e

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

4.6-27; 4.6-30 6.6-8; 6.6-11

No No No N/A

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

No No No N/A

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

4.6-23 No No No N/A

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

4.6-23 No No No N/A

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Section 4.7 No No No N/A






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

4.6-28 6.6-9

No No No N/A

Discussion: The project area was evaluated for hazards and hazardous materials in association with the CWP EIR and the Environmental Impact Report for Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP) (MCWD 2004). Construction of the Marina Coast Tie-In Pipeline would not result in any new impacts associated with hazardous materials or hazardous waste, or other hazards. The pipeline passes by the Monterey College Law and California State University Monterey Bay, and is less than one mile from Marshall Elementary School and Chartwell School; however as noted in the CWP EIR, the risk of release of hazardous materials during construction of pipeline is very low. Mitigation included in the CWP EIR would be applicable to the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline and would be implemented to ensure that impacts are less than significant with mitigation.

8. Hydrology and Water Quality

Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

4.1-34; 4.2-39; 4.2-40

6.1-9; 6.2-4 No No No Yes

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted?

4.2-44; 4.2-47 6.2-13; 6.2-16

No No No N/A

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

4.1-49 6.1-16

No No No N/A






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

4.1-49 6.1-16

No No No N/A

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

No No No N/A

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 4.1-34; 4.2-39; 4.2-

40 6.1-9; 6.2-4

No No No Yes

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

Not Applicable No No No N/A

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?

4.1-54 6.1-18

No No No N/A

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

4.1-54 6.1-21

No No No N/A

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 4.1-55 6.1-19

No No No N/A






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

Discussion: The project area was evaluated for impacts to hydrology (surface water and groundwater) and water quality in association with the CWP EIR and the Environmental Impact Report for Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP) (MCWD 2004). Similar to other pipeline facilities, the Marina Coast Tie-In Pipeline would be installed underground along public roadways. Pipelines would be constructed primarily through trenching along existing roadways and jack and bore tunneling at sensitive areas. Possible impacts from installation of the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline may result from soil disturbance during construction that could result in erosion and subsequent discharge of sediment to adjacent surface water and drainages. Additional impacts may result from the inadvertent release of chemicals used and stored as part of construction (e.g. oils, antifreeze, fuels) into surface waters. Implementation of best management practices during construction and mitigation measures included in the CWP EIR for other subsurface pipelines (as applicable to the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline) would ensure that impacts are less than significant with mitigation.

9. Land Use and Planning

Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community? 4.10-47 6.10-12

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.10-1c

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

4.10-52 6.10-15

No No No N/A

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation plan?

4.10-52 6.10-15

No No No N/A

Discussion: Land use in the project area was evaluated in association with the CWP EIR and the Environmental Impact Report for Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP) (MCWD 2004). The Marina Coast Tie-In Pipeline would be buried and would not result in any permanent division of a community, but there could be short-term disruption of adjacent land uses during construction. A portion of the pipeline lies within the Coastal Zone, but buried utilities are not inconsistent with the Local Coastal Plan. The project would be completely constructed within road right-of-way and other disturbed areas and would thus not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or other conservation plan. Mitigation included in the CWP EIR would be applicable to the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline and would be implemented to ensure that impacts of short-term disruption during construction are less than significant with mitigation.

10. Mineral Resources

Would the project:






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

6.5-2 9-12

No No No N/A

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

6.5-2 9-12

No No No N/A

Discussion: The project area was evaluated for mineral resources in association with the CWP EIR. As noted in the CWP EIR, construction of pipelines, including the Marina Coast Tie-In Pipeline, would not alter, destroy or limit access to any significant mineral resources. Impacts to mineral resources are less than significant.

