. . . • , I , . . . .

M\NUTE \TEr.i r-• 6l/ -1 n·1s Calendar !tam ··~o. · ' • •• t-e \ .. am

·p- awrov~d as iv11nu. ~--Ill/;.-:::. Lf" b'' the Sta~e Lands

~~~{J~n~ ?;/ a ''~t_: .z:.ii-:: to at hS - . - CALENDAR ITEM meeting.

APPLICANT:

~--co 4 I'

GENERAL PERMIT - PUBLIC AGiti~CY USE

Monterey "Regiona* Water Pollution Contro 1 Agency·

P. o. Box: i90 Monterey; Ga],H:1:>rnia- 93940_ Attn: Mr. Harold Bqoreau, Manager

v

3/81 w 22425. Ma:r7-cle PRC 5972

AREA, TYPE LAND· AND LOCATION: 0. 34-acre·, tide and supmerged land, Sa·lin.as River, near Blanco Roan, Monter,ey County.

LAND USE: 36-::-i.nch diameter pipeline.

TERMS OF PROI;OSED PERMIT: Initial period: 49 years from May 1,

J,.98l.

CONSIDERATION: The publi.c health. and safety, with the State reservi.ng the ·z::;i·ght at a·ny time to set a mor1etary rental if the Commission finds suc:h action to. be in the State's bes~ int~rest. · ·

BASIS FOR CONSIDERATION: Pursuant to Z -Cal. Adm. Code 2005.

P2~~EQUISITE TERMS, FEES AND ~XPEN~ES: Applic-ant: 'is permittee of upland.

Filing fe?e and proce~sing costs have been .received.

STATU+ORY AND OTHER REFERENCES: A- P.R.Ca: Qiv. 6, Parts 1 & 2; D±v. 13~

A 28

s 17

B. Cal., Adm. Code.: T.i ti.a 2 ~ bi v. 3; Tttle 1:f:;., Div. 6.

, -,;..-

CALENOAR PAGE

UINUTEPAGE

CALENDAR ITEM N<£.,0 4 (CONTD)

OTHER PERTINENT I'NFORMATION: 1. The annual rental va1u~ of ·the site

is estimated to b~ $200.·

2. A final EIR Supplement was prepa~~d by the Appl~cant, and adopted on December 18, 1980, pursuant to CEQA p.nd the State EIR GuideLines. A Not:ice r,f Determination has been. filed with the Secretary for Resources.

3. This project is situated on ?tate land identlfi.ed as possessing si·gnlf.icant environmental vc-.J.ue·s pur::suant to P.R. C. 6370·.1, and is classified in a use category, Class 11

.,\11

, whrch authorizes Restricted ·use.

Staff has coordinated this project with chose age!.~~ies· .and. organizations which nominated the site as· containing· significant environmental values._ Trrey have found· this project to be compatible wich their nomination.

APPRoVALS OBTAINED: Coupty of Mo,,..iterey, State Department of Fish and Garr,e, and thE! Regional Water Quality Control B1::>ard.

FURTHER APPROV'ALS REQUIRE:p: United St:ates Army Co:c•ps of Engineers.

EXHIBITS: A. Land Description.

C. EIR Summary.

lT IS RECOMMENDED THAT '!'HE COMMISSION;

B. Location Map.

1. DETERMINE THAT AN EIR AND EIR SUP1>LEMENT HAVE BEEN PREPARED A:m CERTIFIEh FOR THI:S PROJECT BY THE MONTEREY REGIONAL WAl'ER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY.

2. CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE EIR AND EIR 3UPPLP.1ENT HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION.

~ -2-

CA&.ENOA.R PAGE

~INUTE: PAGE

3.

4~

5.

CALENDAR IT.EM N'O ".. C 0 4 (_!:::ONTD)

DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT WILL ~WT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFF~CT ON THE ENVIRONME~T.

FIND THAT GRANTING OF THE PERMIT wILL HAVE NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT UPON ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACT:f::RISTICS IDENTIFIED PURSUANT TO SE~TI0N 6370.1: OF THE. P.R.C.

