MPRWA Agenda Packet 06-12-14

Agenda
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Regular Meeting

7:00 PM, Thursday, June 12, 2014
Council Chamber
580 Pacific Street
Monterey, California

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORTS FROM BOARD DIRECTORS AND STAFF

PUBLIC COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS allows you, the public, to speak for a maximum of three minutes on any
subject which is within the jurisdiction of the MPRWA and which is not on the agenda. Any person
or group desiring to bring an item to the attention of the Authority may do so by addressing the
Authority during Public Comments or by addressing a letter of explanation to: MPRWA, Attn:
Monterey City Clerk, 580 Pacific St, Monterey, CA 93940. The appropriate staff person will contact
the sender concerning the details.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. May 8, 2014 Regular Meeting - <name_author>

2. March 13, 2014 Regular Meeting - Milton

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Receive Update on the Pure Water Monterey and Ground Water Replenishment Projects -
Israel

4. Receive Update on the Status of the Peoples Desal and the Pacific Grove Water Recycling
Projects - Kampe

5. Approval of Checks and Projected Year-End Financial Report - Milton

6. Receive Report, Award a Contract for a Value Engineering (VE) Study for the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project to Value Management Strategies, Inc (VMS),
Reimbursable by Cal Am With a Not-To-Exceed Cost of $109,035.70, Approve a
Contingency of $11,000.00, and Authorize the President to Execute The Contract for
Professional Services - Cullem

7. Receive Report on Progress of Securitization Bills in the State Legislature and the Status
of Settling Parties Joint Comments on Ruling Requesting Comments on Surcharge
Options and Proposals - Burnett

Thursday, June 12, 2014
2

8. Receive Report and Discuss Latest California Public Utilities Commission Schedule for the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project - Burnett

9. Discuss the Marina Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project Slant Test Well - Crooks

10. Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding The Detailed Critical Path Method (CPM)
Schedule for all Permits and Approvals for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project -
Cullem

ADJOURNMENT

The Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority is committed to include the disabled in all of
its services, programs and activities. For disabled access, dial 711 to use the California Relay
Service (CRS) to speak to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office, the Principal Office of the
Authority. CRS offers free text-to-speech, speech-to-speech, and Spanish-language services
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If you require a hearing amplification device to attend a
meeting, dial 711 to use CRS to talk to staff at the Monterey City Clerks Office at
(831) 646-3935 to coordinate use of a device or for information on an agenda.

Agenda related writings or documents provided to the MPRWA are available for public
inspection during the meeting or may be requested from the Monterey City Clerks Office at 580
Pacific St, Room 6, Monterey, CA 93940. This agenda is posted in compliance with California
Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or Section 54956.

MI NUTES
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
Regular Meeting
7:00 PM, Thursday, May 8, 2014
COUNCIL CHAMBER
580 PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Edelen Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Alt. Director Talmage, Della Sala

Directors Absent: None

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Clerk

ROLL CALL

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Alternate Director Talmage was present representing Vice President Burnett.



No reports were made.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

President Della Sala invited public comment for items not on the agenda.
Libby Downey, Monterey City Council Member thanked the Authority for working to
obtain public funding to decrease costs to the ratepayers, spoke to the notion of
hospitality versus residents and thinks the residents will be penalized with the new tier
funding. She expressed concern that the Directors were not representing their full City
Councils, then requested the Directors help with the source water negotiations, which
are holding up progress on water projects.
Nelson Vega spoke against Ms. Downey's comments indicating that the direction is very
clear, to find a source of water to lessen the impact of the water cliff. He spoke in
support of the Directors efforts and actions.
Tom Rowley spoke representing the MPTPA regarding the May 5, 2014 newsletter
outlining their position opposing Measure O and indicated resident are being mislead
and given incomplete information regarding the impacts if it passes.
David Lifland expressed concerned with the proposed plans for the basin including over
drafting, plant sizing, storage capacity and the mixing of the different types of water. He
is concerned that the capacity is not adequate for what is projected to be produced.
George Riley requested that the Authority agendize revisiting the contingency plan due
to resistance for source water agreements. He expressed concern that if the GWR
project is not advanced enough in development it will not assist with a relaxation of the
CDO and requested that the Authority elevate its attention to this issue.

President Della Sala responded to Ms. Downeys comments speaking to the transparency
efforts of the Authority including agenda notifications, televised meetings, City Council updates
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, May 8, 2014

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority
Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, May 8, 2014
2
and the fact that all of the Directors will also be impacted by the water supply project no
different than any other ratepayer. He cited a statement taken from the July 5, 2013 CPUC
Decision 13-07-41 that residential users consume 68% of the peninsula water and they pay
70% of the costs and closed by saying that it is critical to stay united on the MPWSP.

CONSENT ITEMS

President Della Sala invited public comment for the consent calendar. George Riley requested
that Agenda Item 1 be pulled for discussion.

On a motion by Director Rubio, seconded by Director Edelen, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the consent items as presented
with the exception of Agenda Item 1.

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Alt. Director
Talmage, Della Sala
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSTAIN: 2 DIRECTORS: Kampe, Agenda Item 2 only
Talmage Agenda Items 2 and 3 only
RECUSED: 0 DIRECTORS: None

1. Minutes from March 13, 2014 Regular Meeting

Mr. Riley questioned a statement recorded on the minutes of March 13, 2014 during Agenda
Item 8 discussing commissioning a study of the implications of a public take over of Cal Am. He
requested clarification if a staff report was submitted to the Authority or to the Mayors
Association and that the TAC discussion regarding the item was not reported to the Directors.

On a motion by Director Edelen seconded by Director Kampe, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority continued the minutes from March 13, 2014
for review: Director Talmage Abstained.

AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Edelen Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della Sala
ABSTAIN: 1 DIRECTORS: Talmage

2. Minutes from March 27, 2014 Regular Meeting
Action: Approved

3. Minutes from April 10, 2014 Regular Meeting
Action: Approved

4. Approve and File Checks through May 8, 2014
Action: Approved

5. Adopt Resolution Accepting the Amended Fiscal Year 2013-14 Budget and Adopting the Fiscal
Year 2014-15 Operating Budget

3
Action: Approved and Passed Resolution 14-03

AGENDA ITEMS

6. Receive Report, Discuss, and Provide Direction on Public Outreach
Action: Report Received and Direction Provided

Public Outreach Consultant Ashley Beleny spoke to public outreach efforts since her contract
was executed including reorganizing the website, conducting outreach at a public event,
creation of presentation materials, coordinating speaking engagements, and participating on
the joint outreach committee. Ms. Beleny made recommendations for continued outreach
opportunities including speaking engagements, newsletters, regularly scheduled media and a
potential public forum to re-align the peninsula following the results of the June 2, 2014
election.
Director Edelen spoke in support of a public forum re-adjoining the community, regardless of
the election outcome. Director Talmage spoke to a presentation made by Mr. Stoldt and the
moving targets. Executive Director Cullem spoke to a previous forum held at the City of
Monterey, and to a City of Seaside presentation regarding all of the four projects and suggested
a similar forum format. He also spoke to questions of pricing, noting it is not appropriate for the
Authority but may be during the forum.

President Della Sala invited public comments on the item.
Tom Rowley spoke to previous speaking engagements regarding water and the water
policies. He indicated that people want the facts but currently the information is
saturated and encouraged continuing outreach after the election has concluded.
Nelson Vega indicated the public outreach is underfunded. He encouraged directing a
water update be made at all Member City Council meetings. He encouraged the
discussion and outreach regarding what is at stake as a result of the CDO.
Libby Downey indicated that defacto replenishment should be explained, along with all
the other projects. The function of all the other projects should be outlined. Ms. Downey
spoke to an analysis of the City of Felton ad finding it inaccurate.

The Directors requested that Ms. Beleny move forward with the possibility of holding a forum in
July with the intent to provide a brief explanation of each project under timeline, as well as the
accomplishments of the Authority since inception.

7. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction on Presentation from the Monterey Peninsula
Water Management District Regarding the Deep Water Desal Project

4

Dave Stoldt, General Manager from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District spoke
to the item including the purpose and efforts the MPWMD has committed to with the Deep
Water Desal project. Mr. Stoldt outlined the business model and spoke to the differences in the
project from the MPWSP, which include a synergistic relationship between the desalination and
the data center. He noted the project is over two times the size of the MPWSP and the concept
remains intact for a regional solution. He spoke to the timing of the projects and the
environmental report status indicating studies have been completed for entrainment and
impingement for intakes, brine discharge, review of alternative intakes, including open water
intakes. The intake pipeline study is in process and product water pipeline is being examined
for distribution north and south.
Mr. Stoldt spoke to timing expectations indicating that the EIR consultant should be hired by the
State Lands Commission by August and certified around June 2015. Negotiations for the site
land is occurring and on June 16, 2014, all of the experts will gather for a science symposium.

President Della Sala requested clarification on the meaning of a "data center project" to which
Mr. Stoldt explained the economic development aspects and the symbiotic relationship the data
center has with the desal component.
David Armanasco spoke on behalf of the Deep Water Desal project expanding on Mr. Stoldt's
comments explaining DWD believes that the ocean was owned as part of the public trust and
will ultimately give rights to the control of water to the local JPAs. He informed the Board that
the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation coordinated all of the scientific studies, funded by
DWD.
President Della Sala invited public comment on the item.

Nelson Vega questioned if this is a for-profit project, and if so, what is their profit margin
and who will they contract with to run the facility. He requested to see the information in
writing, otherwise he discouraged support.
David Lifland questioned when the Tenera Environmental report will be available citing
concerns expressed within the SPI report indicating the temperature increase in the
data cooling process may promote additional scaling on the RO filters. Mr. Armanasco
indicated that all information will be made public when submitted to the State Lands
Commission. He then responded to Mr. Lifland that there is an MOU for solar panels but
could not confirm if that was still a viable project component.
George Riley requested to agendize revisiting the issue of contingency planning due to
changing conditions and progress made or not made on other projects. He informed the
Board of a concerning meeting with Cal Am, Members of Monterey County and
representatives from the Salinas Valley regarding moving the intake from the proposed
site and expressed concern that the meeting was secret and would result in significant
stranded costs.
Dale Heikhus congratulated the promising concept for a new water source presented by
DWD. Expressed concern regarding the many jurisdictional authorities to contend with
and encouraged the Authority to assist in any way possible.
Ian Crooks from Cal Am spoke to Mr. Rileys comments and acknowledged that there
was a meeting regarding the desal plant and Protrero Road location, because the
Protrero Road site was identified throughout the process as an alternate location and
will be listed in the EIR as such. He denied any conspiracy efforts.

5

Public Comment was closed and Mr. Armanasco responded to Mr. Vega's comments regarding
profit margin indicating the DWD desal component would be turned over and sold to a JPA for
ownership and operations. The other components of the project is where DWD will receive
income and profit: the data center, carbon sequestration plant, and other small components.

Director Kampe spoke to the Authority position to maintain a contingency and has been
supportive of the MPWMD for their contingency planning efforts and is pleased to see the
progress made toward the alternative while the Authority works with Cal Am for the success of
its project. President Della Sala reminded that the Authority requested the CPUC to look at all
projects as equal in the EIR for the MPWSP. Report was received and no action was taken.

8. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Presentation from Monterey
Regional Water Pollution Control Agency Regarding Negotiations for Source and Product Water
for the Ground Water Replenishment Project

Keith Israel, General Manager of Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency presented
regarding the status of the GWR or "Pure Water Monterey" project. He spoke to the
Independent Advisory Panel who provided a review with recommendations and a technical
panel independently appointed to report back to the department of public health. He outlined
the project phasing, the status of the testing and demonstration facility and discussed the
meeting with the related parties for negotiations for source water agreements reporting the
elements of the agreement need to be completed by the end of June before submission of
information to the EIR. He spoke to the regional synergies of the project and that by working
together it benefits all parties. If built, this would be the first time an integrated project would be
done and he is confident that the project could succeed.

President Della Sala questioned the cost of water to the Salinas farmers after processing to
which Mr. Israel responded that he is confident that the end cost will be one that they can
afford. Director Rubio spoke to his involvement in the water negotiations and reported positive
interactions with the growing community and that near future meetings appear to be promising.

President Della Sala invited public comment on the item.
Tom Rowley spoke to previous concerns expressed to timeline slippage and expressed
new concerns regarding the Monterey County Board of Supervisors differing position of
that from the peninsula cities regarding water ownership.
Nelson Vega questioned the proportionate charges for water for the peninsula to that of
the growing community.
David Lifland expressed concern regarding confidential negotiations

Mr. Israel spoke to questions posed and indicated the MRWPCA users cannot subsidize the
Agricultural community and then identified several different potential funding mechanisms
including differing quantity charges, or creating new rate categories for interruptible flows.

6

9. Receive Report, Discuss and Approve Adopting a Resolution Amending the Governance
Committee Agreement to Authorize the Governance Committee and Water Authority to
Advertise and Award The Value Engineering Contract

Legal Counsel Freeman spoke to the item requesting minor changes to the Governance
Committee Agreement which would grant the authority for the facilitation of the Value
Engineering Contract for the MPWSP. He informed the Board it was approved with an action at
the previous meeting and this is to formalize the changes requested.
President Della Sala invited public comment on the item and had no requests to speak.

On a motion by Director Rubio seconded by Director Talmage, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the recommendation to
modify the Governance Committee Agreement as presented to authorize the ability to facilitate
the Value Engineering contract.

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Alt. Director
Talmage, Della Sala
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS: None

ADJOURNMENT

Having no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned.

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton, Clerk of the Authority Chuck Della Sala, President

MI NUTES
MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY (MPRWA)
Regular Meeting
7:00 PM, Thursday, March 13, 2014
COUNCIL CHAMBER
580 PACIFIC STREET
MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA

Directors Present: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Della Sala, Rubio

Directors Absent: None

Staff Present: Executive Director, Legal Counsel, Authority Clerk

ROLL CALL

The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m.



There were no reports from Directors. Executive Director Cullem reported on changes to the
printed packet materials and questioned direction on how to proceed with Cal Ams request to
reduce Surcharge 1 from 15% to 4.5% and extend the period of time it was charged. The
Directors requested he handle it administratively.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

President Della Sala invited public comment for items not on the agenda.
Tom Rowley spoke to the Government Affairs Committee meeting where Nichole
Charles reported regarding SB 936. He requested re-ordering the agenda to take up
Agenda Item 8 first.
Doug Wilhelm questioned the proposed reduced surcharge asking if it would increase
the total amount of money over the course of the loan. Executive Director Cullem
responded that it would not.
George Brehmer advocated strongly for residents to take care of themselves and
encouraged individuals to obtain personal rain water and grey water catchment, and
other self sustaining water supply systems.
Darby Mossworth spoke concerning future legislation that would allow unlimited
amounts of money to be contributed to elections.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

On a motion by Director Pendergrass, seconded by Director Edelen, and carried by the
following vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the minutes for both
January 30, 2014 and February 13, 2014.

AYES: 6 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della
Sala
MPRWA Minutes Thursday, March 13, 2014

Regular Meeting Minutes - Thursday, March 13, 2014
2

1. January 30, 2014 Special Meeting
Action: Approved

2. February 13 2014
Action: Approved

AGENDA ITEMS

3. Approve and File Checks for the Period of February 2014.
Action: Approved

Authority Clerk Milton reported regarding checks processed during February 2014. Under public
comment David Lifland requested an update regarding reimbursement from the County of
Monterey and the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District, both which are still pending.
On a motion by Director Rubio, seconded by Director Kampe, and carried by the following vote,
the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved to file the checks for the month of
February 2014

Sala

4. Authorize Staff to Send Letter Nominating the Salinas and Carmel River Basins Study for
Funding Under the Bureau of Reclamation's FY14 Basin Study Program

Dave Stoldt, General Manager of the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District spoke to
the item which would focus on assessing long term climate change on the local water supply
from the Salinas and Carmel river basins. Mr. Stoldt requested a letter of support nominating
this study to the Bureau of Reclamation to accompany the application put forth by MRWPCA
and MRWMD. In closing, he informed the Directors he would not stay for Agenda Item 8 to
maintain the neutrality of the MPWMD. President Della Sala invited public comment on the item
and had no requests to speak.

On a motion by Vice President Burnett, seconded by Director Rubio, and carried by the
following vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority authorized staff to send a
letter nominating the Salinas and Carmel River Basins study for funding under the Bureau of
Reclamations FY 14 Basin Study Program.

Sala

3

5. Adopt Resolution Approving Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP (Brownstein) as Special
Counsel for the period January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, Authorize the Executive
Director to sign a Consent and Waiver of Conflict of Interest, and Authorize the President to
execute the agreement for legal services.

Executive Director Cullem spoke to the item regarding extending the legal services contract
through December 31, 2014 and authorize changing the firm from being the Authoritys
Attorney of Record to being Special Legal Council.
President Della Sala invited public comment on the item. Salfwat Malek questioned the total
cost of the contract. Mr. Cullem indicated the budgeted amount is not to exceed $194,000 for
2014.
Mayor Rubio questioned if there was any ability to align the contract with the fiscal year. Mr.
Cullem spoke to the administrative effort required to process, renew and track all contracts at
one time. Director Kampe spoke to the substantial costs for the legal services but defended the
costs by saying that these are substantial projects which require a large level of collaboration,
cooperation and perseverance and that this is a very modest budge considering the total cost of
the project. The Directors spoke in support Mr. McGlothlin's efforts and experience noting that
although expensive, his efforts saved rate payers over 120 million dollars between the
Settlement Agreements and through Governance Committee structure and participation of the
RFQ and RFP process.

On a motion by Director Edelen and seconded by Director Rubio, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority approved the staff recommendation and
adopted Resolution 14-02 Approving Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP (Brownstein) as
Special Counsel for the period January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014, authorized the
Executive Director to sign a Consent and Waiver of Conflict of Interest, and authorized the
President to execute the agreement for legal services.

Sala

6. Authorize Extension of Contract with the City of Monterey For Executive Director Services

On a motion by Director Rubio and seconded by Director Edelen, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority authorized extending the contract with
the City of Monterey for Executive Director services.

Sala
Authority Clerk Milton reported on the item requesting the Authority to authorize extension of
the contract for Executive Director services with the City of Monterey. President Della Sala
recused himself as mayor of the City of Monterey, the contracting agency. Vice President
Burnett invited public comment on the item and had no requests to speak. The Directors spoke
to the outstanding job Mr. Cullem has been doing.

4

7. Adopt Financial Policies and Procedures

On a motion by Director Edelen and seconded by Director Kampe, and carried by the following
vote, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority adopted the presented Financial
Policies and Procedures as amended.

6 5 DIRECTORS: Burnett, Edelen, Kampe, Pendergrass, Rubio, Della
Sala

8. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Issues, Implications of
Commissioning a Study Regarding a Public Take Over of Cal Am.

Executive Director Cullem began the item by informing the Directors of the discussion which
occurred during the February 3, 2014. Water Authority TAC meeting which discussed the
issues and implications of commissioning a study regarding a public acquisition of Cal Am and
recommended that the Authority first consider if the issue was appropriate for consideration and
authority under the formation agreement, and second, how the action may be interpreted by
state agencies, as well as any impact on future bond funding. Mr. Cullem outlined the following
four options for consideration should the Water Authority decide to consider conducting a study
of an acquisition of Cal-Am:

1. Commission a study of a public takeover of Cal-Am with the intent to provide information
prior to a vote by the public.
2. Commission a study of a public takeover of Cal-Am with the intent to provide a Water
Authority recommendation prior to a vote by the public.
3. Defer consideration of study until some undetermined time after a vote by the public.
4. Determine that commissioning a study of the subject is outside the purpose of the Water
Authority.
President Della Sala invited public comments on the item.
Executive Director Cullem provided the report and recommended adopting a policy that more
clearly outlines the procedures and operations with regard to financial operations for the
Authority. Director Kampe requested adding language to the whistle blower policy to report to
the President and/or Vice President any concerns.

