EXHIBIT 10-C
FINDINGS RELATING TO CERTIFICATION OF THE Monterey Peninsula Water Management District PHASE 1
Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project EIR AND DETERMINING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The Board of Directors (Board) of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District (MPWMD or District) makes the following findings in support of its determination to certify the Phase 1 Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR). By adopting these findings, the Board determines that it has complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The MPWMD was created by the California Legislature in 1977 and ratified by local voters in 1978. In creating the MPWMD, the Legislature declared that “there is a need for conserving and augmenting the supplies of water by integrated management of ground and surface water supplies, for control and conservation of storm and wastewater, and for promotion of the reuse and reclamation of water.” Water Code Appendix §118-2.
2. MPWMD has three primary responsibilities. The first is to manage the development of potable water supplies and the delivery of this water to users in the Monterey Peninsula area. The second is to protect the Monterey Peninsula area from drought impacts. The third is to protect the environmental quality of the Monterey Peninsula area’s water resources, including the protection of instream fish and wildlife resources. The relationship among these three responsibilities is complex, and MPWMD must balance competing interests so as to satisfactorily, if not optimally, achieve each of its three primary responsibilities.
3. The Carmel River supports a variety of fish populations, including what the California Department of Fish and Game has described as the state’s largest self-sustaining steelhead resource south of San Francisco and the second largest fishery for this species south of San Francisco. Of the fish resident in the Carmel River, the steelhead is considered the most important, and extensive investigations have been done to define its ecology in the river. The steelhead is the most sensitive species and, as such, the most vulnerable. Maintenance of conditions suitable for continuation of the steelhead run in the Carmel River will benefit other fish and habitat values as well.
4. While it continues to pursue development of new water resources, the MPWMD must carefully manage the Monterey Peninsula area’s currently limited water supplies. The District does this principally by regulating the amount of water that can be produced and delivered by public and private water distribution systems within the boundaries of the MPWMD.
5. This EIR has been prepared to comply with CEQA. MPWMD is proposing to construct and operate an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project that would allow diversion of a limited amount of excess flow from the Carmel River for storage in, and later recovery from, the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The Phase 1 ASR Project (Project or Proposed Project) would divert up to 2,426 acre-feet (AF) per year from the Carmel River between December and May. Because the ASR project would include construction of an injection/extraction well and underground permanent pipeline on a portion of the former Fort Ord that is still under federal ownership, the U.S. Army (Army) has requested that an Environmental Assessment (EA) be prepared to disclose the environmental effects of the ASR Project. The EA has been prepared to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
6. California American Water (Cal-Am) is also proposing to construct a temporary, aboveground water pipeline on former Fort Ord to connect the existing and new MPWMD ASR wells to the existing Cal-Am water delivery system. Although the City of Seaside has completed CEQA compliance for the temporary pipeline, there is no NEPA compliance documentation. Therefore, the Army has requested that the Project EIR also disclose the effects of the temporary pipeline. This has been done through preparation of a joint EIR/EA.
7. Therefore, this EIR serves two functions: (1) it serves as CEQA and NEPA compliance for MPWMD and the Army, respectively, for the ASR project and its alternatives, including a No Action/No Project (No Project) Alternative; and (2) it serves as NEPA compliance to support the Army’s decision on the construction and removal of Cal-Am’s temporary aboveground pipeline. The lead agency for CEQA compliance in this document is MPWMD; the lead agency for NEPA compliance is the Army.
8. These are the CEQA findings prepared by the MPWMD as lead agency for the Proposed Project. These findings pertain to the Project and the EIR prepared for that Project, SCH #20014121065. The Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and all the appendices comprise the “EIR” referenced in these findings.
9. These CEQA findings are attached as Exhibit 10-C and incorporated by reference into the MPWMD Board of Directors Resolution No. 2006-04 certifying the EIR. That resolution also incorporates an Exhibit 10-D, which contains the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP), and which references the Project’s impacts, mitigation measures, levels of significance before mitigation, and resulting levels of significance after mitigation. The MMP identifies the responsible parties for mitigation measure implementation, monitoring, and reporting.
Required CEQA Findings
of Fact:
10. CEQA requires the lead agency (i.e., MPWMD) to make written findings whenever it decides to approve a project for which an EIR was certified (Public Resources Code Section 21081). The findings explain how the lead agency approached the significant impacts identified in the EIR. “Significant impacts” includes those adverse effects of the project that can be reduced to a less-than-significant level as a result of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. The State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations) further explain the required findings.
11. Specifically, Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that:
"(a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are:
"(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR.
"(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
"(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
"(b) The findings required by subsection (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.”