P~THCRIZE ISSUANCE TO THE MONTEREY REGIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY OF A !+.9-YEAR GENER:A.L PERMI.T - PUBLIC t\GENCY USE FROM MAY :t" 1981; IN CONGIDERAT-.!ON OF THE PUD-:Jrc HEALTH AND SAFETY' WITH THE STATE RESERVING THE RIGHT AT ANY TIME TO SET A MO'NETARY RENTAL IF '!HE COMMISSION FIN.tis SUCH ACTION TO BE IN THE ~TAIE}S BEST INTEREST FOR 'IHE INSTALLATION AND· MAINTENANCE OF A 36-INCH DIAMETER PIPELINE ON THE 'LAND SHOWN ON THE PLAT ENTITLED EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF.

-3-

CAJ.f:NOAR Pl.GE ;Q 2 j~ , ________ A_:__rr,-C:·Jlc -~NUTE PAG~ _

EXRIB IT II A''

-- ....

--

EXHIBIT "B" w 22425

-+

-

/ I I

EXHIJ3IT C

EtiV:i:RONHENTAL I:·!P~\CT REPORT SU!·l!/A~Y

l'he following 3nvird.1r:lental Ir.:pD.~t Report Supple':!ent was prepared by the Hont,?rey Regional Wat.Pr Pollution Control ~l\5ency en the reques·t cf the staf'r- .:;f :.ne Jrtate Lands Gomr.iission. The Sup·:>lement ccvers that portion of the project on tide and .mbJ!?erged la::id under the Cooi~iss~o:i' s jurisdiction, and se::-ves as a sumr.:ary of the pr,oject.

C~NDAA PP.G;

MINUTI:PAGE

SUPPLEMENT to

ENVIRONMENTAL lMPAC'l~ REPORT ANn·_ STATEMENT

on

NORTH MONTER:E:Y COUN"£Y FACILITIES PLAN

01: August' !:'1l7 (State Clearing House' '<I 77042516)

October 1980

Engfoeering-Scienc.'>e 60(1 Bencrof t Way

Berkeley, California 94710

CALENDAR PACE

... lf.iUTE PAGE

SUPPLEMltNT TO EIR AND EIS FOR NORTH MO"'TE,REY COUNJ:Y FACILITIES 'PL'.AN OJ AUGUST 1977

This eupplement to the EliR is- prepared' in connection with a revision of the o::iethod qf cros~ing of ~ialinas River with the. Salinas Interceptor-­Monterey County. The original facilities plan called for crossing the river at the Blanco Road Bridge, suppo~ted by the bridge structure·. ~e County judged that the bridge structure wo~d not safely support the ad­di-tfon:i1 lQ:lid .and h~~ ~Qt pentitted its use fC?,r the pipeline crossing. Therfore, a ne'IO crossing methC.d is proposed inv9lving a buried line be­nee::t:h che river-bed at -~~anco ·}toad-.

DESCRIPTION OF MODIFIED: RIVER CROSSING

Construct:lon would be tirited to coincid~ with the low seasonal flo~ period to minito.ize the channel.ing ?:equirement during excavation, curial, encasement, and backfilling.

Until the completion of t:he regi"o_nal wa_stewater treatment plant, the pipeline vill carr.y secondary sewage effl.9ent. After the regional plant goes into- operation,. th1~ pipeline will c_arry. raw sewage.

The engineering specifications J;isted b~iow nll be prescribed to the Contractor.

a) Pipe 1'.latE:.dal and Coating (Minimlrol Strength Class)

Altern.ative #L Con1:rete cylinder pipe,7 36 in. I.D.; Class 150 psi; 1-1/4 in. concr1!te coating; 305 lb· p_er ft, plus the 12 in .. concre:te encasement; AWA Standard C;;.33; bell and spigot joint; joint!J to have bondi11g jumpers.

Alternative 62. Ifuc:tlle iron pipe; 36 in. I.D., n,om.; 'thickues:; Class Sl; o.48 in. W.all thickness; 114 1b per ft;· 'AWWA Standard C-151; mortar lined;, painted and polyethylene encased; push-on, gaski:ted joint p_er N'NWA Standard c~111; bonding jumpers on all joints. - '

Alternative 13. Cem,ent-mortar lined a~d coated steel" piP,~; 36' in. I.D. ;"0.312 steel with 1-1/4 in. mortar coating; 290 lb tier ft; AWA ·standard c..:300;; bell and spigot joinr with 0-rins ~asket; bondi:ng jumpers are on al1 joints. · __ ; ---~-__.; ..