5

Tom Rowley, Nelson Vega, John Narigi and Rick Heuer said the public needs correct
facts regarding the impacts if the ballot measure passes and spoke in support of the
study.
Safwat Malek and Mike Baer spoke in support of publicly owned water utilities in the
county and expressed concern regarding costs and the PUC.
Phil Wellman, Darby Mossworth, a citizen, Sal Cardinale, Melanie Krislock, Charlie
Check, Alan Ebels, Andrew Bell, Doug Whilhelm, John Hall, Dan Turner, George
Brehmer, Jay Rowland and Jessie Williams requested the Directors to support Public
Water Now and spoke against Cal Am.
Dan Presser suggested having a public forum as a way to inform voters of Measure O.
Kevin Tilden from Cal Am spoke to the comments regarding water spikes and requested
anyone who experiences a spike should contact customer service who will help
recognize the leak and fix it. If it is identified and fixed they are not penalized. He
indicated that all political advertisements paid for by cal am are clearly labeled and most
are not done at rate payer or customer expense. He urged an impartial, factual analysis
and spoke in support of the study.
George Riley expressed disappointment regarding the TAC discussion of this item and
did not think that the staff report was objective or includes all the information available.
He spoke in support of Public Water Now and publicly owned water.
David Lifland Spoke in support of public water but indicated that the community should
focus their efforts on obtaining a water source first.
Ron Cohen Managing Director of Public Water Now spoke against the study indicating
the amount of money projected would only politicize the issue but not analyze it.
Public Comment was closed.

Director Edelen spoke to the Cease and Desist Order imposed and the requirement to find a
new water source and spoke to the challenges that the desal project is up against. He spoke in
support of the study, as an independent analysis from to provide factual information back to the
Board and the public.
Director Rubio spoke to the purpose of the Authority and to the need for non-biased, factual
information to help the voters understand the impacts of the Measure.

Director Burnett spoke to the TAC discussion on the item reiterating it was a regular, publicly
noticed meeting with an agenda distributed prior to the meeting and there was minimal public
participation. He spoke against comments that there was not an opportunities for proper or
equal debate. He spoke to the community debating water for generations and the Authority is
moving toward a decision. The TAC recommendation was for the Board to conduct an analysis
which focuses on the purpose of the Authority as written in the mission statement and listed the
reasons that this project falls within the scope of the authority.

6

Director Kampe questioned the election dates and the ability to complete the project prior to the
election and then spoke to public sentiment of priorities presented 1.5 years ago within his
jurisdiction with the priority being sufficient water supply. He spoke in support of low cost water,
but noted it was more important is having sufficient water first. He lastly indicated that no matter
how objective the report is, it will always be viewed as partisan and also did not think that it
would be a wise use of money for timing purposes.
Director Pendergrass spoke against a study that the results will be taken as the Authority
position and will perpetuate skepticism. He spoke to the history of the failed desal project
which caused the formation of this group to provide governance of the public site. He reminded
the public of the concession by Cal Am to allow public oversight.
Vice President Burnett indicated we are operating in the realities of a water-constrained
environment faced with a regulatory guideline in the way the CDO was intended. This is not a
question of if we like or don't like Cal Am, it is about what will deliver a water supply solution to
have sufficient water, cost effectively with appropriate governance. He expressed fear that the
single greatest risk is losing the consensus that the community has built in the last two years.
This issue has the potential to be divisive enough to leave us in a position not to be able to
petition for a relaxation of the CDO because no project will be complete by January 1, 2016 and
the ramifications are severe because there will be no water supply, regardless of ownership.
Vice President Burnett then outlined the accomplishments of the Authority over the last two
years of its existence including the tenants of the Authority Governance committee and the
benefits it provides, the profit cuts achieved through the public financing work saving the rate
payers over 20 million dollars and then he spoke to the hurdles yet to come.
The Directors discussed their authority and weather the public would be better served by the
Authority taking a position or if the public would be better served by laying out impartial, factual
information. The Directors spoke against the study due to timing, unknown true cost charged
back to the member jurisdictions and many will not change their minds based on the report and
suggested taking a position as peninsula mayors.

On Motion by Director Rubio and seconded by Director Pendergrass and passed by the
following vote the Authority directed staff to write up and bring back for approval a document
which outlines the Authority position opposing ballot Measure O, described this evening, and
verify the legal ability to take such a position.
Sala

President Della Sala adjourned the meeting to recess at 10:09 p.m.

9. Receive Report, Discuss and Provide Recommendation on the Status of Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project

7

The meeting reconvened at 10:14 p.m. Executive Director Cullem provided an update on the
status of the borehole construction project noting the second bore hole drilling was about to
begin and the results of the water analysis will be released once certified. He then spoke to the
power purchase agreement status and indicated the report regarding the capital costs of the
engineering solution will be published by the end of march. He further reported on the slippage
being reflected in the CPUC schedule reflected as a total 6-month delay being imposed by the
CPUC.
The Directors discussed the timeline and indicated that the City of Marinas ultimate approval
sped up the process by months and should be recognized and that the schedule as presented
is doable unless something else delays the project. President Della Sala invited public
comment on the item.
Tom Rowley expressed concern regarding lack of data in the draft EIR from the test
slant wells indicating since it is new technology it will be challenging and will invite
criticism. Suggested having the TAC review.
David Lifland requested getting Point Blue to sign off on a well, requested an update on
the remaining reports due to the City of Marina and asked if the Authority should or
could intervene.

Ian Crooks, Engineering Manager for Cal Am spoke to the issue of getting viable slant well
technology and reported that nearly all reports due to the City of Marina have been completed
and the consultant will have a draft MDNA ready in April for public review. Chair Burnett
indicated that if there is any desire by the Board for additional review or analysis of the Draft
EIR, or the issue of brine disposal it should be agendized in the near future.

ADJOURNMENT

Meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m.

ATTEST:

Lesley Milton, Authority Clerk Chuck Dells Sala, President

Agenda Report

Date: June 12, 2014
Item No: 3.

06/12
FROM: Executive Director Cullem

SUBJECT: Receive Update on the Pure Water Monterey and Ground Water Replenishment
Projects - Israel

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Water Authority receive an update from Keith Israel, General
Manager of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency on the status of
negotiations for source and product water, and on the prospects of PWM/GWR
remaining competitive as part of the MPRWA portfolio of water supply projects.

DISCUSSION:

The Pollution Control Agency has conducted a series of critical negotiating sessions
with the Salinas Valley agricultural interests in an effort to work out a compromise to
allow PWM/GWR to remain a viable water supply option for the Peninsula.

As noted in item 8 of the Authority agenda, the schedule for meeting CPUC
requirements to include GWR is getting very tight. Critical decision points are
approaching and one of them concerns GWR.

Keith Israel will provide additional details verbally at the Water Authority meeting.

Agenda Report

Date: June 12, 2014
Item No: 4.

06/12

SUBJECT: Receive Update on the Status of the Peoples Desal and the Pacific Grove Water
Recycling Projects - Kampe

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Water Authority receive an update from Director Kampe
and/or staff on the status of Pacific Grove participation with the Peoples Desal project,
and the status of the Small Pacific Grove Water Recycling projects.

DISCUSSION:

On June 8, 2014 Pacific Grove posted a notice of a public hearing concerning the
certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for its Storm Water
Management Project.

Pacific Grove has been developing a storm water management project that can reuse
and recycle water for landscaping purposes, freeing up potable water as part of the
Small Pacific Grove Water Projects component of the Water Authority portfolio of
water projects.

Pacific Grove had also had involvement with the Peoples Desal project as its public
partner. The City has been requested to update the Authority on the status of that
arrangement.

FROM: Authority Clerk Milton

SUBJECT: Approve and File Checks through June 12, 2014 and Projected Year End Financial
Report

RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the MPRWA approve and file the accounts payable payments made during
the period of April 10 through June 12, 2014. Total Accounts Payable for the above referenced period
is $27,891.77. It is recommended that the Authority approve the below checks and receive the report
regarding year-end projected expenditures and balances.
DISCUSSION:
At its meeting on September 12, 2013, the Authority Board approved a staff recommendation to
provide the Directors a listing of general checks issued since the last report so that it can inspect and
confirm these checks. Each invoiced expense has been reviewed and approved by the Executive
Director and Finance personnel prior to payment to insure that it conforms to the approved budget.
The following checks are hereby submitted to the Authority for inspection and confirmation.
$ 450.00 to Access Monterey Peninsula for Video Production Services
$ 900.00 to Environmental Relations for Public Outreach Services
$ 6,963.91 to Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck for Legal Services
$19,577.86 to City of Monterey for Reimbursement of Executive Director Services.

FISCAL IMPACT
The listed checks have been budgeted and paid from the various funds, as appropriate and the
attached Budget to Actual report. All of the above expenses are within the contracted not to exceed
amounts outlined in the agreements.
There are still outstanding invoices from the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District and the
County of Monterey for their fair share of the Separation Processes Inc. Services. The MPWMD has
approved the reimbursement request and the invoice has been submitted for processing. It is
anticipated to be received prior to the close of the Fiscal Year.
The County of Monterey payment was received for the fair share contribution of $83,000 for Fiscal
Year 2012-2013. A fair-share contribution request for the Fiscal Year 2013-2014 and for Fiscal Year
2014-2015 have been made and staff attended the Budget Committee meeting on June 10, 2014 to
answer questions about the current and next fiscal year fair-share contribution requests.
The bank balance as of June 5
th
, 2014 is sufficient cover the above checks and the remaining fiscal
years encumbrances therefore, staff is recommending approval of the above checks.

For the remainder of the fiscal year, expenses are not expected to exceed the budgeted amount for
any budget line item or the current bank account balance. Any remaining funding will be rolled over
into the next fiscal year and may work to offset future member funding requests.

ATTACHMENTS:
Budget to Actual Report as of 6/5/2014
2:30 PM
06/05/14
Accrual Basis
Profit & Loss Budget vs. Actual
July 1, 2013 through June 5, 2014
Budget Jul 1, '13 - Jun 5, 14
Ordinary Income/Expense
Income
47200 Program Income
47230 Membership Dues 424,563.00 424,562.00
47240 Program Service Fees 0.00 0.25
47250 Reimbursement SPI Contract 18,562.00 0.00
47260 Reimburesment VE Contract 200,000.00 0.00
47200 Program Income - Other 0.00 0.00
Total 47200 Program Income 643,125.00 424,562.25
49900 Uncategorized Income 0.00 0.00
Total Income 643,125.00 424,562.25
Expense
60900 Administration and Clerical
60901 Clerk of the Board 35,000.00 35,000.00
60902 Executive Director 90,680.00 34,196.06
60903 Principal Offc of the Authority 0.00 0.00
60904 Financial Services 0.00 0.00
60905 Misc Admin Expenses 0.00 0.00
60900 Administration and Clerical - Other 0.00 0.00
Total 60900 Administration and Clerical 125,680.00 69,196.06
62100 Legal Fees
62110 Board Counsel 59,000.00 27,000.00
62140 Special Counsel 186,000.00 129,723.09
62100 Legal Fees - Other 0.00 0.00
Total 62100 Legal Fees 245,000.00 156,723.09
62800 Contract Services
60801 Public Outreach 15,000.00 7,559.19
60806 Contract VE 200,000.00 0.00
62802 Audit Services 6,700.00 6,700.00
62803 Televised Meeting 10,000.00 4,237.50
62804 Contract Services & Studies 3,000.00 0.00
62805 Contract SPI 35,000.00 27,843.43
62800 Contract Services - Other 0.00 0.00
Total 62800 Contract Services 269,700.00 46,340.12
65000 Insurance 7,000.00 6,701.88
65100 Travel Expenses 1,000.00 828.74
66000 Payroll Expenses 0.00 0.00
68300 Contingency 2,000.00 734.78
Total Expense 650,380.00 280,524.67
Net Ordinary Income -7,255.00 144,037.58
Other Income/Expense
Other Expense
Page 1 of 2
2:30 PM
06/05/14
Accrual Basis
Profit & Loss Budget vs. Actual
July 1, 2013 through June 5, 2014
Budget Jul 1, '13 - Jun 5, 14
80000 Ask My Accountant 0.00 0.00
Total Other Expense 0.00 0.00
Net Other Income 0.00 0.00
Net Income -7,255.00 144,037.58
Page 2 of 2
Agenda Report

Date: June 12, 2014
Item No: 6.

06/12

SUBJECT: Receive Report, Award a Contract for a Value Engineering (VE) Study for the
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project to Value Management Strategies, Inc
(VMS), Reimbursable by Cal Am With a Not-To-Exceed Cost of $115,000 and
Authorize the President to Execute The Contract for Professional Services -
Cullem

RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Water Authority award a contract to VMS for a VE Study of the
MPWSP as approved by the Governance (GC) Committee on May 23, 2014, at a price not-to-
exceed $109,035.70, approve a contingency of $11,000.00, authorize the Executive Director to
administer the contract and to approve changes up to a total of the contingency, and authorize
the Authority President to execute the contract.

DISCUSSION:
Section V., Category A.2 of the Governance Committee Agreement specifies that the
Governance Committee (GC) shall make a recommendation to California American Water (Cal-
Am) on selection of professional engineer to perform a value engineering (VE) study for the
Desalination Project at the 30% design level. At its meeting of March 31, 2014, GC voted to
have a public agency award and administer the contract as well as make the consultant
selection.
Since the GC has no staff to award or administer contracts, an amendment to Section V. was
approved by the Water Authority on May 8, 2014 to allow the Authority to do so on behalf of the
GC. Following a review by the GC and the TAC, a RFP for a VE Study was advertised on April
17 and two (2) proposals were received on May 8.
A selection committee reviewed the proposals and recommended a preferred firm to the GC. On
May 23 the GC accepted the committee recommendation and approved the selection of Value
Management Strategies (VMS) for a fee not-to-exceed $124,000.00, the price proposed by
VMS. The GC also authorized the MPRWA Executive Director to meet with VMS to negotiate
changes in the scope of work in an effort to reduce the costs without compromising the
effectiveness of the VE Study.
Following negotiations between the staff of VMS, Ian Crooks of Cal-Am, and Jim Cullem of the
MPRWA, minor changes were made to the scope of work, primarily in reduced hours for the
ENVISION evaluator, and the substitution of equally qualified, but less costly, VMS staff to

conduct the VE Study. These changes resulted in savings of approximately $12,000.00.
Adjustments to administrative costs, including the elimination of printed draft & final reports,
saved an additional $3000.00.
The original VMS Proposal and Cost Proposal are at Exhibit A. A letter from VMS describing the
negotiated Scope and Fee Modifications is at Exhibit B. The modifications have been
incorporated into the contract for services, at a revised cost of not-to-exceed $109,035.70, is at
Exhibit C.
Although additional contract modifications are not anticipated, it is advisable to provide for a
contingency of 10%. Accordingly, the Executive Director requests approval of a contingency of
$11,000.00 and authorization to approve contract changes up to a total of that amount.
It is also requested that the Water Authority authorize the President to execute the contract on
its behalf.

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
Since the Water Authority FY 2013-2014 budget has already been increased by $200,000.00 to
pay for the VE Study, the recommended expenditures are well within budgeted amounts. In
addition, the total of the negotiated contract plus the contingency is less than the $124,000.00
approved by the Governance Committee.
Actual final costs will be paid by Cal-Am per the Governance Agreement, and per an agreement
to deposit funds into a reimbursement account in advance of payment of consultant invoices.

EXHIBITS:
A. Resolution
B. VMS Proposal and Cost Proposal
C. Scope and Fee Modifications
D. Contract for VE Study
E. Letter from Cal Am Regarding Escrow Account

MPRWA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY
AWARDING A CONTRACT TO VALUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (VMS) FOR A
VALUE ENGINEERING (VE) STUDY FOR THE MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER SUPPLY
PROJECT

WHEREAS, the Governance Committee requested the Monterey Peninsula Regional
Water Authority (MPRWA) to advertise for, to interview, and to recommend selection of, a firm
for a Value Engineering (VE) Study of the California American Co. (Cal Am) Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project (MPWSP) desalination facility design currently at 30% completion by
Camp, Dresser, McKee (CDM), and;

WHEREAS, following review and recommendation by a selection committee, the
Governance Committee selected the firm of Value Management Services, Inc.(VMS) to conduct
the VE Study at a price not-to-exceed $124,000.00, and;

WHEREAS, the Governance Committee further authorized the MPRWA Executive
Director to engage in negotiations with VMS with the goal of modifying the proposal in ways that
would not significantly compromise the study but that might result in cost savings;

WHEREAS, the Executive Director and VMS, in coordination with representatives of Cal
Am, negotiated a reduction in the cost of the VE Study to a not-to-exceed price of $109,035.70,
and;

WHEREAS, the Executive Director recommends a project contingency of $11,000.00
and requests authority to administer the contract and authority to approve any necessary
contract modifications up to the total of the contingency, and;

WHEREAS, all costs of the VE contract are to be reimbursed by Cal Am in advance of
Water Authority payment to VMS and the price for the VE study is within the currently approved
budget of the Water Authority for FY 2013-2014,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the President of MPRWA is hereby
authorized to execute a contract with VMS for a Value Engineering Study of the Cal Am
MPWSP Desal facility design at a price not-to-exceed $109,035.70, and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the MPRWA does hereby approve a project
contingency of $11,000, authorizes the Executive Director to administer the contract and to
approve contract modifications up to a total of the contingency, and authorizes the Director to
insure full and timely reimbursement from Cal Am.

PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL WATER
AUTHORITY this 12
th
day of June 2014, by the following vote:

AYES: 0 DIRECTORS:
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS:
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS:
ABSTAIN: 0 DIRECTORS:

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Chuck Della Sala, President

Clerk to the Authority

PROPOSALFORSERVICES:ValueEngineering
MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupply
ProjectDesalinationInfrastructure
May2014
Preparedby
ValueManagementStrategies,Inc.
Date: May8,2014
MontereyPeninsulaRegionalWaterAuthority(MPRWA)
Attn:JamesM.Cullem,ExecutiveDirector
735PacificStreet
Monterey,CA93940
Subject:ValueEngineeringStudyProposalfor
MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectDesalinationInfrastructure
ValueManagementStrategies,Inc.ispleasedtosubmitthisproposaltoconduct
a5dayValueEngineering(VE)studyfortheMontereyPeninsulaWaterSupply
Project(MPWSP)DesalinationInfrastructure.PertheRequestforProposal
scopeofserviceswereceivedonApril17,2014,thefollowinginformationis
respectfullyenclosedintheattacheddocument:
Understandingofthescopeofwork,withproposeddeliveryschedule
QualificationsandexperienceofproposedVEfacilitatorandteam
Briefbiographiesoftheproposedpersonnel
Alumpsumfeeproposalissubmittedunderseparatecoverfromthis
technicalproposal
WeproposeMarkWatson,PE,CVSLife,PMPtofacilitatetheVEworkshopanda
highlyexperiencedteamofsubjectmatterexpertsfromHDRtoperformthis
study.Weareconfidentthattheproposedteamwillprovidethehighestlevelof
serviceduringthisVEstudytoensuretheobjectivesareachieved,resultingin
optimalprojectfunctionalityandperformance.
IamtheVMSofficerauthorizedtonegotiatethiscontractonbehalfofVMS,Inc.
Thankyouforyourconsiderationofourproposal.Welookforwardtoworking
withyou.
Sincerely,
VALUEMANAGEMENTSTRATEGIES,INC.
RobertBStewart,CVSLife,FSAVE,PMP,PMIRMP
President
ValueLeadership
CORPORATEOFFICE:
900CanterburyPlace
Suite330
Escondido,CA92025
T:7607415518
F:7607415617
Portland,OR
T:5039579642
GrandJunction,CO
T:9702425531
Bothell,WA
T:2067063055
Merriam,KS
T:8162060067
Sacramento,CA
T:9162249812
Chicago,IL
T:7027556876
LasVegas,NV
T:7203084205
Proposal to Provide Value Engineering Services Value Management Strategies, Inc.
ValueManagementStrategies,Inc.
7607415518www.vmsinc.com
TableofContents
1. IntroductionandFirmOverview.........................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction
1.2 ValueManagementStrategies,Inc.FirmInformation
2. UnderstandingofScopeofWork........................................................................................2
3. ProposedMethodologyandDeliverySchedule..................................................................2
3.1 VEStudyWorkPlan
3.2 VEWorkshopMethodology
3.3 VEStudyAreasofFocus
3.4 DeliverySchedule
4. QualificationsandExperience.............................................................................................7
4.1 TeamQualifications
4.2 RelevantProjectExamples/Experience
5. BiographiesofKeyPersonnel............................................................................................10
5.1 VETeamLeader:ValueManagementStrategies,Inc.
5.2 VETeamMembers:HDREngineering,Inc.
6. References.........................................................................................................................12
6.1ProjectReferencesandReviews
6.2Firm/TeamLeaderReferences
7. OtherConsiderations.........................................................................................................13
7.1 QualityAssurance
7.2 CostControl

MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectDesalinationInfrastructure 1
1.0 INTRODUCTIONANDFIRMOVERVIEW
1.1 Introduction
ValueManagementStrategies,Inc.(VMS)ispleasedtosubmitthisproposalforthefacilitationofa5day
ValueEngineering(VE)workshopontheMontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectDesalination
InfrastructurefortheCaliforniaAmericanWaterCompany(CAW)andtheMontereyPeninsulaRegional
WaterAuthority(MPRWA).
ForthiscontractwehaveteamedwithHDREngineering,Inc.toprovidethetechnicaldepthnecessaryto
successfullycompletetherequestedVEeffort.TheindividualsselectedforthisVEstudyincludesome
ofthemostexperienceddesignandconstructionpersonnelavailableintheindustrytoday.Inaddition,
ourteamhasexperienceworkingwithandforMPRWAonValueEngineering/ConstructabilityReview
workshops,ProjectCostandScheduleEstimatingassignments,and/orProjectDesign.
WhileVMSunderstandsthepotentialbenefitofbringingtogetherdiverseexperienceandperspectives,
thesynergyaffordedbybuildingateamofHDRsubjectmatterexpertsfaroutweighsanybenefitsof
buildingateamfromdifferentfirms.AmajorchallengethatoftenfacesVEteamsnotaccustomedto
workingtogetheristhetimeittakesduringthestudytobuildfamiliarity,strongcommunicationanda
goodworkingrelationshipamongallteammembers.Thisissueisentirelyeliminated,fortheproposed
teamoftechnicalexpertsfromHDRisfamiliarnotonlywiththistypeofworkingeneralandMPRWA
projectsspecifically,butalsowithmunicipalagenciesinthestateofCalifornia,andworkingtogetheras
ateam.AlloftheirenergyandeffortwillbefocuseddirectlyonthegoalsandobjectivesoftheVEeffort
ratherthananyteambuildingtypicallyneededtogetuptospeed.VMShasobservedthatthemost
successfulVEstudiesandgreatestresultsaregenerallyachievedbyteamsofhighlyexperiencedsubject
matterexpertswhohaveworkedtogetherbefore,andenjoydoingso.Itisforthesereasonswe
selectedtheHDRteam,andlookforwardtosharingtheirexperienceandstrongworkingrelationship
withyou.
Specialattentionwasgiventoensuretheselectedteammembershaveexperiencewiththistypeof
project,withparticularemphasisondesignandconstructionexpertiseinwatertreatmentfacilitiesand
seawaterdesalination,inclusiveofpriorexperienceconductingsimilarvalueengineeringreviews.We
believeourteamisespeciallyqualifiedtoprovidethetypeofvalueoptimizationneededtomakethisa
successfulworkshopintermsofmeetingthestatedobjectivesofoptimizingprojectperformancewhile
balancingcost,andschedule;improvingprojectvalue;reviewthe30%designforpotentialissuesrelated
toconstructability,durability,adaptability,operability,safetyandmaintainability;identifyingsolutions
thatenhancetheprojectssustainabilityprofile,andreducingrisk.Additionalobjectivesidentified
duringtheprestudyphaseoftheworkshopwillbeincorporatedintotheprocesstoprovidethemost
comprehensivevalueengineeringeffortpossible.
1.2 ValueManagementStrategies,Inc.FirmInformation
VMSwasfoundedin1990,andisacertifiedsmallbusinessbasedinSanDiegoCounty,California.VMSis
structuredtoaddressthespecificandlocalizedneedsofourclients,andtomanage,plan,coordinate,
conductanddocumentcomprehensivevaluebasedservices.Wespecializeintheapplicationand
facilitationofValueAnalysisandValueEngineering,ConstructabilityReviews,RiskAssessmentand
Management,QuantitativeModelingandAnalysis,andTraininginordertoassistclientsintheirgoalsof
successfullydeliveringtheirprojectsandprograms.VMSteamleadershavefacilitatedover3,000value
focusedstudiesandreceiveexcellentfeedback,resultinginmanylongstandingclientrelationships.

Althoughasmallbusiness,VMSisthelargestandmostexperiencedVEfirminthecountrywith15
employees,9ofwhomareCertifiedValueSpecialists.Todaywefacilitateover200valuefocused
workshopseveryyearfororganizationsaroundtheworldonawiderangeofprojects.
2.0 UNDERSTANDINGOFSCOPEOFWORK
VMSteamleadersapplytheirfocusandeffortonthefacilitationofstudiesusingthesameVEprocessoutlined
inMPRWAsRFPscopeofservices.TheVEJobPlandefinedbySAVEInternationalandthespecifictoolsand
techniquesimplementedbyVMSrepresentatestedandprovenmethodologythatwillleadthestakeholders
andprojectteamtowardthestatedobjectivesinanefficient,professionalandenjoyablemanner.
Accesstothefollowingdocuments(listedintheRFP),willproveinvaluabletotheVEteamseffortandwill
supportthestudysrelevanceandultimatesuccess:
Preliminarysiteplans
Floorplans
Elevations
Geotechnicalreport
Schematicsfortheprocess,treatmentresidualshandlingandchemicalsystems
Preliminarycostestimate
Energyconsumptionmodel
Withsubmissionofthisproposal,VMSacknowledgesitsunderstandingoftheobjectives,expectationsand
timelinesstatedfortherequested40hourVEeffort.VMStakesprideinworkingwitheachofourclientsto
providethehighestqualityofworkinaflexibleandefficientmannertomeettheneedsofeachproject.The
requestedstudydatesofJune2327,2014areeasilyaccommodatedbytheproposedCVSfacilitatorandVE
teammembers,asisthetimelinesetforthforthedeliverablesubmittalsincludingthepreliminaryandfinalVE
reports.
3.0 PROPOSEDMETHODOLOGYANDDELIVERYSCHEDULE
3.1 VEStudyWorkPlan
Baseduponourextensiveexperienceconductingsimilardesignandtechnicalreviewservices,VMS
believesthatthemosteffectivewaytoorganizeandconductthisVEstudywillbetofollowtheValue
MethodologyJobPlan.UsingthecoreprinciplesoftheValueMethodology,theprocesswouldconsistof
thefollowingelements:
Amultidisciplinaryteamofengineers,sustainabilityexperts,stakeholdersandowner
representativesadministeredbyaCertifiedValueSpecialist(CVS).
Athoroughpresentationbyprojectmanagementandthedesignteamoutliningspecificissues
andconcernsrelatingtotheprojectsdesignandconstruction.
Asystematicreviewoftheprojects30%plans,costestimate,andenergyconsumptionmodels
bytheVEteamutilizingasystematicanalysisprocessandasystemofchecklistsandformsto
documentrecommendations.
AformalpresentationoftheVEteamsrecommendationstoprojectmanagementandthe
designteam,andadiscussionofthesefindings.
PreliminaryandFinalReportsdocumentingtheresultsofthestudyincludingtheVEteams
recommendations,theanalysesperformedduringtheworkshop,supportingdocumentation.

AsnotedintheRFPScopeofWork,theVEeffortwillconsistofa5dayworkshop.Thefirstdaywill
includeaworkshopkickoffmeetingtoincludetheVEteammembers,CAWprojectrepresentativesand
designteammembersatorneartheprojectsite,andasitevisit.Thestudywillcontinuewithadditional
informationgathering,functionanalysis,creativity,evaluationanddevelopmentofVEalternatives,prior
toaformaloutbriefheldthefinaldayoftheworkshop.TheoutbriefpresentationwillprovideMPRWA
andtheirdesignconsultantsanoverviewoftheVEteamsfindingsandprovideanarenafordiscussion
toclarifyanyoftheconceptspriortopublishingthePreliminaryVEreport.
Animplementationmeetingwillbescheduledat/aftertheendoftheVEworkshoptosupportdecision
makingandimplementationactivities,aswellastodocumentanyadditionalcommentsorresultsofthe
study.FeedbackanddecisionsfromthisimplementationmeetingwillbeincorporatedintotheFinal
ValueEngineeringReport,indicatingcompletionoftheproject.Furtherdetailsofeachstepofthe
processareincludedinthefollowingsection.
3.2 VEWorkshopMethodology
VMSproposestoutilizethetools,techniques,andjobplanfromtheValueMethodologyandSAVE
InternationalbestpracticesasaguideandformatfortheVEworkshop.Themethodologytobe
employedwillutilizeafunctionbasedsystemthatquicklyfocusesteamsonatask,facilitates
communication,buildsconsensusandachievesresultsintheoptimizationoftheprojectwithrespectto
functionalperformance,initialcost,lifecyclecost,anddurationforconstructiondelivery.
Thedirectandactiveinvolvementoftheprojectsstakeholdersisatthecoreofthisprocess.TheVE
teamleaderwillguidestakeholdersthroughthemethodology,usingthepoweroftheprocesstodistill
subjectivethoughtintoobjectivelanguagethateveryonecanrelatetoandunderstand.Thedialogthat
developsthenformsthebasisfortheVEteamsunderstandingoftherequirementsoftheprojectand
towhatdegreethecurrentdesignconceptismeetingthoserequirements.Fromthisbaseline,theVE
teamcanfocusonidentifyingissueswiththecurrentdesignandperhapsidentifyalternativeconcepts
thatwillquantifybothperformanceandcost,contributingtoanimprovedprojectvalue.
OurapproachtoperformingaVEstudyyieldsthefollowingbenefits:
Buildsconsensusamongprojectstakeholders(especiallythoseholdingconflictingviews)
Supportsabetterunderstandingofaprojectsgoalsandobjectives
Developsabaselineunderstandingofhowtheprojectmeetsperformancegoalsandobjectives
IdentifiesareaswhereprojectperformancecanbeimprovedthroughtheVEprocess
Developandunderstandtherelationshipbetweenperformanceandcostindeterminingvalue
Usesvalueasthetruemeasurementforselectingtheoptimaldesignconcept
ThefollowingnarrativeprovidesanoverviewofthespecificactivitiesproposedfortheVEworkshop.
PreStudy
MeaningfulandmeasurableresultsaredirectlyrelatedtotheworkperformedpriortotheVEworkshop.
Allorpartofthefollowinginformationwillbedeterminedduringtheprestudyphase:
Cleardefinitionofthecurrentsituationandstudyobjectives
IdentificationofVEteammembersandprojectstakeholders
Definitionofhowstakeholdersareimpactedbytheproject
Identificationofkeyissuesandconcerns
Identificationofcriteriatobeusedforevaluationofprojectperformance
GatherprojectdataanddistributetoVEteammembers

InpreparationfortheVEworkshop,theteamleader(CVS)willmeetwithMPRWAandstakeholdersto
confirmandfinalizetheworkshopprocessandagenda,initiatedatagathering,refineworkshopscope
andobjectives,coordinatewiththeVEteammembers,andfinalizestudyplans.Followingtheinitial
planningmeeting,theteamleaderwillreviewthedatacollectedfortheprojectanddevelopacost
model.Theteamleaderwillalsoconsultwiththetechnicalspecialiststopreparethemforthe
workshop.
VEWorkshop(Study)
VMSproposesa7phaseJobPlanforthisVEstudy.Theelementsandactivitiesconductedduringthe
studywillinclude:Informationphase,FunctionAnalysisphase,Creativephase,Evaluationphase,
DevelopmentphaseandPresentationphase,followedbyImplementation.
1. InformationPhase:AtthebeginningoftheVEstudy,thebackgroundanddecisionsthathave
influencedthedevelopmentoftheprojectorprocessarereviewed.TheVEstudybeginswitha
meetingwithrepresentativesofthestakeholderagencies.Analysisoftheprojectproceedsbasedon
thedataprovided.Theanalysisincludesreviewingthecostmodel(s)andbecomingfamiliarwiththe
issuesandconstraintscommunicatedbythestakeholders.Eachofthefocusareasidentifiedinthe
previoussectionwillbediscussed,andspecificcommentsandrecommendationswillberecorded.
2. FunctionAnalysisPhase:Developmentofthefunctionalrequirementsofaprojectarekeyto
assuringastakeholderthattheprojectwillmeetthestatedcriteria.Theanalysisofthesefunctions
intermsofactualcostisaprimaryelementinaVEworkshop.AFunctionAnalysisSystemTechnique
(FAST)diagramisdevelopedtohelptheteambetterunderstandthefunctionalrelationshipsofthe
project.CostandperformancearerelatedtotheprojectfunctionsontheFASTdiagramtodirectthe
teamtothefunctionswheretheyshouldfocustheirefforts.
3. CreativePhase:Duringthisphase,theVEteamgeneratesasmanyideasaspossibletoprovidethe
necessaryfunctionsfortheprojectandmeetthecriteriaidentified.Judgmentoftheideasisnot
permittedduringthisphase,andallideasarerecorded.
4. EvaluationPhase:TheVEteamevaluateseachideawithrespecttothefunctionsandevaluation
criteria.EachideaisevaluatedagainstthespecificperformancecriteriaestablishedbyMPRWA
duringtheInformationPhase.Onceeachideaisfullyevaluated,theideaisrankedbaseduponthe
teamsconcurrenceofitssignificancetoprioritizethedevelopmentoftheideas.
5. DevelopmentPhase:Duringthedevelopmentphase,eachideadeemedworthyofadditional
considerationisexpandedanddocumentedonVEAlternativeforms.Eachrecommendationis
documentedwithabriefnarrativetocompareitwiththeoriginalconcept,includingsketches,
discussionofperformanceandrisk,andcostcomparisonsasapplicable.
6. PresentationPhase:ThefinalstepoftheVEstudyisaformalpresentationofthestudysresultsto
theprojectstakeholders.ThiswillprovideMPRWAanopportunitytopreviewtherecommendations
developedbytheVEteambeforethePreliminaryVEReportispublished.
7. WrittenReports&ImplementationPhase:FollowingthecompletionoftheVEstudy,theteam
leadercompilestheinformationdevelopedduringtheVEstudyintoaPreliminaryReport.This
reportdocumentsallrecommendations,andwillbeprovidedtoMPRWAunderthestated
deliverabletimeline.ThereportincludesanExecutiveSummary,detaileddescriptionsofeach
recommendation,andallsupportingdocumentation.

OncethePreliminaryReportreviewiscompleteandcommentsarereceivedfromMPRWA,the
reportiseditedtoreflectthecommentsandanyimplementationdecisions,andisreissuedasthe
DraftFinalVEStudyReport.Furthercomments,editsandfeedbackwillbeaddressedpriorto
publicationanddeliveryoftheFinalVEStudyReportasindicatedintheRFP.
3.3 VEStudyAreasofFocus
ThefollowingparagraphsidentifysomeoftheareasthatVMSbelievesmayrequirespecialattention
withrespecttotheMPWSPVEeffort.AdditionalelementswilllikelybeidentifiedduringtheVE
workshop;thelistbelowillustratestopicswewillcovertoensureathoroughreviewoftheproject.
1. DesignConceptEnhancements:Identificationofchangestotheprojectdesignthatwill
improve/enhancetheessentialfunctionsandconcept(s)atalowerinitialcapitalcostorlifecycle
costasproposedinthedesigndocuments.
2. OperationsandMaintenance:Reviewofthedesignconcepttoidentifytheoptimalconfiguration
thatbestrepresentsidealoperability,reliability,maintainability,andpersonnelsafety.
3. DesignConceptValidation:Reviewofthebaselinedesignconceptforvalidationoftheeffectiveness
ofthedesigninensuringitrepresentsthemostefficientcombinationofcost,performance,and
reliability.
4. NewAlternatives:Identificationofnewfunctionalapproachestooptimizingtheessentialfunctions
oftheproject,solvingissues,andmeetingthegoalssetforthfortheprojectforthebestoverall
value,includingincorporationofthelatesttechnologiesandadvancements.
5. SustainabilityAssessment:Reviewandvalidationoftheprojectforidentificationofopportunitiesto
attainanEnhancedlevel(equivalenttoSilver)ofsustainabledesignundertheEnvisionrating
systemoftheInstituteforSustainableInfrastructure.IdentificationofopportunitiestoattainaSilver
awardlevelofdesignundertheUSGreenBuildingCouncilLEEDRatingsystem.
6. ArchitecturalComposition:Suggestionsthatwillalignthedesignofthefacilityintermsofoptimal
functionalperformanceandoperationsandaestheticpresencewiththeenvironmentandlocation.
7. FutureDesignConsiderations:Recommendationstothedesignerregardingspecificideas,
components,details,materialsorproductsthatshouldbeconsideredasthedesignprogresses.
8. Staging/Access:Assessmentofwhetheradequatespaceandfacilitiesareavailabletostagethe
projectincludingtheprovisionofutilities,andifaccesstothesitewillberestrictedwithalternatives
providedtomaketheflowoflabor,equipmentandmaterialsmoreefficient.
9. EnvironmentalImpacts:Areviewoftheprojectsenvironmentalimpactstoassurethatthe
constructionprocesscanmeettherequirementsoftheEIRpermittingagencydemands,defining
alternativesthatwilladdressandsupportconflictresolution.
10. ConstructionImpacts:Ideaspromotedtominimizeoreliminateimpactsofconstructiononthe
existingstreambedorexistingfacilitiesandinfrastructure.Thisareawillalsoconsidertemporary
environmentalconditionsrelatedtoconstructionactivities.
11. CostControl:Nottobeconfusedwithcostcutting,thisareawillfocusonmaintainingthedesired
budgetorprovideamorecosteffectivewaytoachievethesamedesignobjectives.Thisincludesa

cursoryassessmentofthecostestimatefortheselectedalternative.
12. ScheduleControl:Recognizingtimelycompletionisimportantrelativetooverallriskreduction,this
areawillfocusonthepotentialtomeettheprojectscheduledeadlinesorthepossibilityof
completingtheprojectaheadofschedule.
13. AdditionalConstructabilityIssues:Suggestionsregardingprojectconstruction,atafeasibilitylevel,
thatwillassessspecificareasofconstructiondifficulty.Keysubjectsinclude:
Reducingtotalconstructiontimebycreatingconditionsthatmaximizethepotentialfor
concurrent(ratherthansequential)construction,whileminimizingworkandwastedtime.
Reducingworkhourrequirementsbycreatingconditionsthatpromotebetterproductivityor
creatingdesignsthatdemandlesslabor,minimizingtheneedforhighcostspecialequipment.
Reducingpotentialchangeorders,workdelaysandaddedcostsbycheckingthedrawingsand
specificationsfordimensioningerrors,omissionofnecessarydetail,interdisciplinaryconflicts,etc.
Identifyingtheappropriatenessoftheprojectsconstructioninstallationtechnology,
methodologyandmaterials.
Identifyingprojectspecificissues,theirprobableconsequences,andproposedmitigation
recommendations.
14. RiskAnalysis:Giventhepotentialprojectcomplexitiesrelativetotechnicaldesignissues,
environmentalandpermittingissues,andconstructionissues,VMSproposestoconducta
QualitativeRiskAnalysisoftheprojectduringtheVEworkshop.ThroughitsRiskAssessmenttools
andtechniques,VMSwillworkwithprojectstakeholderstoidentifyandprioritizethoserisksmost
inneedofproactiveresponseandmanagement.Thisallowsissuesthatmayotherwiseresultin
significantimpactstobeaddressedbydevelopingproactiveriskresponsestrategiesandactionplans
tominimizethreats,maximizeopportunities,andoptimizetherelationshipsofprojectandprogram
performance,cost,andtime.
3.4 DeliverySchedule
VMSteamleadersareequippedwiththeexperienceandtoolstoquicklytransformtheproject
information,analysesperformedandtheelectronicorhandwrittencontentdevelopedduringaVE
studyintocomprehensive,professionalqualityVEreports.VMSsupportstaffassistteamleadersin
documentingtheresultsofeachstudytoensurethereportsbeingdeliveredarepolished,easyto
navigateandarriveontime.VMSpracticesahighlyeffectiveQA/QCproceduretoensurethecontent
andformatofeachprojectsdeliverablesareproducedquickly,consistentlyandaccurately.
TheVEstudyiscurrentlyscheduledfortheweekofJune2327,2014.ThePreliminaryVEReportwillbe
submittedperRFPrequest,three(3)daysfollowingcompletionoftheworkshop,onJune30,2014.An
implementationmeetingwillbescheduledafterthedesiredreviewperiod,atwhichpointVMSwill
consolidateandincorporateallcommentsanddecisions.TheFinalVEReportwillbeissuedwithin14
daysofreceiptofcommentsandconfirmationfromtheprojectmanagerthatnofurthercommentsor
changesareanticipated.
VMSproposestodeliverthePreliminaryandFinalVEreportsinelectronic(PDF)formatviaemailbyor
beforethedeadlinesstatedabove.Hardcopydeliveryofprintedreports(6copies)andCDs(2copies)
foreachsubmittalcantypicallybeexpected23businessdaysfollowingtheemailsubmittalduetothe
lengthoftimerequiredtoproduceandshiphardcopiestotheMPRWAoffice(s).