12. The “changes or alterations” referred to in the Guidelines may be mitigation measures, alternatives to the project, or changes to the project by the project proponent. “Substantial evidence” means factual evidence, including expert opinion supported by facts.
14.
In addition to describing the disposition of the
various significant effects identified in the EIR, the findings must also
explain why the project alternatives described in the EIR are not being
selected for implementation. In other
words, the MPWMD is required to describe the specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations that make each alternative “infeasible”,
as defined in Finding 50 below.
Required Statement of
Overriding Considerations:
15. CEQA prohibits an agency from approving a project that will have significant, unavoidable environmental impacts unless the agency adopts a statement describing the specific benefits of the project that will outweigh its expected unavoidable impacts. If the project’s specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those effects may be considered acceptable, notwithstanding the fact that they cannot be avoided. This “statement of overriding considerations” must be supported by substantial evidence (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093).
16. Because the Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, these Findings do not include a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
II. the project and alternatives
17. MPWMD is proposing to construct and operate an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) project that would allow diversion of a limited amount of excess flow from the Carmel River for storage in, and later recovery from, the Seaside Groundwater Basin. The Project would divert up to 2,426 acre-feet (AF) per year from the Carmel River between December and May. The ASR project would utilize new and existing water delivery facilities. New MPWMD facilities would include:
n an injection/extraction well located on land owned and managed by the Army on the former Ford Ord military base or on land owned by the City of Seaside, and
n
an enlarged pipeline connecting both the
existing and proposed injection/extraction wells with the Cal-Am temporary
pipeline that would be located west of
The Project would allow MPWMD to divert water from the Carmel River during times of high flows and store it in the Seaside Groundwater Basin for use during drier times of the year.
18.
The MPWMD has evaluated a full range of alternatives in
the EIR that have the potential to meet the project purpose of protecting
Carmel River natural resources and Seaside Groundwater Basin water resources
through improved water management within MPWMD’s boundaries. The EIR includes
evaluation of the following alternatives:
n No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative would leave Cal-Am’s water supply management of the Carmel River and Seaside groundwater basin as it exists, including current diversions from the Carmel River. No new ASR facilities would be constructed. MPWMD would continue to operate its ASR test well until the temporary authority to divert water from the Carmel River for testing is ended by the State Water Board.
n Non-Contiguous New Injection/Extraction Well. This well would be located adjacent to Fitch Middle School on the west of General Jim Moore Boulevard. The pipeline that would connect this new well to the Cal-Am water supply system would extend approximately 500 feet to the new 16-inch line described above for the existing well. This connection would occur west of General Jim Moore Boulevard. Approximately 0.7 acre of land would be cleared to accommodate the new well and its associated facilities.
n Local Desalination Plant. The desalination plant would be located at one of three sites in Sand City. Depending on the seawater collection and brine disposal methods used, the proposed desalination plant could produce up to 8,400 AFY. This would help Cal-Am meet the provisions of State Water Board Order WR 95-10, maintain its existing total system production of 15,285 AFA (maximum dry-year demand), and continue to provide a reliable supply of water to the Monterey Peninsula customers. The desalination plant would use the reverse osmosis (RO) process to remove salts from seawater. This process would be about 50% efficient; therefore, the desalination plant would require 15 mgd of feedwater to produce 7.5 mgd of potable water. At the same time, the plant would produce about 7.5 mgd of brine concentrate that would be returned to the ocean.
n Wastewater Reclamation. Reclaiming wastewater could supplement water supplies in the Cal-Am service area by replacing potable water used for irrigation or by recharging one of the groundwater basins used by Cal-Am. Three projects have been identified that would provide this water source. One is the Regional Urban Water Augmentation Project (RUWAP) being pursued jointly by the MRWPCA and the Marina Coast Water District (MCWD). A second is the Groundwater Replenishment Project (GRP) being pursued by the MRWPCA. The third is the expansion of the existing Carmel Area Wastewater District (CAWD )/Pebble Beach Community Services District (PBCSD) reclamation project.
n Off-stream Storage. Off-stream storage involves capturing and storing excess winter flows from the Carmel River at a surface water storage reservoir or groundwater basin for subsequent delivery to Cal-Am customers during summer months, or during drought years. Potential off-stream storage sites include surface water storage sites on Chupines Creek, Cachagua Creek, San Clemente Creek, and on the former Fort Ord. The potential groundwater storage site is the Tularcitos aquifer in the Carmel River watershed. Surface water storage includes capturing excess flows from the Carmel River and transporting this water to an off-stream storage reservoir. The use of groundwater storage in the Tularcitos Aquifer would require dual-purpose injection/extraction wells for storage and subsequent recovery of water. Water stored in an off-stream storage reservoir or groundwater basin in the Carmel River watershed would be conveyed by pump stations and pipelines to the Carmel Valley filter plant, or to a new water treatment plant located in the Carmel Valley, for treatment and delivery to Cal-Am customers.