11. Noise

Would the project result in:

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

4.9-21 6.9-3

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.9-1b through 4.9-1d

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

6.9-7 No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.9-1b and 4.9-1d

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

4.9-34 6.9-6

No No No N/A

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

4.9-21 6.9-3

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.9-1b through 4.9-1d

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

4.9-20 No No No N/A






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

4.9-20 No No No N/A

Discussion: Noise impacts in the project area were evaluated in association with the CWP EIR and the Environmental Impact Report for Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP) (MCWD 2004). Similar to other pipeline facilities, the Marina Coast Tie-In Pipeline would be buried and would not result in any operational noise impacts, but there could be short-term disruption of adjacent land uses associated with construction noise. The alignment for the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline is generally not located close to sensitive receptors that would be affected by construction noise. The majority of the alignment passes through vacant land on the former Fort Ord. There are a limited number of receptors along Colonel Durham Street, including the Monterey College of Law and Christian Memorial Community Church. Construction of the pipeline would move past these receptors relatively quickly. Mitigation included in the CWP EIR would be applicable to the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline and would be implemented to ensure that impacts of short-term disruption during construction are less than significant with mitigation.

12. Population and Housing

Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

8-1 to 8-44 No No No N/A

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Not applicable No No No N/A

c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Not Applicable No No No N/A

Discussion: Growth impacts in the project area were evaluated in association with the CWP EIR. The Marina Coast Tie-In Pipeline would be buried in public right-of-way would not displace people or housing. The change in the location of the tie-in would not alter the extent to which the project would serve planned growth in the Monterey Peninsula. The impacts of this planned growth have been addressed in environmental review of local plans, and no additional mitigation is required as a result of the Marina Coast Tie-In Pipeline.






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

13. Public Services

Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

a) Fire Protection? 4.11-23 6.11-6

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.7-1

b) Police Protection? 4.11-23 6.11-6

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.7-1

c) Schools? 4.7-32 6.7-6

No No No N/A

d) Parks? 4.10-57 6.10-21; 6.10-22

No No No N/A

e) Other public facilities? 4.11-20; 4.11-24; 4.11-26

6.11-5; 6.11-7; 6.11-8

No No No N/A

Discussion: Impacts on public services in the project area were evaluated in association with the CWP EIR. The Marina Coast Tie-In Pipeline would not alter the extent to which the project would contribute to requirements for services in the Monterey Peninsula. Mitigation included in the CWP EIR would be applicable to the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline and would be implemented to ensure that impacts to public services are less than significant with mitigation.

14. Recreation

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

4.10-57 6.10-21

No No No N/A

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

4.10-57 6.10-22

No No No N/A






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

Discussion: Impacts on recreation in the project area were evaluated in association with the CWP EIR. The Marina Coast Tie-In Pipeline would not alter the extent to which the project would contribute to requirements for recreational facilities in the Monterey Peninsula. Impacts to recreational facilities are less than significant.

15. Transportation/Traffic

Would the project:

a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

4.7-31 6.7-4

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.7-1

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

4.7-10; 4.7-35 6.7-8

No No No Yes, see

Measures 4.7-1, 4.7-2

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locations that result in substantial safety risks?

4.7-9 6.7-1

No No No N/A

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

4.7-9 6.7-1

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.7-4

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 4.7-31 6.7-6

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.7-5

f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 4.7-30 6.7-5

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.7-3

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

4.7-9 6.7-1

No No No N/A






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

Discussion: Discussion: Traffic impacts in the project area were evaluated in association with the CWP EIR and the Environmental Impact Report for Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP) (MCWD 2004). Similar to other pipeline facilities, the Marina Coast Tie-In Pipeline would be buried and would not result in any operational traffic impacts, but there would be short-term disruption of roadways associated with pipeline construction. Mitigation included in the CWP EIR would be applicable to the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline and would be implemented to ensure that impacts of short-term disruption during construction are less than significant with mitigation.

17. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Would the project:

a) Conflict with the State goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California to 1990 levels by 2020, as set forth by AB 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006?