4.0 QUALIFICATIONSANDEXPERIENCE
4.1 TeamQualifications
Asstatedpreviouslyinthisproposal,VMSisthelargestpurevalueconsultingfirminthecountry.VMS
specializesintheapplicationofValueAnalysisandValueEngineering,BusinessProcessImprovement,
DecisionAnalysisProcesses,RiskAssessmentandManagement,QuantitativeModelingandAnalysis,
andTraininginordertoassistclientsintheirgoalofmakingsounddecisionsandgettingthemostoutof
theirprojectsandprograms.With9fulltimeCertifiedValueSpecialistfacilitatorsonstaff,VMShas
conductedover3,000studiesduringits24yearsofprovidingvalueservices.
VMShasprovidedVMservicesforamultitudeoflocal,state,regional,andfederalgovernment
agencies.Typesofprojectsincludeplanninganddesignofwater/wastewatertreatment,healthcare
facilities,offices,andadministrativebuildings;planning,design,andimplementationoftransportation
andtransitfacilitiesandsystems;recreationalfacilities;equipmentandmaintenancefacilities;housing;
firestations;andanarrayofotherprojects.Asaresultofourinvolvementwithnumerousprojectsfor
variousgovernmentandlocalagencies,VMShasdevelopedathoroughunderstandingoffederal/state
governmentregulations,constructionmethods,andcoordinationrequirements.
Finally,ourlonghistoryandtrackrecordofbuildingsuccessfulVEteamsprovidesVMSaccesstosome
ofthemostexperiencedandsoughtafterconsultantsinthevariousengineeringdisciplines.Basedona
wealthofexperienceworkingonregionalwaterauthorityprojectsandwithgovernmentagenciesinthe
stateofCalifornia,theproposedteammembersfromHDREngineering,Inc.areseasonedveteranswith
extensiveexperiencedesigning,optimizingandconstructingsimilarprojects.Thefollowingteam
membersareproposedforthisVEeffort:
ProposedRole NameandCredentials
CVSTeamLeader/Facilitator MarkWatson,P.E.,CVSLife,PMP
Civil/StructuralEngineer OmidTavangar,P.E.
Architect&LEEDCertifiedEvaluator MichaelLambert,R.A.,LEEDGreenAssociate
Electrical/Instrumentation&ControlsEngineer BillEttlich,P.E.
OperationandMaintenanceExpert CraigClose,P.E.
ENVISIONEvaluator,HDRProjectManager DaveReardon,P.E.,ENVSP
VMSstrivestoprovidethemostcosteffectivemeansofdeliveryvalueimprovingservicestoourclients.
Asaresult,pleasenotethatsomeoftherequestedroles/teammembersforthisVEstudyhavebeen
consolidated.Thishasbeendonewiththeintenttoprovidetheproperexperienceinthemost
streamlinedandcosteffectivemannerpossible.Withtheparticipationofadditionalstakeholder
personnelbeingprovidedbyCAWasstatedintheRFPscopeofservices,theteammembersproposed
hereinprovidethenecessarylevelofexperienceandexpertiserequiredforthesuccessofthisstudy.
4.2 RelevantProjectExamples/Experience
ThefollowingprojectsrepresentasmallsamplingofrelevantVEandwater/wastewaterproject
optimizationeffortstheproposedVEteamhasfacilitatedorparticipatedoninthestateofCalifornia.
JosephJensenWaterTreatmentPlantSolidsDewateringFacilityandLagoons,GranadaHillsMark
WatsonfacilitatedtheVEstudy,foraprojecttoconstructamechanicaldewateringfacilitywithbelt
presses,conveyors,andacakestoragearea,aswellasaseriesoflagoonsforairdryingsolids.These
facilitieswillallowLAMWDtoreliablyprocesssolidsatallanticipatedproductionrates,whilecomplying

withwaterqualityregulationsandexistingpermitconditions.Theestimatedcost,includingallmarkups
andcontingencies,is$22,740,000forContractNo.1and$13,130,000forContractNo.2.
TheobjectivesoftheVEstudyweretoreviewthedesignrelativetoprojectpurposeandneedtoidentify
moreeconomicalalternativesinprovidinganewsoliddewateringfacilityandlagoons;andtodevelop
VEalternativesthatimproveaspectsofthesolidsprocessingbyeitherreducingcostorimproving
performance.
TheVEteam,throughtheapplicationoffunctionanalysisandcostmodeling,evaluatedthebaseline
concept.TheVEteamobservedthattherewereopportunitiesforsignificantcostsavingsbyrelocating
theBeltPressBuildingtolocationsofbettersoilsandawayfromthesightlinebetweenthe
Administration/ControlBuildingandlagoons.Further,giventherelativelyhighcostsrelatedtothesoil
remediationmeasures,theVEteamfocusedonidentifyingothermethodsthatresultinreducedcosts
andimpacts,reducedschedule,andreducedriskofmovementanddamageduringanearthquakeevent.
Further,theVEteamfocusedonthedewateringprocessitselftoidentifyalternativesthatmaximize
passivemeansofreducingthewatercontentofthesolidsandsimplifyingtheremovalofthethickened
solids.Finally,theVEteamfocusedontheconstructionscheduleandcontractpackagingtoreducerisks
andcoordinationissuesofearlycriticalpathitemsandmultipleconstructioncontractors.TheVEteam
developed12alternativesforimprovementoftheproject,7ofwhichwillbeconsideredfor
implementationwhenthedesignreachestheappropriatephase.Ifallalternativesareacceptedas
proposedasavingsofnearlyof$20millionmayberealized.
SeasideOzoneTreatmentFacility,MontereyThe$3.2millionconstructionimprovementstothe
SeasideOzoneTreatmentFacilitycompletedin1964.TheMPWMDimposedabuildingmoratoriumin
1992citingthelackofwatersupplyontheMontereyPeninsula.Althoughitwasapoliticalmove
attemptingtogainsupportfortheproposedNewLosPadresDam,itactuallycausedapublicbacklash
towardsMPWMDandCalAm.CalAmagaintookaleadershiprolebydiscovering"new"groundwaterin
theNorthernCoastalAquiferinnortheastSeasidealongtheFortOrdborder.Anew2500gpmwellwas
constructedtoproduce2000afyofadditionalwatersupplyforthePeninsulacommunities.The
MPWMDBoardapprovedonlya1000afyallocationandtiedtheliftingofthebuildingmoratoriumwith
thestartupofthenewwell.However,thenewParaltawellhadhighlevelsofhydrogensulfideandwas
constructedonasmallresidentialbuildinglot,insufficienttobuildanytreatment.
CraigClosewasresponsibleforfindingasolutionandconstructingafacilityimmediatelytoavoidpublic
criticism.Heevaluatedbothhydrogenperoxideandozonetreatmentprocesses,sinceusingGAC
pressurefilterswasnotfeasibledueeconomic,spacelimitations,andbackwashwastedisposal
problemscreatedbythehighH2Sconcentrations.Aninlinetreatmentprocesswasconsideredthebest
solution.Thehydrogenperoxideprocesswaseliminatedduetothelargequantitiesofchemicalsneeded
andthelongcontacttimenecessaryforthechemicalreactiontoconverttheH2Stosulfate.Therefore,a
5mgdozonetreatmentplantwasconstructedatCalAm'sOrdGrovewellsite,treatingboththeParalta
andOrdGrovewells.Two60lb/dayozonegeneratorswereusedtosupplyozonetotheinjectors30
feetupstreamofthefacilityina24inchheaderpiperoutedthroughthechemicalcontainmentareaof
thetreatmentbuilding.Zincorthophosphateforcorrosionprotectionandsodiumhypochloriteforpost
disinfectionusedatthefacility.Theozonetreatedwaterwouldthengothroughanozonedestructunit
priortoenteringthe0.5MGOrdGrovetanklocatedadjacenttothetreatmentbuilding.Finishedwater
wasthenpumpedoutofthestoragetankintothedistributionsystemviathreesubmersiblecanpumps.
Thefullyautomatedtreatmentfacilitywentonlineinearly1994.TheSeasideOzoneTreatmentFacility
wasthefirstozonefacilityintheAmericanWaterSystem.

VE,DesignDocumentQA/QC,andCostEstimatingforSacramentoRiverandE.A.FairbairnWater
TreatmentPlantsRehabilitationProjects,CityofSacramentoOmidTavangar,P.E.andBillEttlich,P.E.
ofHDRprovidedtheStructuralandElectricalengineeringservicesforaVEstudy,designdocument
QA/QC,andcostestimatingservicesforrehabilitationupgradestothecitystwosurfacewater
treatmentplantstoreplaceagingfacilitiesandprovidenewsolidshandling.Improvementstothe160
mgdSacramentoRiverWaterTreatmentPlantwerevaluedat$145millionandincludedanew80mgd
flocculation/sedimentationbasinwithmixers,eightnewdualmedialfilters,retrofitoftheexistingfilter
wastewashwaterbasinswithmechanicalsludgecollectionsystemandlarger2,500gpmpumpswith
variablefrequencydrives(VFDs),sludgelagoons,twothickeners,newtwostorydewateringbuilding
with1,200poundperhourcentrifugeswithconveyor,pavedsludgedryingareaintheearthenlagoon,
replacementofthetreatedwaterpumpingstationwithahighservicepumpingstationwithfour600hp
verticalturbinepumps.
Improvementstothe200mgdE.A.FairbairnWaterTreatmentPlantwerevaluedat$16millionand
includedretrofitofmechanicalsludgecollectionsystems,twosludgethickeners,anewsinglestory,
6,000squarefootdewateringbuildingwithtwo1,200poundperhourcentrifugesandconveyor,
expansionofthechlorinegasfeedsystem,andanewmediumvoltagetransformer.
SoscolWaterRecyclingPlantVEStudy,NapaSanitationDistrict,NapaDaveReardonparticipatedas
sustainabilityexpertandfacilitiesoptimizationconsultantforaVEworkshoptoreviewthe100percent
contractdocumentsandconstructiondrawingsforthe11.8mgdSoscolWaterReclamationFacility
design,aswellasawetlandsfacilityforthetreatmentofprimaryeffluent.TheVEteamwascalledin
afterthis$55millionprojectwasbidoverbudget.AreasoftheVEstudyincludedheadworks,primary
clarifiers,aerationbasins,secondaryclarifiers,effluentfiltration,chlorinedisinfection,reclaimedwater
pumpingstation,dissolvedairflotation(DAF)thickening,anaerobicdigestion(eggshaped)beltpress
dewatering,supportfacilities,yardpiping,andelectrical/instrumentationsystems.Generated156
alternativeideasandevaluated51indetail.Despitesevereconstraintsplacedonchangesformanyof
thekeyprocesses,39ideaswererecommendedforconsiderationbytheowneranddesignengineer
thatrepresentedsavingsofover$5million.
LodiSurfaceWaterTreatmentFacility,CityofLodiHDRistheDesignerandArchitectofRecordforthe
city'snew11.5mgdsurfacewatertreatmentplant,whichincludesrawwaterpumpingstation,
sedimentationbasinfollowedbyautomaticstrainersforpretreatment,8mgdPallMicrozapressure
membranesystem,chemicalanddisinfectionsystems,platesettlersforresidualhandling,stormdrain
system,10mgd(25mgdbuildout)highservicepumpingstationwithendsuctioncentrifugalpumpsand
CMUbuilding,3milliongallon(MG)prestressedconcretetank,watertransmissionmain,modifications
of26groundwaterwells,operationsbuilding,chemicalbulding,andcorrosioncontrol.Thearchitecture
ofthisplantwasinspiredfromlocalresidentialneighborhoods.Craftsmaninspireddetailingof
raftertails,windowproportionsandtrellisfeaturescontributetotheresidentialtheme.Materialsused
werecontemporary;examplesbeingstandingseammetalroof,concretemasonry,andcompositewood
panels,butincorporatedintotraditionalforms.Therearefourbuildingstotalinthisplant:
Administration,chemical,highservicepumpingstation,andrawwaterpumpingstation.Therawwater
pumpingstationisastandalonebuildingonaseparatelotclosertotheintakesource.Itislocatedjust
outsideahistoricdistrictinWoodbridge,California,whereatleasttwobuildingsareontheNational
RegisterofHistoricPlaces.

5.0 BIOGRAPHIESOFKEYPERSONNEL
5.1 VETeamLeader:ValueManagementStrategies,Inc.
CVSFacilitatorMarkWatson,P.E.,CVSLife,PMP
MARKWATSONisaregisteredProfessionalEngineer,CertifiedValueSpecialist(Life),andProject
ManagementProfessional.HehasadegreeinGeologicalEngineeringfromtheUniversityofMissouri
Rolla(nowtheMissouriUniversityofScienceandTechnology).Mark'sexperienceincludes15yearsof
facilitatingvaluestudiesonawidearrayofprojectsthatcoverthegambitofthedesignandconstruction
industry.Hehasconductedover200valueanalysis,valueengineering,andvalueplanningstudieson
water/wastewaterfacilities,roads,bridges,transitfacilities,airportfacilities,anddrainagefacilities,as
wellasbuildingsforeducation,healthcare,prisons,U.S.military,andU.S.embassyandconsulate
operations.Thesizeoftheseprojectsandprogramshasrangedfromafewhundredthousanddollarsin
capitalcoststoashighas$6billion.Markhasfacilitatedworkshopsonprojectsinallstagesofdesign
fromtheschematic/planningstageto100%complete.
OneofMarksparticularspecialtiesisthefacilitationoflarge,diversegroups.Overthecourseofhis
career,hehashadtheopportunitytofacilitateteamsrangingfromsmall,technicallyfocused
participantstolarge,managementbasedparticipantstoteamsofmultiplestakeholderswithmultiple
technicalbackgroundsandobjectives.Markhasdevelopedabroadrangeoffacilitationtechniquesthat
allowhimtoadapthisstyleandapproachtosupportthedynamicsofthegroupbeingfacilitated.In
addition,hehastheabilitytocommunicatethedetailedtechnicalaspectsofprojectsandalternativesso
allstakeholderswillunderstand,regardlessoftheirtechnicalbackground.
5.2 VETeamMembers:HDREngineering,Inc.
Civil/StructuralEngineerOmidTavangar,P.E.
OMIDTAVANGARisaCaliforniaregisteredprofessionalcivilengineerwithmorethan30yearsof
experienceascivil/structuralengineerforwaterandwastewaterprojects.Hisexperienceincludes
designandconstructionofwaterandwastewatertreatmentplants,solidshandlingfacilities,pumping
stations,pipelines,andstoragefacilities.Hehasexpertiseinanalyzingandimprovingstructuralsystems
toachieveoptimumcosteffectiveness.Heisalsoeffectiveinfacilitatingcommunicationbetweenthe
clientandprojectteam,andhasaprovenrecordformaintainingschedules.Mr.Tavangarrecently
participatedinthevalueengineeringeffortsforCityofSacramentostwoWaterTreatmentPlantsand
SunnyslopeCountyWaterDistrictstreatmentplantimprovements.Hewasstructuralengineerforthe
barrierwatertreatmentimprovementsprojectforWestBasinMunicipalWaterDistrict,whichprotects
thetreatmentplantagainstsaltwaterintrusion.
Architect&LEEDCertifiedEvaluatorMichaelLambert,R.A.,LEEDGreenAssociate
MICHAELLAMBERTisaCaliforniaregisteredarchitectandcertifiedLEEDGreenAssociate.Asaproject
architect,Mr.Lambertisresponsibleforsynthesizingclientprogramneedsintoexcitingarchitectural
solutions.Hehasmorethan29yearsofexperienceinallphasesofarchitecture,withemphasisin
projectmanagement,programming,designdevelopment,masterplanningandconstruction
administrationforavarietyofprojecttypes.Hisspecialtiesincludewaterandwastewaterdistribution
andtreatmentfacilities,andcodecompliance.Mr.Lambertrecentlyparticipatedinvalueengineering
effortsforCityofSacramentostwoWaterTreatmentPlants.

Electrical,Instrumentation,andControlsEngineerBillEttlich,P.E.
BILLETTLICHisaCaliforniaregisteredelectricalandcontrolsystemsengineerwithmorethan55yearsof
technicalandmanagerialexperienceinwaterandwastewatertreatmentfacilitiesdesigninboththe
consultingengineeringandprocessequipmentfields.Hisexperienceincludesthedirectionofwaterand
wastewatertreatmentprojectsthroughallphases,includingplanning,design,construction,field
services,operatortraining,and/orstartupassistanceforover250water/wastewaterfacilities.He
providesprocess,controlandinstrumentationdesignformanyoftheprojectshedirects,anddesigns
telemetrysystemsforvariouswaterandwastewatersystems.Havingdesignedanddirectedinto
operationanumberoffullyautomatedtreatmentplants,heiswidelyrecognizedasatelemetryand
automatedcontrolspecialist.Hehasalsoservedastheelectrical,instrumentation,andcontrol
engineeringspecialistonover15valueengineeringstudies.
OperationsandMaintenance(O&M)CraigClose,P.E.
CRAIGCLOSEisaVicePresidentwithHDRandservesastheNationalBusinessClassDirectorfor
ManagementandPlanningServices(MAPS)businessunit.Heprovidesprofessionalandproject
managementservicestomunicipalagenciesandprivatecompaniesencompassingtheengineering
planning,design,permitting,andconstructionmanagementofunique,complex,andinnovativewater
andwastewaterinfrastructureandfacilityprojects.Hehasmorethan33yearsofengineering
experienceinthewater,wastewater,andelectricalpowerindustries.Hisuniquewaterandwastewater
operationalmanagementexperienceprovidesanowner'sperspectiveinsolvingincreasinglychallenging
technicalandregulatorycomplianceissues.
Mr.Closebringsabroadanddiversebackgroundtohisclientsthatwerefoundedfromhislongtenure
atAmericanWaterServiceCompany.HeservedastheVicePresidentofOperationsfortheWestern
RegionCompaniesofAmericanWaterWorksCompany.Hewasresponsibleforthedaytodayoperation
ofwaterandwastewaterutilitiesownedbyAmericanWaterthatservedover500,000peoplein26
communitiesandfourstates.Hisresponsibilitiesincludedthemanagementofthetechnical
departmentsthatsupportedthedistrictoperations,whichincludedplanningengineering,construction,
waterquality(includingtheoperationoftwostatecertifiedlaboratories),riskmanagement,customer
serviceandbilling,andraterecovery.Duringhistenurehere,hewasveryinvolvedintheearlystagesof
theMontereyPeninsulaDesalinationproject;hisfamiliaritywiththeprojectlocationandhistorywill
providevaluableinsightotherO&Mconsultantswouldnotprovide.
ENVISIONEvaluatorandHDRsProjectManagerDaveReardon,P.E.,BCEE,ENVSP
DAVEREARDONisHDRsNationalDirectorforWater/WastewaterSustainabilityandprocessengineer
withmorethan41yearsofconsultingandengineeringexperienceforwaterandwastewaterfacilities.
HeisaCertifiedISIEnvisionSustainabilityProfessionalandVerifierandaCaliforniaregistered
professionalcivilengineer.Mr.Reardonoffersextensiveexperienceintheareaofprocess
troubleshooting,facilityoptimization,andenergyconservationforwater,wastewater,andindustrial
facilitiesnationwide,andisconsideredoneoftheleadingexpertsintheindustryintermsoflower
energy,demand,andchemicalusage.Hehasconductedover125sustainabilitystudiesatwaterand
wastewaterfacilitiesnationwide,andhasalsoparticipatedinover10valueengineeringstudies.
Beingmindfulofoverallstudycost,itisbeingproposedthatMr.ReardonperformhisENVISION
evaluationfromhisofficeinFolsom,CA.