n Stormwater Reuse. Stormwater reuse is the capture of runoff during storm events and the use of this runoff for irrigation or groundwater recharge. Required facilities for large-scale reuse projects would include collection and conveyance pipelines, storage reservoirs, treatment facilities, and distribution pipelines. Small-scale reuse options include cisterns at individual residences. Because of the large capital costs associated with large-scale facilities and the variability of storm events, this option is not being considered. The storage capacity of a cistern would range from 75 to 2,000 gallons. It is anticipated that use of cisterns in the Monterey area would yield approximately 60 to 120 AFA, assuming a 25% to 50% participation rate among customers (Camp, Dresser & McKee 2003).
III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROJECT
19. Because the ASR project would include construction of an injection/extraction well and underground permanent pipeline on a portion of the former Fort Ord that is still under federal ownership, the Army has requested that an EA be prepared to disclose the environmental effects of the ASR project. Cal-Am is also proposing to construct a temporary, aboveground water pipeline on former Fort Ord to connect the existing and new MPWMD ASR wells to the existing Cal-Am water delivery system. Although the City of Seaside has completed CEQA compliance for the temporary pipeline, there is no NEPA compliance documentation. Therefore, the Army requested that the EA also disclose the effects of the temporary pipeline. The lead agency for CEQA compliance in this document is MPWMD; the lead agency for NEPA compliance is the Army.
20. Pursuant to CEQA, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., the CEQA Guidelines, and the Code of California Regulations, Title XIV, Section 15000 et seq., MPWMD determined that an EIR would be prepared for the Project. MPWMD issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) on December 14, 2004, which was circulated to responsible agencies and interested groups and individuals for review and comment. A public scoping meeting was held on January 12, 2005.
21. A Draft EIR was prepared for the Project to analyze its environmental effects. The Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period, from March 23, 2006 to May 8, 2006 with an extension to May 22, 2006 for agencies that requested it. A public hearing to receive oral comments was held on April 17, 2006.
22. MPWMD received written and oral comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period. MPWMD prepared responses to comments on environmental issues, and made changes to the Draft EIR. The responses to comments, changes to the Draft EIR and additional information were published in the Final EIR and provided to commenting entities on or before August 11, 2006 in compliance with CEQA Guidelines section 15089.
23. At all public hearings, the MPWMD staff and its engineering and environmental consultants provided information about the Project, the potential environmental impacts, and the CEQA review process. At each meeting/hearing, members of the public had the opportunity to ask questions and express their concerns and interests for the Project.
24. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR but before certification. New information added to an EIR is not "significant" unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project proponent declines to implement. The Guidelines provide examples of significant new information under this standard. Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The MPWMD finds that the Final EIR does not contain significant new information as defined in the Guidelines and that recirculation of the Draft EIR therefore is not required.
IV. the administrative record
25. The administrative record upon which all findings and determinations related to the Project are based includes the following:
a. The joint EIR/EA and all documents referenced in or relied upon by the EIR.
b. All information (including written evidence and testimony) provided by MPWMD staff relating to the EIR, the proposed approvals, the Project or its alternatives.
c. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the MPWMD Board of Directors by the environmental consultant who prepared the EIR, or incorporated into reports presented to the MPWMD Board of Directors.
d. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented to the MPWMD from other public agencies relating to the Project or the EIR.
e. All information (including written evidence and testimony) presented at any public hearing or workshop related to the Project and the EIR.
f. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan for the Project.
g. These Findings for the Project EIR.
h. All other documents comprising the record pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e).
26.
The custodian of the documents and other materials that
constitute the record of proceedings upon which the MPWMD’s decision is based
is
27. These findings are based upon substantial evidence in the entire record before the Board. Any references to certain pages or sections of the EIR set forth in these findings are for ease of reference only and are not intended to provide an exhaustive list of the evidence relied upon for these findings.
V. CERTIFICATION OF THE eir
28. In accordance with CEQA as adopted by the MPWMD Board, MPWMD, as lead agency, certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. MPWMD further certifies that it has reviewed and considered the information in the 2006 EIR for the Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project (SCH #20014121065) prior to approving the Project. Similarly, MPWMD finds that it has reviewed the record prior to approving the Project. By making these findings, MPWMD confirms, ratifies and adopts the findings and conclusions of the EIR, as supplemented and modified by the findings contained herein. The EIR and these findings represent the independent judgment and analysis of the MPWMD staff and Board of Directors.
29. The MPWMD Board of Directors certifies that the EIR is adequate to support the approval of the Project. The EIR is adequate for each approval required for construction or operation of the Project.