4.8-32 6.8-7

No No No Yes, see

Measures 4.8-1c and 4.8-5a

Discussion: Discussion: The MCWD Tie-In Pipeline would have no operational greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. All GHG emissions associated with the pipeline would occur as a result of construction. The CWP EIR determined that construction-period GHG emissions could be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. The MCWD Tie-In Pipeline would add about two miles long of pipeline to the 20 miles that were included in the CWP EIR; a 10 percent increase in pipeline construction that could increase total GHG emissions by about 105 metric tons of CO2e. This would be a minor change in the total GHG emissions, and would not result in an impact that is substantially more severe than was already addressed in the CWP EIR. Mitigation would be implemented to minimize emissions to the extent possible. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation.

17. Utilities and Service Systems

Would the project:

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

4.11-26 6.11-8

No No No N/A

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

8-9 No No No Yes

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

8-9 No No No N/A






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Not applicable No No No N/A

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

4.11-26 6.11-8

No No No N/A

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

4.11-24 6.11-7

No No No Yes, see

Measure 4.11-3a through 4.11-3b

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

4.11-24 6.11-7

No No No N/A

Discussion: Impacts on utilities in the project area were evaluated in association with the CWP EIR. The Marina Coast Tie-In Pipeline is part of a water supply project, and mitigation for environmental effects of the project in its entirety are included in the CWP EIR. Operation of the pipeline would not require wastewater treatment, would not require a separate water supply, and would not affect storm drainage in the project area. Mitigation included in the CWP EIR would be applicable to the MCWD Tie-In Pipeline and would be implemented to ensure that impacts to utilities are less than significant with mitigation.

18. Mandatory Findings

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

ES-6 through ES-15

No No No Yes






Final EIR




or Verification?


Impact?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

9-1 through 9-24

No No No Yes

c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

ES-6 through ES-15

No No No Yes

Discussion: Based on the analysis above, the Marina Coast Tie-In Pipeline does not have any new or more significant environmental impacts beyond those identified in the CWP EIR, nor have any new mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the CWP EIR been identified. Implementation of applicable mitigation identified in the CWP EIR would ensure that impacts are less than significant with mitigation.




Environmental Determination

Based upon the evidence in light of the whole record documented in the attached environmental checklist explanation, cited incorporations and attachments, I find that the Project:

Has NOT been previously analyzed as part of an earlier CEQA document (which either mitigated the project or adopted impacts pursuant to findings) adopted/certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Preparation of adequate CEQA environmental documentation is required.

Has previously been analyzed as part of an earlier CEQA document (which either mitigated the

project or adopted impacts pursuant to findings) adopted/certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. The proposed project is a component of the whole action analyzed in the previously adopted/certified CEQA document. No additional CEQA documentation is required.


project or adopted impacts pursuant to findings) adopted/certified pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. Minor additions and/or clarifications are needed to make the previous documentation adequate to cover the project which are documented in this addendum to the earlier CEQA document (CEQA §15164). No additional CEQA documentation is required.


project or adopted impacts pursuant to findings) adopted/certified pursuant to State and County CEQA Guidelines. However, there is important new information and/or substantial changes have occurred requiring the preparation of an additional CEQA document (ND, MND, or EIR) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15163.

Signed

Name and Title Date


Chapter 3Report Preparation


Chapter 3 Report Preparation

3.1 Report Authors This report was prepared by RMC Water and Environment (RMC) as Program Manager for the Monterey Bay Regional Desalination Project. Staff that were involved include:

RMC Water and Environment

Robin Cort

Leslie Dumas, P.E.

Ryan Alameda, P.E.

3.2 References California Public Utilities Commission, 2009, California American Water Company Coastal Water Project, October 30

City of Marina, 2007, City of Marina General Plan Figure 2.2 Land Use Plan, Revised 1-22-2007

City of Seaside, 2003, Seaside General Plan, August 5, Adopted by City Council Resolution 04-59 on August 5, 2004

City of Seaside, 2004, Figure LU-2 Land Use Policy Map, August

Marina Coast Water District, 2004, Draft Environmental Impact Report for Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project, June

ADDENDUM TO THE CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY COASTAL ... · Addendum to the California...

Documents

Transcript of ADDENDUM TO THE CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER COMPANY COASTAL ... · Addendum to the California...