6.0 REFERENCES
6.1 ProjectReferencesandReviews
GalvestonChannelPelicanIslandStudy,USACEGalvestonDistrict,2011 ExceptionalRating
TheAEisratedasExceptionalbecausetheVETeamcameupwithpractical,creativewaysof
addressingissueswiththeplannedplacementarearehabilitation.ThereporttheVETeamdeliveredwas
aqualityproductthatpresentedtheVEproposalsverywellandwasthoroughinitsdiscussionsofthe
proposals.Thereportwaswelllaidout,formattedwell,andconcisesuchthatitwasaneasy,
understandablereadandgottothepointoftheVEstudyresults.TheVEReportwasformattedas
prescribedbytheSOW.AfterdoingseveralVEstudiesfortheGalvestonDistrict,theAEhasestablished
aconsistenttrackrecordofmeetingorexceedingtheGalvestonDistrict'sexpectationsasevidencedby
theVEproposalstheVETeamscomeupwiththathaverelevancytotheprojectsstudiedandwhere
thoseprojectsareintheirdevelopmentandbythefactthatseveraloftheseideashavebeen
implementedwhichhasresultedinsubstantialcostsavings.
ACASSEvaluation,JonPlymale,VEOfficer,4097666375
JohnDayMonolith/DrainageRepairsVEStudy,USACEPortlandDistrict,2013 ExceptionalRating
VMSdidagreatjobofgettingtherightteammembersandfacilitatorfortheVEstudy.Alldidagreat
jobACASSEvaluation,JasonWeber,VEOfficer,5038084799
NewYorkOfficeofManagementandBudget,ValueEngineeringServicesonTaskOrderBasis,2012
ExcellentRating
Theschedulesfortheassignedcomplexprojectswereveryaggressiveandtheconsultantworked
diligentlytoaccommodatetheshorttimeframes.Theproductionofdeliverableswasonamore
demandinglevelthanpreviousassignments,andtheconsultantwasabletomeettheserequirements.
Thetechnicalfacilityoftheconsultantstaffandsubconsultantsisatahighleveloftechnical
sophistication.Weareveryimpressedwiththequalityoftheteamworkandrelyontheconsultantto
produceoutstandingdeliverables.JillWoller,NYOMB,2127886137
6.2 Firm/TeamLeaderReferences
JonathanTat
MetropolitanWaterDistrictofSouthernCA
OncallVEServices:3consecutivecontracts(8yrs)
jtat@mwdh2o.com
2132176682
FrankVicidomina,ValueEngineeringOfficer
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,NewOrleans
IDIQValueEngineeringServices
frank.vicidomina@usace.army.mil
5048621251
RichardStricker,ValueEngineeringOfficer
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,OmahaDistrict
richard.a.stricker@usace.army.mil
4029952412
JohnPlymale,ValueEngineeringOfficer
U.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers,GalvestonDistrict
jon.e.plymale@usace.army.mil
4097666375

7.0 OTHERCONSIDERATIONS
7.1 QualityAssurance
VMSiscommittedtoprovidinghighquality,effectiveserviceswithoutunexpectedchangestothe
projectbudget.OurinternalQualityAssurance(QA)andCostControlProgramsarestructuredtoensure
wenotonlymeet,butexceedthecustomersexpectationsforourservices.VMSrealizesthateachclient
hasspecificrequirementsthatneedtobeaddressedtoassurequalityandcontinuityintheirstudies.As
weworkwithnewclientsweseekfeedbackonourservicestobetterservetheirneeds.Inaddition,we
analyzewhattheyaretryingtoaccomplishanduseourcollectiveexperiencetosuggestwaystoimprove
theirprogramandensuredeliveryofservicesinthemostefficientandeffectivemannerpossible.
VMShasinternalqualitychecksincludingtechnicalediting,internalreviewsbyallkeystaffofproject
deliverablesanddocuments,andaclientfocusedreviewprocessthatassurestheproductsandservices
providedbyVMSexceedexpectations.
7.2 CostControl
Costcontrolswillconsistofassessingweeklyprogressandmeasurementofhoursutilizedincomparison
totheplannednumberofhoursfortaskcompletion.Thisisconsistentwithanearnedvalueapproach
thatwillallowsforbothcostanddurationtocompletiontobeforecastedandmanagedsuchin
collaborationwiththeclient.Thisearnedvalueapproachensurestheexpecteddeliveryscheduleand
allocatedbudgetwillbemanagedeffectively.

ValueLeadership
CORPORATEOFFICE:
900CanterburyPlace
Suite330
Escondido,CA920253856
T:7607415518
F:7607415617(alloffices)
Sacramento,California
T:9162249812
GrandJunction,Colorado
T:9702425531
Merriam,Kansas
T:8162060067
LasVegas,Nevada
T:7203084205
Portland,Oregon
T:5039579642
Bothell,Washington
T:2066798029

Date: June4,2014
JamesM.Cullem,P.E.
ExecutiveDirector
MontereyPeninsulaRegionalWaterAuthority
580PacificStreet,Room6
Monterey,CA93940
Subject: VEStudyNegotiationScope/FeeModifications
MontereyPeninsulaWaterSupplyProjectDesalinationPlant
DearMr.Cullem:
ValueManagementStrategies,Inc.(VMS)ispleasedtotransmittherevisionstoour
originalValueEngineering(VE)studyproposalqualificationsandfee.Changesare
theresultofthescopeandfeenegotiationsbetweenVMS,yourself,andIanCrooks
thatoccurredJune4,2014viateleconference.Perthediscussionandnegotiations,
theresultingchangesaresummarizedbelow:
Negotiationsresultedinareductioninlaborandotherdirectcostsfromthe
originallyproposedfeeof$123,977.22by$14,961.52orroughly12%.The
revisedfeeis$109,035.70.Pleaserefertotheattachedrevisedfeethat
representstheagreementnegotiatedforscopeandfee.
TheVEstudydateswereconfirmedtobechangedbytheMontereyPeninsula
RegionalWaterAuthority(MPRWA)andCaliforniaAmericanWater(CAW)to
July711,2014.ThechangeinstudydatesfromtheoriginalRFPdatesresulted
inmodificationstotheproposedVEteammembersbasedonavailability;
however,theVEteammembersubstitutionshaveresultedinequivalentor
greaterexperiencelevelsofteammembersatareducedcostofconductingthe
VEstudy.PleaserefertotheupdatedVEteammemberqualificationsprovided
inthismemorandumfortherevisedVEteam.
TheEnvisionSustainabilityreviewscopewillbeconductedaspartoftheVE
studyforthebaselineconceptdesigninareducedcapacityfromtheoriginal
proposal:
o Thescopehasbeenreducedintermsoftheoriginallyproposedlevelof
effortresultinginareductionofteammemberhours.
o CoordinationwiththeVEteamcostestimatorwillbeperformedto
identifypotentialcostsofcertaincreditsand/orcostsofadditional
creditsforvariouscertificationlevels.
OnerentalcarwaseliminatedfromtheOtherDirectCosts,resultingina
reductionof$450.00.
Allreports(Preliminary,DraftFinal,andFinal)wereoriginallyscopedforhard
copypaperproductionanddelivery,butwillnowbedeliveredonly
electronicallyinPDFformat.
June4,2014
Page2
1.0 QUALIFICATIONSANDEXPERIENCE(REVISED)
TeamQualifications
VMShasprovidedVMservicesforamultitudeoflocal,state,regional,andfederalgovernment
agencies.Typesofprojectsincludeplanninganddesignofwater/wastewatertreatment,
healthcarefacilities,offices,andadministrativebuildings;planning,design,andimplementationof
transportationandtransitfacilitiesandsystems;recreationalfacilities;equipmentand
maintenancefacilities;housing;firestations;andanarrayofotherprojects.Asaresultofour
involvementwithnumerousprojectsforvariousgovernmentandlocalagencies,VMShas
developedathoroughunderstandingoffederal/stategovernmentregulations,construction
methods,andcoordinationrequirements.
Finally,ourlonghistoryandtrackrecordofbuildingsuccessfulVEteamsprovidesVMSaccessto
someofthemostexperiencedandsoughtafterconsultantsinthevariousengineeringdisciplines.
Basedonawealthofexperienceworkingonregionalwaterauthorityprojectsandwith
governmentagenciesinthestateofCalifornia,theproposedteammembersfromHDR
Engineering,Inc.areseasonedveteranswithextensiveexperiencedesigning,optimizingand
constructingsimilarprojects.ThefollowingrevisedteammembersareproposedforthisVEeffort:
ProposedRole NameandCredentials
CVSTeamLeader/Facilitator MarkWatson,P.E.,CVSLife,PMP
Civil/StructuralEngineer OmidTavangar,P.E.
Architect&LEEDCertifiedEvaluator VicDuran,R.A.,LEEDAP
Electrical/Instrumentation&ControlsEngineer LarrySmithey,P.E.
Operations&MaintenanceSpecialist ChristopherMalinowski,P.E.,ENVSP
ENVISIONEvaluator GregBrink,CVS,PMP,CCE/A,ENVSP
VMSstrivestoprovidethemostcosteffectivemeansofdeliveringvalueimprovingservicestoour
clients.Asaresult,pleasenotethatsomeoftherequestedroles/teammembersforthisVEstudy
havebeenconsolidated.Thishasbeendonewiththeintenttoprovidetheproperexperiencein
themoststreamlinedandcosteffectivemannerpossible.Withtheparticipationofadditional
stakeholderpersonnelbeingprovidedbyCAWasstatedintheRFPscopeofservices,theteam
membersproposedhereinprovidethenecessarylevelofexperienceandexpertiserequiredfor
thesuccessofthisstudy.
2.0 BIOGRAPHIESOFKEYPERSONNEL(REVISED)
2.1 VETeamLeader
CVSFacilitatorMarkWatson,P.E.,CVSLife,PMP
MARKWATSONisaregisteredProfessionalEngineer,CertifiedValueSpecialist(Life),andProject
ManagementProfessional.HehasadegreeinGeologicalEngineeringfromtheUniversityof
MissouriRolla(nowtheMissouriUniversityofScienceandTechnology).Mark'sexperience
includes15yearsoffacilitatingvaluestudiesonawidearrayofprojectsthatcoverthegambitof
thedesignandconstructionindustry.Hehasconductedover200valueanalysis,value
June4,2014
Page3
engineering,andvalueplanningstudiesonwater/wastewaterfacilities,roads,bridges,transit
facilities,airportfacilities,anddrainagefacilities,aswellasbuildingsforeducation,healthcare,
prisons,U.S.military,andU.S.embassyandconsulateoperations.Thesizeoftheseprojectsand
programshasrangedfromafewhundredthousanddollarsincapitalcoststoashighas$6billion.
Markhasfacilitatedworkshopsonprojectsinallstagesofdesignfromtheschematic/planning
stageto100%complete.
OneofMarksparticularspecialtiesisthefacilitationoflarge,diversegroups.Overthecourseof
hiscareer,hehashadtheopportunitytofacilitateteamsrangingfromsmall,technicallyfocused
participantstolarge,managementbasedparticipantstoteamsofmultiplestakeholderswith
multipletechnicalbackgroundsandobjectives.Markhasdevelopedabroadrangeoffacilitation
techniquesthatallowhimtoadapthisstyleandapproachtosupportthedynamicsofthegroup
beingfacilitated.Inaddition,hehastheabilitytocommunicatethedetailedtechnicalaspectsof
projectsandalternativessoallstakeholderswillunderstand,regardlessoftheirtechnical
background.
2.2 VETeamMembers
Civil/StructuralEngineerOmidTavangar,P.E.
OMIDTAVANGARisaCaliforniaregisteredprofessionalcivilengineerwithmorethan30yearsof
experienceascivil/structuralengineerforwaterandwastewaterprojects.Hisexperienceincludes
designandconstructionofwaterandwastewatertreatmentplants,solidshandlingfacilities,
pumpingstations,pipelines,andstoragefacilities.Hehasexpertiseinanalyzingandimproving
structuralsystemstoachieveoptimumcosteffectiveness.Heisalsoeffectiveinfacilitating
communicationbetweentheclientandprojectteam,andhasaprovenrecordformaintaining
schedules.Mr.TavangarrecentlyparticipatedinthevalueengineeringeffortsforCityof
SacramentostwoWaterTreatmentPlantsandSunnyslopeCountyWaterDistrictstreatment
plantimprovements.Hewasstructuralengineerforthebarrierwatertreatmentimprovements
projectforWestBasinMunicipalWaterDistrict,whichprotectsthetreatmentplantagainst
saltwaterintrusion.
Architect&LEEDCertifiedEvaluatorVicDuran,R.A.,LEEDAP
VICDURANhasproject,program,andconstructionmanagementexperiencewithmorethan34
yearsofexperienceintheplanning,management,anddesignofbuildingsforwaterand
wastewateragenciesandfederalfacilities.Hehasalsomanagedanddirectedteamsduringthe
designandconstructionofvariousprojects,includingpostal,military,educational,criminaljustice,
andretailfacilities.Hisexperienceincludesarchitecturaldesign,project,programand
constructionmanagement,qualitycontrol,claimsandlitigationsupport,estimating,bidding,CPM
schedulingandconstructionsuperintendence.Mr.DuranparticipatedintheVEstudyofthe
ModestoJuniorCollegeWestCampus,SierraHallInstructionalFacility,whichidentified$2million
incostsavings,aswellasaVEstudyforBeachChaletVisitorCenterandBrewpubRestaurantin
SanFrancisco,CA.
June4,2014
Page4
Electrical,Instrumentation,andControlsEngineerLarrySmithey,P.E.
LARRYSMITHEYhasmorethan27yearsoftechnicalandmanagerialexperienceproviding
electrical,instrumentation,andcontroldesignsforover100waterandwastewatertreatment
facilities.Hisexperienceincludestheplanninganddesignofwaterandwastewaterprojects
throughallphases,includingplanning,design,construction,fieldservices,equipment/system
purchasing,operatortraining,andstartup.Electricalsystemsincludepowerdistributionatthe
mediumvoltageleveldowntocomponentlevel.ControlsystemsincludebothPLCbased
distributedcontrolandcentralmicrocomputerbasedsystems.Instrumentationsystemsinclude
fullinstrumentationdesignforbothmunicipalandindustrialwaterandwastewatersystems.
Mr.Smitheysrecentvalueengineeringexperienceincludesthe121mgdPointoftheMountain
WaterTreatmentPlantforMetropolitanWaterDistrictofSaltLakeandSandy,Utah.Hewasalso
theelectrical,instrumentation,andcontrolsengineerforCityofColusasWastewaterTreatment
PlantExpansionVEstudy,whichidentified30ideasforatotalsavingsof$3million.Additional
relevantprojectsincludeprovidingelectrical,instrumentation,andcontrolsdesignforthereverse
osmosisdesalinationfacilityforU.S.BureauofReclamationsSanLuisUnit.Healsoservedasthe
leadelectrical,instrumentation,andcontroldesignforimprovementstoprotectagainstsaltwater
intrusionforWestBasinMunicipalWaterDistrict.
OperationsandMaintenance(O&M)SpecialistChristopherMalinowski,P.E.,ENVSP
CHRISTOPHERMALINOWSKIrecentlyjoinedHDRwithresponsibilityforthedevelopmentofHDR's
O&Mbusinesslineinboththemunicipalandindustrialsectors.Hehasmorethan28yearsof
experienceprovidingstartup,commissioning,operations,andmaintenanceservicesforwaterand
wastewaterfacilities.HeisacertifiedwaterandwastewatertreatmentplantoperatorinTexas,a
P.E.,andanENVISIONSustainabilityProfessional.
CurrentresponsibilitiesincludeO&Mcontracts,startupandcommissioningservices,asset
management,plantdecommissioning,operabilityreviews,operationstroubleshooting,and
operationalefficiencystudies.Mr.Malinowskisexperienceincludesthemanagement,design,
O&M,andprojectdevelopmentofwaterandwastewatersystems.Hisexperiencealsoincludes
developingprojectstrategies,pricing,developingteamingarrangements,runningandinterpreting
financialmodels,andpreparingprojectproformas.Mr.Malinowskihasextensiveexperience
operatingmunicipalutilities,andawidevarietyofindustrialsites.AsVicePresidentofOperations
andMaintenanceforSouthwestWaterCompany,Mr.Malinowskihadoverallresponsibilityfor
over300waterandwastewatersystems.
ENVISIONEvaluatorGregoryBrink,CVS,PMP,PMIRMP,CCE/A,ENVSP
GREGBRINKisproposedastheENVISIONsustainabilityevaluatorforthisstudy.Inadditiontohis
vastexperiencewithriskmanagement,valueoptimization,costestimatingandproject
management,hehasprovidedENVISIONreviewandevaluationservicesforanumberof
infrastructureprojectsincludingwater/wastewaterpumpingfacilities,municipalinfrastructure
projectsandbilliondollartransitandhighwaytransportationprograms.
Mr.Brinksknowledgeandapplicationofsustainableconstructionpracticesprecededhis
certificationasanENVISIONSustainabilityProfessionalbyseveralyears,ashehaslongbeen
June4,2014
Page5
applyingUSGBCLEEDGreenBuildingprinciplestoenhancethesustainabilityofconstruction
practicesandimprovevaluefortheU.S.DepartmentofStateandU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers.
Mindfulofoverallstudycost,itisbeingproposedthatMr.Brinkparticipateviateleconference
andperformhisENVISIONevaluationfromhisofficeinLasVegas,NV;therefore,notravelis
includedforhisparticipationintheVEstudy.Mr.BrinkslevelofeffortfortheVEstudywillfocus
solelyonconductingtheEnvisionSustainabilityevaluationfortheproject.
3.0 REVISEDVESTUDYFEE
VMSunderstandstheneedfortheVEstudytoprovidetheproposedservicesatthelowestpossiblecostand
bestoverallvaluetoMPRWAandCAW.ThechangestotheVEteamhaveresultedinincreasedexperiencein
technicalteammembersatareducedcost.Inaddition,negotiationsintermsofscopeandtotalfeeresultedin
furtherreductionstotheplannedfeeforconductingtheVEstudy.Thefollowingistherevisedfeeresultingfrom
teammembermodificationsandnegotiations:
Item Name Hours Rate Cost Total

Program Manager Stewart, Robert 4 $290.22 $1,160.88
VE Team Leader Watson, Mark 24 $220.32 $5,287.68
Assistant Team Leader/Technical Writer Brink, Mariah 2 $92.53 $185.06
Project Coordinator Kramer, Cheryl 8 $158.61 $1,268.88
Civil/Structural Engineer Tavangar, Omid 8 $238.00 $1,904.00
Architect & LEED Evaluator Duran, Vic 8 $274.00 $2,192.00
Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls Engineer Smithey, Larry 8 $231.00 $1,848.00
Operations and Maintenance Malinowski, Chris 8 $247.00 $1,976.00
Envision Evaluator Brink, Greg 8 $211.39 $1,691.12
$17,513.62
Assistant Team Leader/Technical Writer Brink, Mariah 50 $92.53 $4,626.50
Civil/Structural Engineer Tavangar, Omid 40 $238.00 $9,520.00
Architect & LEED Evaluator Duran, Vic 40 $274.00 $10,960.00
Electrical, Instrumentation, and Controls Engineer Smithey, Larry 40 $231.00 $9,240.00
Operations and Maintenance Malinowski, Chris 40 $247.00 $9,880.00
Envision Evaluator Brink, Greg 24 $211.39 $5,073.36
$60,315.86
Project Coordinator Kramer, Cheryl 2 $158.61 $317.22
QA/QC Stewart, Robert 4 $290.22 $1,160.88
$8,986.50
Project Coordinator Kramer, Cheryl 2 $158.61 $317.22
QA/QC Stewart, Robert 4 $290.22 $1,160.88
$9,682.72
$96,498.70
POSTWORKSHOP - VE Preliminary Report
Total POSTWORKSHOP - VE Preliminary Report :
POSTWORKSHOP - Implementation Meeting and Final VE Report
Total POSTWORKSHOP - I mplementation Meeting and Final VE Report:
Labor SubTotal:
Total PREWORKSHOP - Preparation and Coordination:
WORKSHOP - VE Study
Total WORKSHOP - VE Study:
REVISED VE STUDY FEE
Monterey Peninsula Desalination Plant - 5 Day VE Study
Monterey, CA
PREWORKSHOP - Preparation and Coordination
June4,2014
Page6

Category UM Number Rate Cost Total
Watson, Mark
Airfare Study and Implementation each 2 $800.00 $1,600.00
Round trip transportation each 2 $100.00 $200.00
Rental Car - 1 car Day 8 $75.00 $600.00
Meals and Incidentals Day 7 $71.00 $497.00
Lodging/Hotel Day 8 $145.00 $1,160.00
Parking-hotel Day 7 $15.00 $105.00
Baggage Fees each 4 $30.00 $120.00
$4,282.00
Brink, Mariah
Airfare each 1 $700.00 $700.00
Lodging/Hotel Day 5 $145.00 $725.00
$2,011.00
Tavangar, Omid
$1,691.00
Duran, Vic
$1,151.00
Smithey, Larry
$1,151.00
Malinowski, Chris
Airfare each 1 $700.00 $700.00
$2,101.00
Miscellaneous Direct Costs
Shipping - Preliminary, Draft Final, Final Reports LS 0 $300.00 $0.00
Reproduction - Preliminary, Draft Final, Final Reports EA 0 $100.00 $0.00
Miscellaneous Supplies - CDs, Labels, Paper LS 1 $150.00 $150.00
$150.00
$12,537.00
$109,035.70
Total:
Total:
Total:
Total:
Total:
Other Direct Costs
Other Direct Cost SubTotal:
TOTAL COST PROPOSAL
Total:
Total Misc. ODC:
June4,2014
Page7
ItwasapleasurespeakingwithMPRWAandCAWonbehalfofVMSforthisVEstudy.Welookforwardto
conductingthisVEstudyandimprovingvalueforthisexcitingproject.Ifyouhaveanyquestionsorcomments
concerningthismemosummarizingthenegotiations,pleasedonothesitatetocontactmeat(720)3084205or
emailGreg@vmsinc.com.
Sincerely,
VALUEMANAGEMENTSTRATEGIES,INC.
GregoryBrink,CVS,PMP,CCE/A,PMIRMP,ENVSP
Director
Copy:(PDF)Addressee
(PDF)IanCrooks,CaliforniaAmericanWater

1

EXHIBIT C
CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Agreement for Value Engineering Services

THIS AGREEMENT is executed this __ day of June 2014, by and between the Monterey
Peninsula Regional Water Authority, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "Authority",
and Value Management Strategies, Inc. (VMS), hereinafter called "Consultant".