VI. mitigation measures and MMP
30. Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 require MPWMD to adopt a monitoring or reporting program to ensure that the mitigation measures and revisions to the Project identified in the EIR are implemented. The MMP is included in Exhibit 10-D, and is adopted by the MPWMD Board of Directors. The MMP satisfies CEQA’s requirements.
31. The mitigation measures recommended by the EIR and incorporated into the Project are specific and enforceable. As appropriate, some mitigation measures define performance standards to ensure no significant environmental impacts occur. The MMP adequately describes conditions, implementation, verification, a compliance schedule and reporting requirements to ensure the Project complies with the adopted mitigation measures. The MMP ensures that the mitigation measures are in place, as appropriate, throughout the life of the Project. The mitigation measures described in Exhibit 10-D are incorporated into these findings as conditions of each of the approvals required for the Project.
32. The mitigation measures set forth in Exhibit 10-D reflect the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR. The MPWMD Board of Directors has modified the language of some of the mitigation measures for purposes of clarification and consistency, to enhance enforceability, to defer more to the expertise of other agencies with jurisdiction over the affected resources, to summarize or strengthen their provisions, and/or to make the mitigation measures more precise and effective, all without making any substantive changes to the mitigation measures.
33. In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15092, the MPWMD Board of Directors adopts the findings and conclusions regarding impacts and mitigation measures that are set forth in the EIR, and summarized in Exhibit 10-D. These findings do not repeat the full discussions of environmental impacts contained in the EIR. The MPWMD Board of Directors ratifies, adopts and incorporates the analysis, explanation, findings, responses to comments and conclusions of the EIR. The MPWMD Board of Directors adopts the reasoning of the EIR, of District staff reports, and of District staff.
34. The MPWMD Board has, by its review of the evidence and analysis presented in the EIR and in the record, acquired a better understanding of the full scope of the environmental issues presented by the Project. In turn, this understanding has enabled the MPWMD Board to make fully informed, thoroughly considered decisions on these important issues. These findings are based on a full appraisal of the EIR and the record, as well as other relevant information in the record of proceedings for the Project.
35. Under Public Resources Code section 21081(a)(2) and CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a)(2) and 15092(b)(2)(A), the MPWMD Board recognizes that some mitigation measures require action by, or cooperation from, other agencies.
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE AND POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
36. The Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts.
37. The findings described below are organized by resource issue, in the same order as the project impacts appear in the Draft EIR prepared for the project. The findings of “infeasibility”, as defined in Finding 50 below, being made for the project alternatives follow the individual impact findings.
Vegetation
and Wildlife
38.
Impact BIO-1: Disturbance of the Fort
Ord Natural Resources Management Area
Findings:
The MPWMD hereby makes finding (a)(1) as described in Finding 11, as stated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081, with respect to the above-identified effect.
Facts
supporting the findings:
(a) Mitigation Measure BIO-1 provides that management measures will be carried out during project construction and operation to minimize construction effects and the potential for introducing invasive nonnative species. The construction contractor will implement Best Management Practices to prevent the spread outside the construction area of construction materials, oil and fuel, sidecast soil, dust, or water runoff. All invasive nonnative plants, such as iceplant or pampas grass, will be removed from the construction area prior to site disturbance to avoid the spread of plant fragments or seeds. A firebreak consistent with the requirements of the Presidio of Monterey Fire Department and acceptable to the City of Seaside Fire Department will be located and maintained by MPWMD between the well site and the adjacent Natural Resources Management Area.
(b) Implementation of the measures identified above will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level as defined by CEQA.
39.
Impact BIO-5: Potential Direct
Mortality or Disturbance of Black Legless Lizards and Potential Permanent and
Temporary Loss of Black Legless Lizard Habitat
Findings:
The MPWMD hereby makes findings (a)(1) and (a)(2) as described in Finding 11, as stated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081, with respect to the above-identified effect.
Facts
supporting the findings:
(a) Negative impacts on black legless lizard and black legless lizard habitat will be minimized through the Fort Ord Multispecies Habitat Management Plan (MSHMP). This MSHMP has been adopted for the purpose of directing activities within its boundaries toward minimizing impacts on a number of sensitive plant and wildlife species, including the black legless lizard. The MSHMP establishes specific practices and limitations with which the U.S. Army must comply as a signatory to the MSHMP.
(b) Implementation of the Fort Ord MSHMP by the U.S. Army will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level as defined by CEQA.
40.
Impact BIO-6: Potential Direct Mortality or Disturbance of
Monterey Dusky-Footed Woodrat and Potential Permanent and Temporary Loss of
Monterey Dusky-Footed Woodrat Habitat
Findings:
The MPWMD hereby makes findings (a)(1) and (a)(2) as described in Finding 11, as stated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081, with respect to the above-identified effect.