-2-

CJ,\;~"f.QA_BPAGE () 2'8, .}/ .,MIN~ir,_e_PA_G_)~---_;'~4_: 7_-;...s~:: ~

II

b) Coat:lng specified above, plus poly~*hyiene encasement and' 12 in. reinforced concrete jacket ~J!ca'seme:tit.

c) -Morta:.r lining and c1,ad.ng as specif]led.

d) ·surge tr.nk at the S:!llinas Pump Station.

e) Test p.~essures 21~:> psi. 'Ma?;imum 1operating pressure - 185 ft (80 psi),. assuming a 27:.1 m~r. l'Wy,F at year 2000? and C = 100.

f) Insp1!ct.ion would be· continuous. F:i:eld testing j.s p,er Section 15060 of Specificat:Lons, and AWWA S.tandard C-600.

g) Level and function 1)f hydropneumatic surge tank wou~d be checked daily. The tank wo•uld be isolated~ checked, and c:;leaneg monthl:y.

Ther~ would be no a1;:tive c~thodic protection, but the joints ·would be bonded. Should :ln-service monit:oring prove that a cathodic system is needed, i:t can readily be. acco:nplished without disturb­ing the ri'!er cross:lng.

h) Th~ top of -the pipe• ensasement wou~~ be 10 ft below the riverbed and ·would be lot-1er, 1~han the _pile ca:ps ()f the bridge foun~adods. Open cutting would· 11ot be permitted.. The contractor would be ex­pec t1?d to driYe she1~ting or s~1ee t i•iling, detJa ter by well po in.ts, and c!onstruct using, standard· pract~ce.

i) The •encased pipe we:lghs approximately 3, 700 lb per ft, flowing full;. The earth dinplaced by the p:ipe weighs approximately 2,500 lb per ft. The difj:erence is l,lOq lb ·per ft or 225 lb per sq ft. The soil to be encoi~tered is s·:lt:Y: sand, f:tne to medium grai:ied, an-1 :would pose no pt:oblems support~;ng this "'loading.

j)' Pipu would be below1 the scour line. Th~ ~~P~'fi conduit -weighs 3,21>0 lbs per ft. j'1splaced volum~! of1 •wate}:: ~eighs 1, 770 lbs per-ft. The safety facl:or against flo1:atfoti., i' '5 1.8.

IMPACTS ·OE P_ROPOSED MODIFIED,CONSTRUCTION

Design features describE!d abov.e are in!!luded in the plans and speci~:i­cations which the Contractor ·"W?uld ·be expeci:ed to foliow. These features are expected. to prevent occut:rence of adver1ie impacts during ch~truction as well as in the long-term ,~1peracj.on of th!~ pipeJ:ine. Minor disturbance of t:1e riverbed during the b1:ief cdnstructipn period is not expected to. produce tang:!.bJ.~ eff~ct& on i;he biC>ta, hydr1,logy, or st:c'eambed physiog­raphy. Dewated.ng of the excavated areas nu.y introduce silt i~to the .riv~r· water, interf:erring with normal finh habita:ts. Approacl.1es to the riverheg are expected to involve destt'uction of some· trees and riparian vegetation. The specified construction px·ocedures, test;?, monitoring, and safetv pro­visions woulii ensur.e against .ruptu1:e, spilllige, settlement, or other fail.-: ure during .the life' of th~ pj.pe cros~ing. ..

·~3-

CAl.ENOAR ?AGE _j[2.J~' ~l ... ""_'N-U:--TE-PA_G_E_..;..__·~~j

••••••

MITIGATION

Silt se•:tling ponds are planned to be i~xcav.:-..~ed' for the discharge. oi water pumped by the dewaterin~: pumps. Afte:r suffi.t..ient settling of the silt in the ·?onds, the dikes t.rould be Qpeneci· for dis"harge int:11 the flow stream.

To mitigate destroyed riparian. vegetat:[pn, a replant~ng of the t~ees and other vegetation is plann'e:d to reestabij~sh the original vegetative cover alone: the· banks of the river,, similar :~o initial CO:t;lditions.

-1.~-

£',:...·' ------~--. ,, CALENDAR PAGE 0-~~ ~7::-MINUTE'PAG~ :fi.LL~ '-------------::---_-,....

•••••