IT IS HEREBY MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Scope. Consultant hereby agrees to provide to the Authority, as the scope of
services under this Agreement, Value Engineering Services as described on the following
attachment: Proposal for Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Desalination Plant VE
Study (attached hereto as Exhibit A), and as modified by VMS letter dated June 4, 2014
(attached hereto as Exhibit B).
2. Timely Work. Consultant shall perform all tasks in a timely fashion, as set forth
more specifically in paragraph 3 below. Failure to so perform is hereby deemed a material
breach of this Agreement, and Authority may terminate this Agreement with no further liability
hereunder, or may agree in writing with Consultant to an extension of time.

3. Term. The work under this Agreement shall commence no later than June 1,
2014 and shall be completed by July 31, 2014, unless Authority grants a written extension of
time as forth in paragraph 2 above.

4. Compensation. Authority agrees to pay and Consultant agrees to accept as full
and fair consideration for the performance of this Agreement, a payment in a total amount of
not-to-exceed one hundred nine thousand thirty-five dollars and seventy cents
($109,035.70). Compensation under this Agreement shall become due and payable 30 days
after Authoritys approval of Consultants submission of a written invoice to the Authority
Executive Director. Written invoices shall include a copy of timesheets or invoices from sub-
consultants. The payment of any compensation to Consultant hereunder shall be contingent
upon performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement to the satisfaction of the
Authority. If Authority determines that the work set forth in the written invoice has not been
performed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, Authority shall not be responsible for
payment until such time as the work has been satisfactorily performed.

2

5. Additional Services. In the event that Authority should request additional
services not covered by the terms of this Agreement, said services will be provided by
Consultant and paid for by Authority only after a fee for said services has been agreed upon
between Consultant and the Authority Executive Director, only after the Authority Director
provides written authorization for the additional work.

6. Meet and Confer. Consultant agrees to meet and confer with Authority or its
agents or employees with regard to services as set forth herein as may be required by Authority
to insure timely and adequate performance of this Agreement.

7. Indemnification. Consultant hereby agrees to the following indemnification
clause:

To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, without limitation, California Civil Code
Sections 2782 and 2782.6), Consultant shall defend (with legal counsel reasonably
acceptable to the Authority), indemnify and hold harmless the Authority and its officers,
designated agents, departments, officials, representatives and employees (collectively
"Indemnitees") from and against claims, loss, cost, damage, injury expense and liability
(including incidental and consequential damages, court costs, reasonable attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses and fees of expert consultants or expert witnesses incurred in connection
therewith and costs of investigation) to the extent they arise out of, pertain to, or relate to, the
negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of Consultant, any Subconsultant, anyone
directly or indirectly employed by them, or anyone that they control (collectively "Liabilities").
Such obligations to defend, hold harmless and indemnify any Indemnitee shall not apply to the
extent that such Liabilities are caused in part by the negligence, or willful misconduct of such
Indemnitee.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the above paragraph, Consultant agrees to indemnify
and hold harmless the Authority from and against any and all claims, demands, defense costs,
liability, expense, or damages arising out of or in connection with damage to or loss of any
property belonging to Consultant or Consultant's employees, contractors, representatives,
patrons, guests or invitees.

Consultant further agrees to indemnify Authority for damage to or loss of Authority
property to the proportionate extent they arise out of Consultant's negligent performance of
the work associated with this agreement or to the proportionate extent they arise out of any
negligent act or omission of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, agents, contractors,
representatives, patrons, guests or invitees; excepting such damage or loss arising out of the
negligence of the Authority.

8. Insurance. Consultant shall submit and maintain in full force all insurance as
described herein. Without altering or limiting Consultant's duty to indemnify, Consultant shall
maintain in effect throughout the term of this Agreement a policy or policies of insurance with
the following minimum limits of liability:

3

Commercial general liability insurance: including but not limited to premises, personal
injuries, bodily injuries, products, and completed operations, with a combined single limit
of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 in the aggregate.
Professional Liability Insurance: Consultant shall maintain in effect throughout the term
of this Agreement professional liability insurance with limits of not less than $1,000,000
per claim and $2,000,000 in the aggregate. Consultant will either maintain or cause to be
maintained professional liability coverage in full force or obtain extended reporting (tail)
coverage (with the same liability limits) for at least three years following Authority's
acceptance of the work.
Commercial automobile liability insurance: covering all automobiles, including owned,
leased, non-owned, and hired automobiles, used in providing services under this
Agreement, with a combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Workers' Compensation Insurance: If Consultant employs others in the performance of
this agreement, Consultant shall maintain workers' compensation insurance in
accordance with California Labor Code section 3700 and with a minimum of $100,000
per occurrence for employer's liability.
Other Insurance Requirements:
A. All insurance required under this Agreement must be written by an insurance
company either:

admitted to do business in California with a current A.M. Best rating of no
less than A:VI; or
an insurance company with a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A:
VII.

Exception may be made for the State Compensation Insurance Fund when
not specifically rated.

B. Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state
that Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority shall be given notice in
writing at least thirty days in advance of any cancellation thereof, except 10-
day notice for nonpayment of the premium.

C. The general liability and auto policies shall:

Provide an endorsement naming the Authority, its officers, officials, and
employees as additional insureds under an ISO CG 20 10 07 04 or ISO 20 37
07 04 or their equivalent.
Provide that such insurance is primary and non-contributing insurance to any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Authority.
Contain a "Separation of Insureds" provision substantially equivalent
to that used in the ISO form CG 00 01 10 01 or their equivalent.

4

Provide for a waiver of any subrogation rights against the Authority via an
ISO CG 24 01 10 93 or its equivalent.

D. Prior to the start of work under this Agreement, Consultant shall file
certificates of insurance and endorsements evidencing the coverage required
by this agreement with the Authority. Consultant shall file a new or amended
certificate of insurance promptly after any change is made in any insurance
policy which would alter the information on the certificate then on file.

E. Neither the insurance requirements hereunder, nor acceptance or approval of
Consultants insurance, nor whether any claims are covered under any
insurance, shall in any way modify or change Consultants obligations under
the indemnification clause in this Agreement, which shall continue in full force
and effect. Notwithstanding the insurance requirements contained herein,
Consultant is financially liable for its indemnity obligations under this
Agreement.

F. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved
by the Authority. At the option of the Authority, either: the insured shall
reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects
the Authority, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or Consultant
shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to the Authority guaranteeing
payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and
defense expenses.

9. Ownership of Work. Upon completion of the work under this Agreement,
ownership, and title to all materials and deliverables produced as part of this Agreement will
automatically be vested in the Authority and no further agreement will be necessary to transfer
ownership to Authority.

10. Licensing. Consultant represents as follows: that it is experienced in the
professional services and a specialist in the work performed under this Agreement; is duly
organized, existing and in good standing under applicable state law; and is properly licensed
and/or certified to perform the work specified under this Agreement, including but not limited to
possession of a current City of Monterey business license, and will only employ persons and
sub-consultants with all required licenses and certifications.

11. Substitution of Consultant Personnel. The key personnel of Consultant or any
sub-consultants listed in Consultants proposal and assigned to perform the work under this
Agreement may not be substituted with or replaced by other personnel or sub-consultants
without the advance written consent of the Executive Director of the Authority.
12. Termination. Termination. This agreement may be terminated by either party
upon ten (10) calendar days written notice to the other party. In the event of such termination
Authority shall pay Consultant for all services performed to the satisfaction of Authority to the
date of receipt of notice of termination. An itemized statement of the work performed to the date
of termination shall be submitted to Authority. In ascertaining the services actually rendered
hereunder up to the date of termination of this agreement consideration shall be given to both

5

completed work and work in process of completion, and to complete and incomplete drawings
and other documents whether delivered to Authority or in the possession of the Consultant.

13. Agency. In performing the services specified under this Agreement, Consultant
is hereby deemed to be an independent Consultant and not an agent or employee of Authority.
14. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the
parties hereto and supersedes any and all prior agreements, whether oral or written, relating to
the subject matter thereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only if it is in
writing signed by both parties hereto.
15. Validity. If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will continue in full
force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.
16. Assignment of Interest. The duties under this Agreement shall not be assignable,
delegable, or transferable without the prior written consent of Authority. Any such purported
assignment, delegation, or transfer shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement upon
which Authority may terminate this Agreement and be entitled to damages.
17. Conflict of Interest. Consultant hereby certifies that it does not now have, nor
shall it acquire, any financial or business interest that would conflict with the performance of
services under this Agreement.
18. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of
which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts.
19. Laws. Consultant agrees that in the performance of this Agreement it will
reasonably comply with all applicable State, Federal and local laws and regulations. This
Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
California and the City of Monterey.
20. Venue. Should either party to this agreement bring legal action against the other
(formal judicial proceeding, mediation, or arbitration) the venue for the matter shall be Monterey
County, California.
21. Notices. All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given by either
party to the other, shall be considered fully received when made in writing and deposited in the
United States mail, certified and postage prepaid, and addressed to the respective parties as
follows:

James M.Cullem, P.E.
Executive Director,

6

_735 Pacific Street__________________
Monterey, CA 93940
CONSULTANT:
___________________
___________________
___________________

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is entered into by the parties hereto on the
day and year first above written in Monterey, California.

AUTHORITY CONSULTANT

__________________________ __________________________
President of MPRWA Value Management Strategies, Inc.

511 Forest Lodge Road
Suite #100
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
P: 831-646-3217
www.amwater.com
*
CALIFORNIA
AMERICAN WATER
June 10, 2014
James M. Cullem, P.E.
Executive Director
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)
580 Pacific St, Room 6
Monterey, CA 93940
Re: Value Engineering (VE) Escrow Account
Dear Mr. Cullem,
As we discussed and agreed, the MPRWA should establish an escrow account to pay for the VE
contract services with VMS. California American Water will provide a check in the amount of
$109,035.70 for direct contract services plus $11,000.00 for contingencies. Any remaining
escrow balance will be refunded to California American Water within thirty (30) days of the
completion of VE work under the contract with VMS.
Please send an invoice in the amount of $120,035.70 to my attention in order to process the
check.
Sincerely,
Manager Engineering
C: Richard Svindland, P.E. Vice-President, California American Water
Agenda Report

Date: June 12, 2014
Item No: 7.

06/12

SUBJECT: Receive Report on Progress of Securitization Bills in the State Legislature and
the Status of Settling Parties Joint Comments on Ruling Requesting Comments
on Surcharge Options and Proposals

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Water Authority receive an update from Director Burnett and/or staff
on the status of the Securitization bills in the State Legislature and the status of proposed
changes in the surcharge schedule being considered by the CPUC.

DISCUSSION:

On May 23
rd
, the State Senate voted 32-0 in favor of our securitization legislation. It is now
being taken up in the Assembly. A more detailed update will be provided verbally at the Water
Authority meeting.

Agenda Report

Date: June 12, 2014
Item No: 8.

06/12

SUBJECT: Receive Report, Discuss latest CPUC Schedule for the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP)

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Water Authority review and discuss the current CPUC
schedule for the MPWSP as annotated by staff.

DISCUSSION:

Attachment #1 is the latest staff revision (12 June 2014) to the initial 7 October 2013
CPUC schedule for the MPWSP including the activities needed for a successful and
timely GWR project.

Italicized dates represent the most recent completion dates while standard type reflects
the dates established during settlement negotiations (10 September 2013).

Items shown in red are suggested by staff to be critical, those in yellow as approaching
critical. All others do not seem to be critical or near critical as of this date.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Focused schedule dated 12 June 2014.

October 7, 2013
015621\0002\11340073.1
6/10/14
Revised Schedule and Task List for MPWSP Post Settlement (REV 12 JUNE 2014)
Italics are changes. Red are actions past due. Yellow are near term.
CPUC Calendar Dates
Task Due Date Responsible Party Notes
Comments on
Settlement Agreements
Due
August 30, 2013 Complete
Reply Comments on
Settlement Agreements
Due
September 13, 2013 Complete
Prehearing
Conference: Status of
Settlement Motion (if
any), of CEQA work
& other matters
September 16, 2013 Complete
Quarterly Check-in Call
with Settling Parties
October 2013 MPRWA In Progress
Informational Hearing
on Settlement
Agreements
December 2-3, 2013
January 2014 MPRWA
DEIR circulated for
Comment
3
rd
Qtr 2014 DEIR out in June 2014
April 2014 MPRWA
Cal-Am to file and serve
a common outline for
legal and policy briefs,
after consulting with
parties
15 days after issuance
of DEIR

Comments on DEIR
Due
of DEIR
DEIR to be published 1
st

Qtr 2015
Common Outline
Opening Briefs filed and
served on legal and
policy issues

60 Days after Issuance
of DEIR
15 days after Issuance
DEIR- Cal Am to
file/serve common
outline for legal & policy
briefs
Reply Briefs filed and
served on legal and
policy issues
of DEIR

FEIR published 1
st
Qtr 2015

Proposed
Decision addressing
certification of FEIR and
issuance of CPCN
1
st
Qtr 2015
July 2014 MPRWA
Target for Commission
Action on Phase I
1
st
Qtr 2015
Quarterly Check-in Call October 2014 MPRWA
October 7, 2013
015621\0002\11340073.1
6/10/14
January 2015 MPRWA

October 7, 2013
015621\0002\11340073.1
6/10/14
GWR
File Motion for
Bifurcation of the
GWR Decision
August 2013 MRWPCA Complete and Granted
Board Actions to
Approve Revised
Governance Committee
Agreement
October 2013
August/Sept 2013
MPWMD, MPRWA,
County, & Cal-Am
To be Completed in
October
Executed Agreements
for GWR Source Water
and/or Declaratory
Relief

June 23, 2014

MRWPCA Meet & Confer in
Progress

Draft WPA
Mar 2014

MPWMD & MRWPCA
Obtain Representations
from DPH re Use of
Extracted GWR Water

Oct 2014

MRWPCA
Obtain Representations
from RWQCB re Use of
Extracted GWR Water

Oct 2014

MRWPCA
Storage Agreement
with Seaside Basin
Watermaster

Jul 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD
GWR Basis of Design
Complete with At Least
10% Design

Jul 2014

MRWPCA
GWR Financing Plan
Sufficient for SRF
Funding

Aug 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD
Agreement on Terms of
WPA

May 2014

Cal-Am, MRWPCA,
&MPWMD

Perform Revenue
Requirement Analysis
Including Any Debt
Equivalency Effect

Jul 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD
Perform Assessment of
GWR Positive and
Negative Externalities
for Any Premium
Showing
June 2014

MRWPCA & MPWMD
DEIR Circulated July 2014 MRWPCA
Dilution Water
Requirements
July-October 2014 MRWPCA
Project Approved and
FEIR
October 2014 MRWPCA
All Permits for GWR
Construction Obtained

???
January 2015
MRWPCA

October 7, 2013
015621\0002\11340073.1
6/10/14
Source Wells

Drill Exploratory
Boreholes
Sept. 2013 February
2014
Cal-Am PENDING
Commence
Hydrogeologic Study
and Technical Report
August 2013 Cal-Am / SVWC Draft completed. ?
Permits for CEMEX
Site Test Well
January 2014
Aug 2014
Cal-Am MND circulated in May
2014
Drill CEMEX Site Test
Well
February 2014
Nov 2014
Cal-Am DELAYED
Results of Test Well
Operation Obtained
February 2014
February 2016
Cal-Am DELAYED
Hydrogeologic Study
and Technical Report
Complete and Results
Filed with CPUC

June 2015
Cal-Am DELAYED
Necessary Agreements
from CEMEX for
Source Wells
Nov. 2015, or sooner Cal-Am ?
All Necessary Permits
for Construction of
Source Wells Obtained
Nov. 2015, or sooner Cal-Am ?
October 7, 2013
015621\0002\11340073.1
6/10/14
Securitization
Initial Revision and
Redline of Legislation
Early September 2013 MPWMD Complete
Obtain Cal-Am Input on
Draft Legislation
Late September 2013 MPWMD, MPRWA, &
Cal-Am
Complete
Retain Necessary
Additional
Financial/Legal
Consultants (Charles
Atkins)
October 2013

MPWMD In Progress
Revise Financial
Comparison of
Securitization v. Cal-Am
Financing
October 2013 MPWMD & Cal-Am In Progress
Meeting with
Community/Interest
Groups and Cities
October-December
2013
MPWMD & MPRWA In Progress
Further Revise
Legislation as
Necessary
October-November
2013
In Progress
Draft Summary of
Legislation
December 2013 MPWMD Complete
Introduce Legislation January 2014 Complete
Lobbying Effort February-April 2014 MPWMD, MPRWA, &
Cal-Am
In Progress
Legislation Adopted April-May 2014
?
Passed Senate
Unanimously; Referred
to Assembly
Initial Draft of Motion for
Financing Order
April 2014
?
MPWMD
Perform Analysis to
Demonstrate Annual
Customer Benefits
Exceed 1.0% of Total
Annual Revenue
Requirement
April 2014
?
MPWMD & Cal-Am
October 7, 2013
015621\0002\11340073.1
6/10/14

Motion for Financing
Order
May 2014
?
MPWMD
Obtain CPUC Financing
Order

?
Order on securitization
financing on satisfaction
of remaining criteria
from Settlement K
Preliminary Discussions
with Bond Underwriters
September-December
2014
MPWMD
Drafting of
documentation for bond
requests
September 2014-April
2015
MPWMD & Cal-Am
Preliminary Discussions
with Rating Agencies
February-April 2015 MPWMD
Agenda Report

Date: June 12, 2014
Item No: 9.

06/12

SUBJECT: Receive Update and Discuss the Marina Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP) Slant Test
Well.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Water Authority receive an update from Cal Am on the
Marina Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Test Slant Well, and discuss the
impact on well installation and on the MPWSP schedule.