Facts supporting the findings:
(a) Negative impacts on Monterey dusky-footed woodrat and Monterey dusky-footed woodrat habitat shall be minimized through the Fort Ord MSHMP. This MSHMP has been adopted for the purpose of directing activities within its boundaries toward minimizing impacts on a number of sensitive plant and wildlife species, including the Monterey dusky-footed woodrat. The MSHMP establishes specific practices and limitations with which the U.S. Army must comply as a signatory to the MSHMP.
(b) Implementation of the Fort Ord MSHMP by the U.S. Army will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level as defined by CEQA.
Cultural Resources
41.
Impact CR-1: Potential for Discovery of Buried Cultural
Deposits and Human Remains during Construction of the Well and Pipelines
Findings:
The MPWMD hereby makes finding (a)(1) as described in Finding 11, as stated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081, with respect to the above-identified effect.
Facts supporting the findings:
(a) Mitigation Measures CR-1 requires the construction contractor to stop work if buried cultural resources such as chipped stone or groundstone, historic debris, building foundations, or human bone are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities. The construction contractor will stop work in that area and within a 100-foot radius of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures.
(b) Mitigation Measure CR-2 requires that if human skeletal remains are encountered, the construction contractor will notify MPWMD and the county coroner immediately. If the county coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the coroner will be required to contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. A qualified Jones & Stokes archaeologist will also be contacted immediately. There will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the coroner has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and, if the remains are of Native American origin, the descendants from the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating or disposing of with appropriate dignity the human remains and any associated grave goods.
(c) Implementation of the measures identified above will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level as defined by CEQA.
Noise
42.
Impact NZ-1: Exposure of Noise-Sensitive Land Uses
to Construction Noise in Excess of Applicable Standards
Findings: The MPWMD hereby makes finding (a)(1) as described in Finding 11, as stated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081, with respect to the above-identified effect.
Facts Supporting Findings:
(a) Mitigation Measure NZ-1a prohibits ancillary and unnecessary equipment during nighttime well drilling activities. The project applicant will ensure that the construction contractor prohibits the use of all ancillary and unnecessary equipment during nighttime hours. The only equipment that will be allowed to operate during nighttime activities would be the drilling equipment and well construction equipment; cleanup and other activities will occur only during daytime activities.
(b) Mitigation Measure NZ-1b employs noise-reducing construction practices to meet nighttime standards. The construction contractor will employ noise-reducing construction practices such that nighttime standards are not exceeded, including, but not limited to using noise-reducing enclosures around noise-generating equipment; constructing barriers between noise sources and noise-sensitive land uses or taking advantage of existing barrier features (terrain, structures) to block sound transmission; and enclosing equipment.
(c) Mitigation Measure NZ-1c requires the construction contractor to prepare a detailed noise control plan based on the construction methods proposed. This plan will identify specific measurement that will be taken to ensure compliance with the noise limits specified above. The noise control plan will be reviewed and approved by City of Seaside staff before any noise-generating construction activity begins.
(d) Mitigation Measure NZ-1d requires the construction contractor to notify residences within 500 feet of the construction areas of the construction schedule in writing prior to construction. The construction contractor will designate a noise disturbance coordinator who will be responsible for responding to complaints regarding construction noise. The coordinator will determine the cause of the complaint and will ensure that reasonable measures are implemented to correct the problem. A contact telephone number for the noise disturbance coordinator will be conspicuously posted on construction site fences and will be included in the written notification of the construction schedule sent to nearby residents.
(e) Implementation of the measures identified above will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level as defined by CEQA.
43.
Impact NZ-2: Exposure of Sensitive Land Uses to
Construction-Related Vibration Levels in Excess of Applicable Standards
Findings:
The MPWMD
hereby makes finding (a)(1) as described in Finding 11, as stated in State CEQA
Guidelines Section 15091 and as required by Public Resources Code Section
21081, with respect to the above-identified effect.
Facts Supporting Findings:
The facts supporting the above findings are the same as Facts Supporting Findings for Impact NZ-1.
44.
Impact NZ-3: Exposure of Sensitive Land Uses to
Operational Noise in Excess of City Standards
Findings:
The MPWMD hereby makes finding (a)(1) as described in Finding 11, as stated in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 and as required by Public Resources Code Section 21081, with respect to the above-identified effect.
Facts Supporting Findings:
(a) Mitigation Measure NZ-2 requires the MPWMD to design the new pump station and chemical/electrical building so that noise levels do not exceed applicable City of Seaside noise standards and ordinances. Prior to field acceptance, MPWMD will retain an acoustical consultant to measure noise levels from the operating facility. If project-generated noise exceeds the noise ordinance performance standards, additional noise attenuation measures will be implemented to meet the standards. The proposed facility will not receive final acceptance until the required noise standards are met.
(b) Implementation of the measures identified above will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level as defined by CEQA.
Hazardous
Materials
45.
Impact HAZ-1: Exposure of Employees and Public to Hazardous
Materials during Construction of a Well and Pipelines at the Former Fort Ord
(a) Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires the
implementation of MEC Safety Precautions during grading and construction
activities at the project site. The requirements may be modified upon
completion of the Munitions Response Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study
(MR RI/FS) process for the munitions response sites.
(b) Implementation of the measure identified above will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level as defined by CEQA.
46.
Impact PS-2: Temporary Disruption of Existing Underground
Utilities and Utility Service during Construction of Well and Pipelines
(a) Mitigation Measure PS-1 would require that the construction contractor contact Underground Service Alert at least 48 hours before excavation work begins in order to verify the nature and location of underground utilities. In addition, the contractor would notify and coordinate with public and private utility providers at least 48 hours before the commencement of work adjacent to any utility, unless the excavation permit specifies otherwise, and the service provider would be notified in advance of all service interruptions and would be given sufficient time to notify customers. The timing of interruptions would be coordinated with the providers to ensure that the frequency and duration of interruptions are minimized.
(b) Mitigation Measure PS-2 requires the construction contractor to protect all utilities slated to remain, and all buried lines would be tape-coated in accordance with the requirements of American Water Works Association C214. In addition, the contractor would be required to comply with State Department of Health Services criteria for the separation of water mains and sanitary sewers, as set forth in Section 64630, Title 22, of the California Administrative Code.
(c) Implementation of the measures identified above will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level as defined by CEQA.
47.
Impact VIS-5: Creation of New Light and Glare at Well Site
(a) Mitigation Measure VIS-1 provides that MPWMD would incorporate the light-reduction measures into the lighting design specifications to reduce light and glare. The lighting design would also meet minimum safety and security standards. Light-reduction measures include downcast light mounting to reduce backscatter into the nighttime sky and incidental spillover of light onto adjacent properties and open space; pole height limitations; and lighting that minimizes incidental light, has cutoff-type fixtures that cast low-angle illumination to minimize incidental spillover of light, is focused only where needed (such as building entrances), and provides good color rendering and natural light qualities.
(b) Implementation of the measures identified above will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level as defined by CEQA.
Cumulative
Impacts
48.
Impact: The Proposed Project could result in a
considerable contribution to NOx and PM10 emissions when considered together
with other projects that could be constructed in the same timeframe.
(a) Mitigation Measure Cume-1 provides that MPWMD contact local agencies that have projects planned in the same area (i.e., project sites within 1 mile or projects that affect the same roadways) and that have construction schedules that overlap with construction of the Proposed Project. The MPWMD (or their contractor) would coordinate with local agencies responsible for said projects to develop a phased construction plan that includes an evaluation of construction-related traffic impacts, the preparation of compatible traffic control plans, and phased construction activities to keep NOx and PM10 emissions below MPUAPCD thresholds.
(b) Implementation of the measures identified above will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level as defined by CEQA.
49.
Impact: The Proposed Project could contribute
considerably to construction noise and vibration, affecting sensitive receptors
when considered together with other projects that could be constructed in the
same timeframe in the same area and affecting the same sensitive noise
receptors.
Facts
Supporting Findings:
(a) Mitigation Measure Cume-1 as discussed above would be implemented for this impact. MPWMD would contact local agencies that have projects planned in the same area (i.e., project sites within 1 mile or projects that affect the same roadways) and that have construction schedules that overlap with construction of the Proposed Project. The MPWMD (or their contractor) would coordinate with local agencies responsible for said projects to develop a phased construction plan that includes an evaluation of construction-related traffic impacts and phased construction activities to keep construction-related vibration under the ground-borne vibration standards established by the Federal Transit Administration, under noise thresholds established by the Federal Transit Administration, and outside of the construction hours specified in the City of Seaside’s noise ordinance (with the exception of drilling and well construction equipment, which must be used 24 hours per day for a short period of time).
(b) Implementation of Mitigation Measure Cume-1 above will reduce this potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level as defined by CEQA.