DISCUSSION:

The test slant well has undergone an extensive environmental review process that has
resulted in Marina circulating an MND in May 2014. Cal Am will provide more details on
the MND and its impact on the MPWSP schedule at the Water Authority meeting.

ATTACHMENTS

The above referenced documents are very large and are hosted by the City of Marina.
They can be accessed through the following links:

Marina Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Cal Am slant test:
http://www.ci.marina.ca.us/documents/14/16/459/Slant%20Test%20Well%20Draf
t%20IS-MND_051614_201405191103365137.pdf

MND Appendicies: http://www.ci.marina.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/4541

Draft
Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration
For the
California American Water
Slant Test Well Project

May 2014
Prepared For:
City of Marina
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Marina, CA 93933
Contact: Theresa Szymanis
Planning Services Manager
Phone: (831) 884-1289
tszymanis@ci.marina.ca.us
Prepared By:
SWCA Environmental Consultants
1422 Monterey Street, C200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contact: Emily Creel
Project Manager
Phone: (805) 543-7095 x6814
ecreel@swca.com

This page intentionally left blank.

City of Marina May 2014
Cal Am Slant Test Well Project Page i
Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 California Environmental Quality Act ................................................................ 1
1.2 Initial Study ......................................................................................................... 1
1.2.1 Purpose ............................................................................................... 1
1.2.2 Determination ..................................................................................... 2
1.2.3 Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration .......................................... 4
Section 2. Project Description ..................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Project Background and History ......................................................................... 4
2.2 Project Site .......................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Proposed Project ............................................................................................... 11
2.3.1 Project Components .......................................................................... 11
2.3.2 Site Access ........................................................................................ 19
2.3.3 Phase 1 Project Construction ......................................................... 20
2.3.4 Phase 2 Project Operation .............................................................. 23
2.3.5 Phase 3 Project Decommissioning ................................................. 23
2.3.6 Applicant-Proposed Self-Mitigating Measures................................. 24
2.4 Required Entitlements ....................................................................................... 27
Section 3. Environmental Checklist Form and Analysis ........................................................ 27
3.1 Project Data ....................................................................................................... 27
3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ..................................................... 29
3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ............................................................... 30
I. Aesthetics .......................................................................................... 30
II. Agriculture Resources....................................................................... 35
III. Air Quality ........................................................................................ 38
IV. Biological Resources ........................................................................ 45
Cal Am Slant Test Well Project Page ii
V. Cultural Resources ............................................................................ 76
VI. Geology and Soils ............................................................................. 82
VII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................... 93
VIII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................... 95
IX. Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................... 102
X. Land Use and Planning ................................................................... 120
XI. Mineral Resources .......................................................................... 123
XII. Noise ............................................................................................... 125
XIII. Population and Housing .................................................................. 130
XIV. Public Services ................................................................................ 132
XV. Recreation ....................................................................................... 135
XVI. Transportation and Traffic .............................................................. 136
XVII. Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................... 140
3.4 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................... 147
XVIII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................... 147
Section 4. Environmental Declaration .................................................................................... 150
Section 5. References ................................................................................................................ 151
Section 6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.......................................................... 155

Cal Am Slant Test Well Project Page iii
FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ........................................................................................................ 8
Figure 2. Project Location Map ....................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3. Proposed Project Development Plans ............................................................................ 13
Figure 3a. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 1 of 5) ..................................................... 14
Figure 3b. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 2 of 5) ..................................................... 15
Figure 3c. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 3 of 5) ..................................................... 16
Figure 3d. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 4 of 5) ..................................................... 17
Figure 3e. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 5 of 5) ..................................................... 18
Figure 4. Slant Test Well Representative Illustration (Not to Scale) ......................................... 19
Figure 5. Farmland Map ................................................................................................................ 36
Figure 6. Existing Biological Setting ............................................................................................ 49
Figure 7. LCP Primary and Secondary Habitats............................................................................ 53
Figure 8. Flood Zone Map ........................................................................................................... 105
Figure 9. Historic Seawater Intrusion Map 180-Foot Aquifer ................................................. 108
Figure 10. Historic Seawater Intrusion Map 400-Foot Aquifer ............................................... 109
Figure 11. Preliminary Modeled Drawdown Contours ............................................................... 112
Figure 12. Coastal Erosion Storm Hazard Map ........................................................................... 117

TABLES
Table 1. Required Entitlements ..................................................................................................... 27
Table 2. North Central Coast Air Basin Attainment Status January 2013 ................................. 39
Table 3. Water Quality Data ........................................................................................................ 110
Table 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ................................................................... 155

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Sierra Club Response Letter
Appendix B: Biological Resources Background Information
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Background Information
Appendix D: Geology and Soils Background Information
Appendix E: Hydrology and Water Quality Background Information

Cal Am Slant Test Well Project Page iv


Cal Am Slant Test Well Project Page 1
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 California Environmental Quality Act
In California, the development permit process is coordinated with the environmental
review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 21000
et seq. of the California Public Resources Code, and the CEQA Guidelines, Section
15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations.
The overall purposes of CEQA are to:
1. Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential
significant environmental effects of proposed activities;
2. Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly
reduced;
3. Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in
projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the
governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible; and
4. Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the
project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are
involved (CEQA Guidelines 15002).
Every proposed project that is not exempt from the CEQA review process must be
assessed to determine the potential environmental effects that would result from approval,
development or implementation of the project. The Lead Agency is the public agency
with the greatest responsibility for carrying out or approving the project as a whole. The
Lead Agency will have the responsibility for determining the type of environmental
analysis required and will cause the appropriate CEQA document to be prepared.
The City of Marina is the CEQA Lead Agency, as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section
15367, for the proposed California American Water Slant Test Well Project.
1.2 Initial Study
1.2.1 Purpose
Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a Lead Agency to prepare an Initial
Study to determine whether a project will have a significant adverse impact on the
environment. An Initial Study provides the Lead Agency with information to use as the
basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a Negative
Declaration (ND) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) would be the appropriate
form of environmental documentation for a proposed project. Specifically, the purposes
of an Initial Study, as listed under Section 15063(c) of the CEQA Guidelines, are to:
1. Provide a Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether
to prepare an EIR or a ND/MND;
2. Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse
impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a
MND;
3. Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by:
(a) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant;
(b) Identifying the effects determined not to be significant;
(c) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant
effects would not be significant; and
(d) Identifying whether a program EIR, tiering, or another appropriate
process can be used for analysis of the project's environmental effects.
4. Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of a project;
5. Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a ND/MND that a
project will not have a significant effect on the environment;
6. Eliminate unnecessary EIRs; and
7. Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with a project.
1.2.2 Determination
Determining whether a project may have a significant environmental impact requires
careful judgment on the part of the Lead Agency based to the extent possible on scientific
and factual data. A fixed threshold of significance is not always possible because the
significance of an activity can vary with the setting (CEQA Guidelines 15064(b)).
In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency
shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the
project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which
may be caused by the project (CEQA Guidelines 15064(d)).
The CEQA Guidelines provide the following additional guidance regarding the
determination of significance of environmental effects:
Section 15064. Determining The Significance of the Environmental
Effects Caused by a Project.
(f) The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant
effects shall be based on substantial evidence in the record of the lead
agency.
(1) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the
record that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR (Friends of B
Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988). Said another
way, if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project
may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall
prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other
substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect
(No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68).
(2) If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence in the
record that the project may have a significant effect on the
environment but the lead agency determines that revisions in the
project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant
would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly
no significant effect on the environment would occur and there is no
substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public
agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the
environment then a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared.
(3) If the lead agency determines there is no substantial evidence that
the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead
agency shall prepare a negative declaration (Friends of B Street v.
City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988).
(4) The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects
of a project will not require preparation of an EIR if there is no
substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment.
(5) Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or
evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is
not credible, shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial
evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon
facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.
(6) Evidence of economic and social impacts that do not contribute to
or are not caused by physical changes in the environment is not
substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on
the environment
(g) After application of the principles set forth above in Section 15064(f),
and in marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial
evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment,
the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is
disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the
significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat
the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR.
The City of Marina oversaw preparation of an Initial Study (IS) for the project in October
2013 (SWCA 2013). The IS indicated that the proposed project had the potential to result
in significant adverse effects on the environment, but that any such effects could be
avoided or reduced to a less than significant level through project design modifications
and development and implementation of feasible mitigation. Pursuant to the terms of a
1986 Settlement Agreement between the City of Marina and the Sierra Club, the IS was
provided to the Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club for their review and recommendation
as to the appropriate environmental document required for environmental compliance
under CEQA. On November 1, 2014, the California Environmental Law Project (attorney
for the Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club) responded by stating, the Sierra Club has
no objection to the City preparing a mitigated negative declaration in connection with
California American Waters application for a test well in connection with its proposed
desal[ination] facility. The Sierra Clubs response has been included as Appendix A.
1.2.3 Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Based on the analysis provided in the IS, the findings of additional environmental
analysis conducted and technical studies prepared in response to early agency
consultation, and concurrence from the Sierra Club per the requirements of the 1986
Settlement Agreement, the City of Marina has prepared a Draft Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Cal Am Slant Test Well Project for
public circulation and review. The Draft IS/MND will be circulated for public review
during a 30-day public comment period pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15105.
Prior to approving a proposed project, the City must consider the draft environmental
documentation, together with any public comments received during the public review
period.

SECTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Background and History
California American Water (Cal Am), the project applicant, proposes construction of a
slant test well for temporary exploratory information gathering purposes. The slant test
well would extend diagonally under the floor of the Pacific Ocean through the Dune Sand
Aquifer, Salinas Valley Aquitard (if present below the project area), and 180-Foot
Aquifer or its equivalent unit at this location (referred to herein as the 180-FTE). It would
operate as a test facility for a temporary period (maximum 24-month pumping period) to
provide field data concerning the geologic, hydrogeologic, and water quality
characteristics of the project area.
The data obtained would be used to assess the potential effects of a multiple slant well
subsurface intake system that would serve as the supply source for a proposed
desalination plant that has been proposed to serve as the primary future water supply
source for the Monterey Peninsula, known as the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project (MPWSP). The MPWSP would include a full-scale subsurface intake system and
is subject to separate environmental review and regulatory permitting processes that are
currently ongoing. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the CEQA lead
agency for the MPWSP.
To facilitate the environmental planning and design of the MPWSP, a Hydrogeologic
Working Group (HWG) has been established to develop a workplan of on-going steps of
data collection and analysis necessary for refinement of the North Marina Ground Water
Model, which is the tool being developed to evaluate the short- and long-term
hydrogeologic impacts from operation of the MPWSP. The HWG was developed
pursuant to the terms of a negotiated settlement agreement between a large group of
interested stakeholders, including:
City of Pacific Grove
County of Monterey
LandWatch Monterey County
Monterey County Water Resources
Agency
Monterey Peninsula Water
Management District
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club
Citizens for Public Water
Coalition of Peninsula Businesses
Division of Ratepayers Advocates
Monterey County Farm Bureau
Monterey Peninsula Regional Water
Authority
Monterey Regional Water Pollution
Control Agency
Salinas Valley Water Coalition
Surfrider Foundation
The HWG is comprised of a range of recognized experts in geology, hydrogeology, and
modeling, representing the interests of various stakeholders of groundwater use and
management in the region, including:
Cal Am a privately-owned water and wastewater company and the project
applicant for the slant test well and MPWSP;
CPUC the CEQA lead agency for the full-scale MPWSP;
CEMEX, Inc. the property owner of the site proposed for location of the slant
test well and MPWSP slant wells;
Salinas Valley Water Coalition a non-profit public benefit corporation that was
organized in 1991 to promote the fair representation and evaluation of water
issues in Monterey County. The Salinas Valley Water Coalition collaborates with
and supports the Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) in its
pursuit of long-term balance of supply and demand of water in the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin and its effort to halt seawater intrusion; and the
Monterey County Farm Bureau a private, non-profit association of farmers and
ranchers throughout Monterey County that collaborates with other agricultural
organizations to advocate for the agricultural community and environment.
The slant test well project has been identified as a critical step of data collection in the
HWG workplan. The data obtained through the testing phase of the project would be used
by interested stakeholders and responsible agencies to analyze the potential effects of
subsurface pumping at this location on groundwater use and quality within the Salinas
Valley Groundwater Basin.
It is possible that, if the MPWSP is successfully developed, Cal Am will seek to have the
slant test well converted into a permanent facility and connected to the subsurface intake
system as one of several permanent MPWSP subsurface intake wells. This IS/MND does
not speculate regarding any disposition of the slant test well other than what has been
proposed in the current application, namely, that the slant test well and all related project
components would be decommissioned and removed after the testing period. Because no
long-term operations are proposed, the potential environmental effects of any long-term
operations are not considered in this document. Permanent operation of the slant test well
would not be permitted under the project approvals and permits currently being sought.
While the slant test wells relation to the larger project is recognized, the slant test wells
exploratory data gathering purpose is independent of the full-scale MPWSP. The HWG,
through its participating stakeholders, have requested the exploratory pumping activities
that would be conducted through the slant test well project to provide a better
understanding of the potential effects of the full-scale system and allow better informed
agency and public coordination and review of the MPWSP. Due to strict timing
requirements related to preparation of the EIR established by the Administrative Law
Judge and presiding Commissioner at the CPUC, the MPWSP EIR is proceeding and may
be completed prior to obtaining the results of the slant test well pumping program.
However, it is anticipated that the information obtained through the slant test well
pumping program would ultimately be used supplement the information contained in the
EIR and confirm and/or finalize the design and permitting details of the MPWSP.
The slant test well, even as a temporary exploratory project, requires a coastal
development permit from the City of Marina and a scientific research permit from the
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), which triggers CEQA/NEPA
review. Therefore, this IS/MND analyzes the development of the slant test well,
temporary test pumping for up to 24 months, and decommissioning of the slant test well
and related appurtenant infrastructure at the end of the test period. Although research and
information gathering projects are often exempt from CEQA requirements (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15306), the City has determined that environmental review of the Cal
Am Slant Test Well Project is appropriate due to the potential sensitive nature of the
project site and the elevated level of public interest in the proposed slant test well and
future desalination plant projects.
2.2 Project Site
The project is proposed in the City of Marina, an incorporated coastal community in
northwest Monterey County, situated approximately 5 miles west of the City of Salinas
and 7 miles north/northeast of the City of Monterey. The project site is located in the
northwest portion of Marina, at the site of an existing CEMEX sand mining plant located
in the coastal dunes west of Lapis Road and State Route 1 (Assessors Parcel Number
203-011-019-000). Figures 1 and 2, below, show the project vicinity and location.
The CEMEX parcel encompasses approximately 400 acres in total (refer to Figure 2, for
reference). Of those, approximately 104 acres have experienced some disturbance
associated with sand mining activities that have occurred at the site since 1906.
Currently, approximately 50 acres experience heavy levels of disturbance associated with
ongoing mining activities. The remainder of the site consists of undeveloped areas and
dune habitat with varying degrees of disturbance (moderate to low). Existing uses within
actively mined areas of the project site include sand dredging, washing, sorting, and
processing operations, truck traffic, administrative buildings, sand stockpiles and push
piles, dredging ponds, internal access roads, sand mining equipment and materials, a
paved parking area, and related appurtenances and infrastructure.
The proposed project has been designed within the areas of active mining activity to
utilize areas of the parcel already experiencing some level of disturbance associated with
mining operations and truck traffic and to avoid the undisturbed adjacent dune areas to
the extent feasible. The majority of proposed development would occur within and
directly adjacent to an existing access road through the CEMEX facility currently used by
heavy equipment and trucks on a daily basis to access various areas on the site. The
access road is unpaved and regularly graded.
The project site has a zoning designation of Coastal Conservation and Development
District (C-D) with a Coastal Development Permit Combining District (C-P) overlay, and
is designated Habitat Reserve and Other Open Space in the City of Marina General Plan.
It is within the California Coastal Zone and extends through areas subject to both original
and appellate jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission (CCC). The portion of
the slant test well that extends through the shoreline and offshore beneath the Pacific
Ocean, and the discharge area at the end of the outfall, is within the jurisdiction of the
California State Lands Commission and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map

+
"'
-0----+
Copyright : (l U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 Minute Series
(Topographic) Marina Quadrangle
4 Miles
SWCA
Project Vicinity Map
Slant Test Well P
Figure 2. Project Location Map

e Slant Test Well Insertion Point
D Construction Footprint
D Project Area
MRWPCA Outfall Pipe
---====----- Feet 0 100 200 400
Aerial Imagery: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping,
Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community, 05/05/2010
l.
SWCA
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Project Location Map


2.3 Proposed Project
The project proposes the construction, temporary operation, and decommissioning of a
slant test well, up to four monitoring well clusters, and related infrastructure. The purpose
of the proposed project is to gather technical data related to the potential hydrogeologic
and water quality effects of the proposed MPWSP. The proposed project is estimated to
occur over a period of 2 to 3 years. Once constructed, the slant test well would operate
for a maximum period of 24 months and is then proposed to be decommissioned in
accordance with the regulations of the California Department of Water Resources, as
more fully described below.
2.3.1 Project Components
The proposed project includes development of the slant test well as well as up to four
vertical monitoring well clusters to monitor changes in groundwater levels and quality
during operation of the slant test well.
The slant test well components would include: the slant test well, wellhead vault, and
submersible well pump; water flow measurement and sampling equipment; temporary
sedimentation tanks; water disposal facilities, including pipeline connection to an existing
ocean outfall via an existing subsurface junction structure; and electrical facilities,
including a buried 4-inch conduit that would extend approximately 0.38 mile east of the
slant test well and connect to an existing power source near the entrance of the CEMEX
site. Figures 3 through 3e, below, show the proposed project development plans.
The slant test well would be completed using up to 22-inch diameter casing and up to 12-
inch diameter screen of Super Duplex Stainless Steel, a specialty metal designed for
use in seawater environments. The wellhead vault would be approximately 5 feet wide,
10 feet long, and 5 feet deep for a total size of approximately 250 cubic feet. It would be
buried at the slant test well site at an approximate depth of 5 feet, with the top of the vault
(cover) flush with existing surface elevation. The cover would be a traffic-rated metal
hinged hatch; therefore, CEMEX traffic could drive over the vault without damage. The
wellhead vault would hold flow-metering equipment, water quality monitoring
equipment, and a sampling station.
The water pumped from the aquifers would be discharged into the Pacific Ocean via an
existing ocean outfall pipeline used by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control
Agency (MRWPCA) for treated wastewater disposal. The existing outfall pipeline is
buried as it crosses the CEMEX property generally south of the access road (refer to
Figure 3, which shows the 20-foot wide outfall easement). A 12-inch diameter discharge
pipe would extend approximately 250 feet from the wellhead vault to an existing junction
structure located on the MRWPCA outfall in the foredune area of the project site. The
discharge pipe would be constructed approximately 3 feet below grade and would
connect to the pressure lid of the junction structure, which is also currently below surface
grade.
Up to four vertical monitoring well clusters would be drilled in order to measure changes
in groundwater levels and water quality during operation of the slant test well. Each
monitoring well cluster would include two or three individual monitoring wells, including
two wells at different depths into the targeted Dune Sand and 180-FTE Aquifers. If a
third monitoring well is included in a cluster, it would be drilled into the 400-Foot
Aquifer to evaluate the response of that aquifer to exploratory pumping activities. One of
the monitoring well clusters would be located in the immediate vicinity of the slant test
well insertion point and wellhead vault, and the others would be located further inland,
either within the existing graded CEMEX access road or the area proposed for electrical
connection at the east end of the project area. The monitoring well clusters would be
decommissioned upon project completion consistent with California Department of
Water Resources (DWR) regulations, as discussed below.
Electrical power for pumping operations would be provided by a new pole-mounted
transformer connected to Pacific Gas & Electrics (PG&E) existing service at the
CEMEX site, located approximately 0.38 mile (2,000 feet) east of the slant test well
insertion point. A 4-inch diameter buried electrical conduit would be installed to convey
power to an above-ground electrical/control panel located adjacent to the slant test well.
The electrical panel would be approximately 5 feet tall, 6 feet wide, and 2.5 feet deep.
The proposed project includes a radio telemetry system that would communicate an alarm
in the event of any system malfunction. The telemetry system would be designed to shut
down the slant test well if the water level in the well drops below a certain level, if the
pump vibrates excessively, or if excessive pressure is detected in the discharge system.
The telemetry system would signal this automatic shutdown, as well as any loss of power
supply, to a remote location. The telemetry equipment would be mounted in the electrical
panel. A radio antenna would be mounted on the panel which would extend an additional
2 to 3 feet above the panel.