VIII. findings regarding alternatives
50. The MPWMD Board of Directors finds that specific economic, social, technological, legal or other considerations make “infeasible” the alternatives to the Project examined in the EIR, and justify approval of the Project. For the purposes of these findings and in accordance with recent CEQA case law, the term “infeasible” refers to a range of economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations taken by the MPWMD Board of Directors in determining not to pursue alternatives to the Proposed Project. This broad definition of “infeasible” does not imply that some of the alternatives are incapable of being constructed or successfully pursued in some different circumstance, only that there are specific reasons why the alternatives do not allow MPWMD to achieve its intent with this project. Legal reasons for “infeasibility” include actions that would not show near-term progress toward compliance with State Water Resources Control Board Order 95-10. Technological reasons for determining “infeasibility” include actions that may not provide for the optimum operation and production of water being extracted from the Seaside Groundwater Basin. Other reasons for concluding that alternatives are “infeasible” include project time frames that do not provide for the near-term protection of the water supply for the Seaside area (one of the two principal objectives of the Proposed ASR Project) and actions that would show no near-term or long-term progress toward reducing pumping along the Carmel River during dry periods, or would have greater environmental effects than the Proposed Project.
51. The MPWMD Board adopts the EIR’s analysis and conclusions regarding alternatives eliminated from further consideration, both during the scoping process and in response to comments.
52. The EIR evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives to the original project that was described in the Draft EIR. These alternatives include (1) a No Project Alternative; (2) a Non-Contiguous New Injection/Extraction Well Alternative; (3) a Local Desalination Plant Alternative; (4) a Wastewater Reclamation Alternative; (5) an Off-stream Storage Alternative; and (6) a Stormwater Reuse Alternative. The analysis examined the feasibility of each alternative, the environmental impacts of each alternative, and the ability of each alternative to meet the project objectives.
53. The MPWMD Board of Directors certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the EIR and in the record. The EIR reflects the MPWMD Board of Director’s independent judgment as to alternatives. The MPWMD finds that the alternatives are not selected for the following reasons.
54. Under Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative, water supply management of the Carmel River and Seaside Groundwater Basin would remain as it exists. No new ASR facilities would be constructed. MPWMD would continue to operate its ASR test well until the temporary authority to divert water from the Carmel River for testing was ended by the State Water Board. The extractions for the Carmel River groundwater basin would continue to adversely affect the surface and subsurface flow in the lower Carmel River and the water levels in the Seaside Groundwater Basin could continue to decline. Although recent court action has established a Watermaster for the Seaside Groundwater Basin, which will likely positively affect future conditions in the Seaside Basin, the Watermaster would not address the current diversions from the Carmel River. Alternative 1 would avoid all adverse effects associated with constructing and operating the Proposed Project, but it would not in itself meet the Project objectives, nor result in the beneficial impacts that would occur under the Proposed Project. Also, Alternative 1 would not provide action toward legal compliance with SWRCB Order 95-10. Therefore, Alternative 1 is considered “infeasible” as defined in Finding 50, above.
55. Alternative 2 includes constructing and operating a new ASR well (the Seaside well) similar to the Proposed Project, except that the new well would be located adjacent to Fitch Middle School on the west side of General Jim Moore Boulevard. Many of the effects of Alternative 2, the Non-Contiguous New Injection/Extraction Well, would be the same or nearly the same as the Proposed Project because each is composed of the same primary elements (e.g., injection/extraction wells and pipelines) and would be operated in the same manner. Similar impacts include air emissions, seismic risk, exposure to hazardous materials, public services, and transportation and circulation. Operations would also be the same resulting in identical impacts on the aquatic resources found in and along the Carmel River. Alternative 2 would lessen the potential loss of special-status vegetation and wildlife on the former Fort Ord and change in the visual character of the well site. However, construction-related impacts to land use, noise, and cultural resources have the potential to be greater than the Proposed Project because of the proximity of the school to the site of the injection/extraction well and pipeline and, in the case of cultural resources impacts, because more ground disturbing activity would occur with the resulting greater potential to unearth buried resources. Construction of the 500-foot long connecting pipeline would also be an economic disadvantage to this alternative. While Alternative 2 meets the Project objectives, overall it would result in greater impacts. In addition, the location of the Proposed Project is hydrologically based. More northerly locations such as Alternative 2 would not be as hydrologically conducive for an aquifer storage and recovery site due to the site-specific hydrogeologic character of the aquifers that exist below the alternative site, thus making this alternative less desirable from a technical or operational perspective. Therefore, Alternative 2 is considered “infeasible” as defined in Finding 50, above.
56. Alternative 3, Local Desalination Plant, would include construction and operation of a desalination plant in Sand City. Nearly all of the construction-related effects of Alternative 3 would be greater when compared to the proposed Project because a much larger area would be disturbed and construction would last much longer. These impacts include air quality, noise, traffic and circulation, land use compatibility, cultural resources, soils, hazardous materials, public services, visual resources, vegetation, and wildlife. Construction-related impacts would be much greater because elements of the project would be constructed over a wider geographic area including the coastal zone, urban areas, and the portions of the former Fort Ord. Other operation-related effects expected to occur under Alternative 3, including noise, release of hazardous materials, transportation, and energy use, would be greater than the Proposed Project because of the larger size and the location of desalination plant, wells, and pipelines. Finally, Alternative 3 would not meet the objectives of reducing impacts to the Carmel River and improving the near-term reliability of the domestic water supply system in the Seaside area due to the 3 to 5 years needed for environmental review, permitting and implementation. Therefore, although Alternative 3 would benefit Carmel River aquatic resources more than the Proposed Project because much less water would be diverted from the Carmel River basin, this alternative is considered “infeasible” as defined in Finding 50 above.
57. Assuming the groundwater replenishment project or reclaimed wastewater system is extended, nearly all of the construction-related effects of Alternative 4, Wastewater Reclamation, would be greater when compared to the Proposed Project because a much larger area would be disturbed and construction is expected to last over a longer period. These adverse impacts include air quality, noise, traffic and circulation, land use compatibility, cultural resources, soils, hazardous materials, public services, visual resources, vegetation, and wildlife. Other operation-related effects expected to occur under Alternative 4, including noise, release of hazardous materials, and energy use would be greater than the Proposed Project. Finally, Alternative 4 would not meet the objectives of reducing impacts to the Carmel River and improving the near-term reliability of the domestic water supply system in the Seaside area due to the 3 to 5 years needed for environmental review, permitting and implementation. Therefore, although the reclamation projects could benefit Carmel River aquatic resources to a greater degree than the Proposed Project, Alternative 4 would result in greater construction- and operation-related impacts than the proposed Project and would not meet the project’s near-term objective and is thus is considered “infeasible” as defined in Finding 50, above.
58. Off-stream storage involves capturing and storing excess winter flows from the Carmel River. Most of the construction-related effects of Alternative 5 would be greater when compared to the Proposed Project because a larger area would be disturbed during construction of the storage facilities, pipelines, and pumps. These impacts include air quality, noise, traffic and circulation, cultural resources, soils, hazardous materials, public services, visual resources, vegetation, and wildlife. Operation of Alternative 5 would affect Carmel River aquatic resources, including steelhead and riparian vegetation, in a fashion similar to the effects described for the Proposed Project. Additionally, because Alternative 5 would change the timing in which water is diverted from the river, benefits to aquatic resources may be less than the Proposed Project because only 400 to 1,000 AFA would be diverted during high flow periods. Other operation-related effects expected to occur under Alternative 5, including damage to cultural resources, noise, release of hazardous materials, transportation, and energy use would be greater than the Proposed Project. Finally, Alternative 5 would not meet the objectives of reducing impacts to the Carmel River and improving the near-term reliability of the domestic water supply system in the Seaside area due to the uncertain timeframe needed for environmental review, permitting and implementation. Therefore, because Alternative 5 would not meet project objectives as well as the Proposed Project would, and would result in greater impacts, this Alternative is considered “infeasible” as defined in Finding 50 above.
59. All of the construction-related effects of the Proposed Project would be avoided or reduced under Alternative 6, Stormwater Reuse, which includes the collection, storage, and later use of water collected during storm events. These impacts would be avoided because the stormwater storage and distributing systems would be located adjacent to existing structures and would utilize roofs or other surfaces already constructed as a means to collect water. Construction of the storage systems would be of short duration and would not be expected to adversely affect native vegetation or wildlife and would avoid effects on special-status species. Operation of Alternative 6 would benefit Carmel River aquatic resources, because water collected and reused would offset diversions made from the Carmel River. However, these benefits would be small because when combined, the systems would only be expected to provide from 10 to 120 AFA. Operating the reuse systems would not be expected to result in measurable adverse impacts because they would be passive systems requiring little maintenance or use of power. Therefore, Alternative 6 would only partially meet the Proposed Project objectives of reducing impacts to the Carmel River and improving the near-term reliability of the domestic water supply system in the Seaside area due to the uncertain timeframe of project implementation. For these reasons, Alternative 6 is considered “infeasible” as defined in Finding 50 above.
IX. ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
60. The MPWMD Board of Directors therefore finds that:
(a) The Phase 1 ASR Project is consistent with the goals and objectives of MPWMD for the management and conservation of the water resources of the Monterey Peninsula.
(b) The EIR for the Phase 1 ASR Project adequately describes the Project impacts and mitigation measures that would reduce effects to a less-than-significant level, and can be relied upon by the MPWMD Board for decision-making purposes.
(c) The Phase 1 ASR Project best meets the objectives of the MPWMD Board when compared to the project alternatives. Therefore, the Phase 1 ASR Project should be approved by the MPWMD Board.