Figure 3. Proposed Project Development Plans

200 100 0 200
I
I
400
I
600
I
FiglR 3
Test Well Fadlities Map
Construction Footprint
Figure 3a. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 1 of 5)

40 20 0 40
I
80
I
120
I
FJgUre 3a
II"L.ANNI N D DI!:8 111N CCN8 TIIIIIUCTIDN
-------------------------------------
CON SULTING ase.ew.sooo FAXMliGM.OOOI -fllF.cx:m
I
Figure 3b. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 2 of 5)

.....

:I:

I
I
40 20 0 40
I
I
80 120
I
I
Figure 3b
I'"L.ANNI N D DI!:8111N CCN8TIIIIIUCTIDN
Q756a..AJ18,10N'Tt.ESABCU..EVAfi>,9UTEOO
SAN CEOO. CAI..FOfNA 9212H324
._ ___________________________________ CON SULTING ase.ew.sooo FAXMliGM.OOOI -fllF.cx:m
Figure 3c. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 3 of 5)

flglR 3c
DRI=' 0 OEOODH 0 COH OT AUCTOOH
c W5ea...AJSIONTI.AESABOU..EVAID. a.rrEOO
1..-----------------------------------
Figure 3d. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 4 of 5)

I

flglft 3d
4o 20 o 4o
80 120
I I I I . ... , CONOTOUCTOON
.
------------------------========:::::_ Q756a..AJ18,10N'Tt.ESABCU..EVAfi>,9UTEOO
CON SULTING ase.ew.sooo
Figure 3e. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 5 of 5)

I
~
j
I
40 20 0 40
~
I
80
I
120
I
Figwe 3e
~ I'"L.ANNI N D DI!:8111N CCN8TIIIIIUCTIDN
~ Q756a..AJ18,10N'Tt.ESABCU..EVAfi>,9UTEOO
SAN CEOO. CAI..FOfNA 9212H324
._ ______________________________________ CON SULTING ase.ew.sooo FAXMliGM.OOOI -fllF.cx:m
Initial Study
The slant test well insertion point and wellhead vault would be situated approximately
450 feet inland of mean sea level, at an approximate elevation of 25 feet. The slant test
well would be drilled in a westerly direction at an approximately 19-degree angle from
horizontal to a maximum drill length of 1,000 feet. If the bottom of the 180-FTE Aquifer
is encountered at a drill length of less than 1,000 feet (as confirmed through analysis of
excavated materials) drilling would be terminated such that the terminus of the well
would be located at the bottom of the 180-FTE Aquifer. The 400-Foot Aquifer would not
be pumped during slant test well operations.
The terminus of the well would be located approximately 500 feet offshore at a depth of
300 feet below mean sea level (and an estimated 290 feet below the surface of the ocean
floor). The exact length and angle of the well may be adjusted slightly based on
preliminary site investigations and information obtained during installation of the
monitoring well clusters.
Figure 4, below, provides a representative illustration of the slant test well.
Figure 4. Slant Test Well Representative Illustration (Not to Scale)

2.3.2 Site Access
Site access would be provided via State Route 1 (SR 1), Lapis Road, and the existing
internal CEMEX access road. Parking has not yet been negotiated with the property
owner; however, it is anticipated that parking during all phases of the project would be
located within the existing paved CEMEX parking area.
Development of the proposed project would occur in three phases, as more fully
described below.
Initial Study
2.3.3 Phase 1 Project Construction
Phase 1 of the project would entail construction of all components of the proposed
project. Construction is expected to last approximately 4 to 5 months.
The anticipated sequence of construction would generally be as follows, with some steps
occurring concurrently:
1. Mobilize monitoring well drill rig;
2. Drill and develop monitoring well clusters;
3. Demobilize monitoring well drill rig;
4. Excavate and place wellhead vault structure (pre-cast);
5. Install test water discharge piping, meter, and sampling facilities; construct
connection to the outfall and install temporary sedimentation tanks;
6. Mobilize slant test well drill rig;
7. Drill and install slant test well (through openings provided in wellhead vault);
8. Develop slant test well and conduct initial testing, aquifer testing, and pumping
program;
9. Demobilize slant test well drill rig and temporary sedimentation tanks;
10. Install underground electrical conduit, cable and electrical panel, and telemetry;
11. Remove upper section of well casing to terminate in wellhead vault;
12. Install submersible well pump and make final electrical and piping connections;
13. Backfill around wellhead vault;
14. Demobilize all construction equipment; and,
15. Re-grade CEMEX access road per property owner requirements.
Areas of Disturbance
Proposed areas of ground disturbance (i.e., the construction footprint) are shown in
Figures 3 through 3e, above. The total anticipated construction area encompasses
approximately 0.75 acre. Construction staging, equipment storage, a portable restroom
facility and hand washing station, refueling area, and grading and excavated materials
storage would be located within this area.
The project would result in the total excavation of approximately 650 cubic yards of
material, as described below. Approximately 425 cubic yards would be used to backfill
previously excavated areas and 225 cubic yards would be disposed of at an approved
landfill site, such as the Monterey Peninsula Landfill and Recycling Facility.
Slant Test Well and Monitoring Wells: Approximately 200 cubic yards of drill
cuttings would be generated during the drilling of the slant test well and
Initial Study
monitoring well clusters. This material would be trucked from the site and
disposed of at an approved landfill.
Wellhead Vault: Approximately 50 cubic yards of sand would be excavated to
install the wellhead vault. Approximately 40 cubic yards of the excavated material
would be used to backfill around the structure. The remaining 10 cubic yards of
material would be hauled to an approved landfill site.
Outfall Connection: Approximately 150 cubic yards of sand would be excavated
during construction of the 12-inch diameter pipe connection to the outfall. This
material would be temporarily stored next to the excavated trench and then used
to backfill the trench following placement of the pipe. The material displaced by
the pipe (approximately 8 cubic yards) would be hauled to an approved landfill
site.
Electrical Conduit: Approximately 250 cubic yards of sand would be excavated
during installation of the electrical conduit. This material would be temporarily
stored adjacent to the excavated trench and trenchless construction portals and
then used to backfill the trench and excavated portals following placement of the
conduit. The amount of material displaced by the conduit (approximately 7 cubic
yards) would be hauled to an approved landfill site.
Construction Methods
The monitoring well clusters would be drilled using a sonic drilling method. Each
monitoring well would be drilled in a separate borehole (i.e., one screened interval per
well) to ensure representative aquifer sampling is achieved. After each borehole has been
drilled and tested, the borehole would be enlarged and a 4-inch diameter single
completion PVC monitoring well would be constructed. Each of the monitoring wells
would be 4 inches in diameter, drilled to depths ranging between approximately 150 and
400 feet below ground surface. The individual monitoring wells within each cluster
would be separated by distances of approximately 5 to 10 feet.
The slant test well would be drilled by using a dual rotary closed system drilling method,
which allows boreholes to be drilled at shallow angles in loose alluvial materials without
the use of drilling fluids other than water. Dual rotary drilling advances a temporary outer
casing that stabilizes the borehole as an internal rotating drill string removes formation
materials using reverse circulation. Drill cuttings are discharged to a series of tanks for
settling and cleaning. Clean water is then recirculated back to the borehole to complete
the loop through the closed system.
Neither the sonic or dual rotary drilling method involves the use of any drilling additives.
Drilling of the wells would require approximately 15,000 gallons of water per monitoring
well and 10,000 gallons of water per day for the slant test well over an approximately 46-
day drilling period. Water would be supplied by the Citys domestic water supply and
brought to the project area by water truck.
Initial Study
Approximately 250 linear feet of 12-inch diameter buried pipe would be installed to
convey pumped groundwater from the slant test well to the existing MRWPCA outfall
junction structure, which consists of a subsurface vault that provides connection between
the land and ocean portions of the outfall pipe. The discharge pipeline would be installed
approximately 3 feet below grade using an open trench construction method and
connected to the junction structures existing pressure lid. The top of the existing junction
structure (pressure lid) is located approximately 3 to 6 feet below the existing ground
elevation and would need to be exposed to make the connection. A cone-shaped
excavation approximately 3 to 6 feet deep and 10 to 30 feet in diameter (measured at
ground surface) would be needed to expose the junction structure and finalize the
connection.
Approximately 2,000 linear feet of 4-inch buried electrical conduit would be installed to
power the submersible well pump and appurtenant equipment. Approximately 1,400
linear feet would be installed approximately 3 feet below grade using an open trench
construction method. The remaining 600 linear feet of the conduit would be installed
using trenchless construction techniques to avoid actively mined and developed areas at
the east end of the project site (refer to Figures 3, 3d, and 3e). A pole-mounted
transformer would be installed on an existing PG&E power pole at the location shown on
Figure 3e. At the west end of the project site, the conduit would be connected to the
aboveground electrical panel and the service connection from the panel to the wellhead
vault would be installed below grade via an open trench method. Following construction,
the CEMEX access road would be re-graded and the road restored to pre-existing
conditions consistent with property owner requirements.
It is anticipated that the following construction equipment would be utilized during this
phase:
Slant well dual rotary drilling rig
Monitoring well sonic drilling rig
Fluid separation system
Drill power plant
Flatbed truck
Dump truck
Boom truck crane
Forklift
Skip loader
Excavator (for wellhead vault and trenchless construction portals)
Excavator (for electrical conduit)
Electrical cable pulling machine
Horizontal directional drill rig (for electrical conduit)
Water truck
Worker transport truck
Construction Schedule and Personnel
Approximately 7 to 15 construction crew personnel would be required at the site during
construction. It is anticipated that the construction activities would primarily be
Initial Study
conducted during daylight hours on Mondays through Fridays for a period of up to 5
months. However, development of the slant test well, including initial testing and
pumping (item 8 in the anticipated sequence of construction described above), would
need to be continuous for between 24 and 72 hours and additional periods of nighttime
construction activities may be necessary during project construction to avoid conflicts
with CEMEX mining operations.
2.3.4 Phase 2 Project Operation
The slant test well would operate continuously, 24 hours a day for a period of up to 24
months. Routine operation would include continuous extraction of water from the Dune
Sand and/or 180-FTE Aquifers and discharge into the Pacific Ocean via the existing
outfall pipe. The water flow rate during the operational period would vary from 1,000
gallons per minute (gpm) to 2,500 gpm. The slant test well would have a well screen (the
filtering device that serves as the intake portion of the well) that is continuous through
both aquifers and would be designed such that the Dune Sand and 180-FTE Aquifers
could be separately pumped and analyzed.
One or two well operators would routinely visit the site on a weekly basis during the
operational phase to check operation of the slant test well and to collect water quality
samples. The routine samples would be taken from an above-ground sampling tap located
at the electrical panel/sampling station. The operators would utilize the existing CEMEX
access road to access the monitoring wells and the slant test well during the operational
phase.
This phase would also include a one-time repositioning of the packer device that is used
to isolate one aquifer for testing and pumping. This special operation would involve
access in the wellhead vault for removal of the submersible pump and pump column,
removal of the initial packer, insertion of the second packer, and replacement of the
pump. This modification would take 2 to 3 days to accomplish. Equipment and
operations required for the repositioning, including temporary laydown of the pump
column, would be located within the original construction footprint shown in Figure 3a.
2.3.5 Phase 3 Project Decommissioning
At the conclusion of the 24-month operational phase, the slant test well, monitoring well
clusters, and all related appurtenances and infrastructure are proposed to be
decommissioned and removed. Decommissioning activities would be restricted to the
snowy plover non-nesting season (October 1 through February 28) to avoid impacts to
nesting plovers and other sensitive species. In the event the operational phase is
completed outside of the permissible construction period, then the slant test well and all
related facilities would remain dormant in their existing location, until decommissioning
could be completed the following non-nesting season.
The slant test well and all monitoring wells would be destroyed (sealed) pursuant to the
requirements of State of California Well Standards Bulletin 74-81 and 74-90, Part III
Section 23. Applications to destroy the slant test well and monitoring wells would be
submitted to the Monterey County Environmental Health Bureau, Drinking Water
Initial Study
Protection Services Unit, for approval. All well components and appurtenant facilities
and structures would be removed to a depth of 5 vertical feet below ground surface, and
the wells would be sealed with neat cement (or sand-cement) sealing material.
The wellhead vault, electrical panel and sampling station, buried electrical conduit, and
discharge pipe and outfall connection would all be excavated and removed, followed by
backfilling and compaction of the excavated vault location and trenches.
Project decommissioning would take approximately 4 weeks. All decommissioning
activities would occur within the original construction footprint. Re-grading of the
CEMEX access road would be necessary at the conclusion of decommissioning activities
consistent with property owner requirements.
2.3.6 Applicant-Proposed Self-Mitigating Measures
Cal Am has proposed to implement the following mitigation measures during
construction and decommissioning of the project to minimize potential effects associated
with earthmoving activities and disturbance within the project area. These measures are
included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project
and have been modified, as necessary, in the MMRP to meet CEQA requirements of
adequacy, specificity, measurability, and feasibility.
Construction Limits: Cal Am will restrict construction activities to the proposed
construction area and designated access route, in order to minimize access
impacts to surrounding habitat and ongoing CEMEX operations. No construction
equipment, materials, or activity would occur outside of the specified areas.
Notice of Commencement: The property owner (CEMEX) will be consulted prior
to the commencement of construction activities, in order to schedule construction
activities during non-peak hours and provide advance notice of construction
activities.
Monterey Spineflower: Cal Am will implement the following measures to avoid
and/or minimize impacts to this sensitive plant species:
- Prior to project initiation, a qualified biologist will conduct late season
(August/September) surveys to flag previously identified occurrences
within 20 feet of the access road and perimeters of the work areas.
- Flagged occupied habitat areas will be avoided to the extent feasible.
- A biologist will establish appropriate buffers and access procedures in
areas of occurrence for trenching, excavation, or drilling sites.
- Construction and demobilization activities will occur in the fall and winter
months, outside of the blooming/growing season.
Initial Study
- Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist will conduct
educational training for all construction personnel, which would include a
description of the Monterey spineflower and their habitat preferences.
- A qualified biologist will monitor construction equipment access in order
to avoid plant disturbance.
Smiths Blue Butterfly: Cal Am will implement the following measures to avoid
and/or minimize impacts to this sensitive wildlife species:
- To minimize disturbances to the butterflys host buckwheat plants, a
qualified biologist will conduct a survey with appropriate project team
members prior to project initiation to flag occurrences of buckwheat plants
within 20 feet of the access road, along electrical trench alignment, and
perimeters of the work areas.
- Flagged occupied habitat areas would be avoided to the extent feasible and
buffer procedures will be established.
- Construction and demobilization activities will occur in the fall and winter
months, outside of the active flight season for adult Smiths blue
butterflies and outside of the active larval stage of the species.
educational training for all construction personnel that would include a
description of the butterflys life cycle and habitat preferences.
- A qualified biologist will monitor construction equipment access in order
to avoid disturbance to buckwheat plants or encroachment into areas
supporting buckwheat.
Western Snowy Plover: Cal Am would implement the following measures to
avoid and/or minimize impacts to this sensitive wildlife species:
- Construction and decommissioning activities will occur in the fall and
winter months (October through February), outside of the active plover
breeding and nesting season. The intent is to avoid disruption of plover
breeding behavior and to eliminate all evidence of construction activities
prior to the beginning of the plover breeding season.
- Noise blankets will be installed to provide visual and sound attenuation
during drilling operations (if required).
- Features (wire excluders) will be incorporated into the top of the
aboveground electrical panel at the test well to deter perching by avian
predators (if required).
Initial Study
- Construction activities will be restricted to the construction area and
access route. No construction equipment, materials, or activity would
occur outside the specified work areas. No construction activity,
equipment or materials would be placed or occur outside of the immediate
construction zone.
- Construction personnel will be required to keep all food-related trash
items in sealed containers and remove them daily to discourage the
concentration of potential predators in snowy plover habitat.
- After construction, the work area at the end of the CEMEX access road
will be re-contoured as determined necessary and in coordination with
representatives of Point Blue (a conservation science organization that has
been monitoring snowy plovers along the California Coast since the mid-
1970s) so that the optimum ground configuration is obtained for potential
nesting plovers.
educational training for all construction personnel that will include a
description of the plovers life cycle and habitat preferences.
- During the operational period, a qualified biologist will consult with Point
Blue monitors on a weekly basis during the plover nesting season to stay
current with nesting activity in the vicinity of the slant test well. The
biologist will coordinate weekly with Cal Am personnel travelling to the
test well during the 24-month operational period and accompany them as
necessary during the nesting season based on information received from
Point Blue.
- Several days or more prior to construction, a qualified biologist, in
consultation with Point Blue, will field evaluate the nature and extent of
wintering plover activity in the project area and inform Cal Am so they
can make excavation and other construction decisions that avoid or
minimize disturbance to plovers.
- Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist will conduct an
educational session with construction personnel to describe plover
wintering and breeding behavior, habitat preference, threats and other
issues, with the intent to minimize or avoid disturbance to plovers.
- A qualified biologist will monitor equipment access and
construction/operation activities along trench alignments at the wellhead
site and in the excavation area for the outfall connection during the project
term in order to avoid or minimize disturbance to potential nesting habitat
for plovers and the overwintering flocks in the area.
Initial Study
Biological Education and Monitoring: Prior to initiation of access or construction
activities, a designated biologist will conduct an educational session with all
construction personnel. An appropriately trained biologist will be designated to
monitor equipment access in order to avoid disturbance to sensitive habitat.
2.4 Required Entitlements
The project would be required to obtain the following regulatory approvals.
Table 1. Required Entitlements
Agency Entitlement Required
City of Marina
Coastal Development Permit
CEQA Lead Agency
Environmental Certification/Adoption
Grading Permit
Electrical Permit
California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Authorization/Approval
NEPA Lead Agency
Environmental Compliance
Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Discharge Permit
Clean Water Act Section 401 Permit (Water Quality
Certification)
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution
Control District
Operational or Construction Permits, if necessary
Monterey County Department of
Environmental Health, Drinking Water
Protection Services Program
Well Construction Permits (for each well)
Well Destruction Permits (for each well)
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control
Agency
Authorization/Approval (for use of outfall)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 or 10 consultation, if necessary
California State Lands Commission
Lease
Abandonment Agreement at decommissioning

SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM AND
ANALYSIS
3.1 Project Data
Project Title: California American Water Slant Test Well Project
Lead Agency: City of Marina
Community Development Department
209 Cypress Avenue
Marina, California 93933
Initial Study
Lead Agency
Contact:
Theresa Szymanis, AICP
(831) 884-1289
tszymanis@ci.marina.ca.us
Project
Applicant:
Richard Svindland, P.E.
4701 Beloit Drive
Sacramento, California 95838
(916) 568-4296
richard.svindland@amwater.com
www.californiaamwater.com
Project
Location:
Assessors Parcel No. 203-011-019-000 (CEMEX sand mining site)
General Plan
Designation:
Habitat Reserve and Other Open Space
Zoning: Coastal Conservation and Development District (C-D) with Coastal
Development Permit Combining District (CP) overlay
Responsible
Agencies:
Section 15381 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a Responsible Agency
as a public agency that proposes to carry out or approve a project for
which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or ND.
Specifically, a Responsible Agency includes all public agencies, other
than the Lead Agency, which have discretionary approval power over
a project. The following are Responsible Agencies for the project:
California Coastal Commission
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District
Monterey County Environmental Health Bureau, Drinking Water
Protection Services Unit
California State Lands Commission
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The entitlements and regulatory approvals that are anticipated to be
required from each of these Responsible Agencies are listed in Table
1, above.
Trustee
Agencies:
Section 15386 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a Trustee Agency as a
state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected
by a project, which are held in trust for the people of the State of
California. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15386, the four CEQA
trustee agencies are as follows:

Initial Study
California Department of Fish and Wildlife: with regard to the
fish and wildlife of the state, to designated rare or endangered
native plants, and to game refuges, ecological reserves, and to
other areas administered by the department;
California State Lands Commission: with regard to state owned
sovereign land such as the beds of navigable waters and state
school lands;
California Department of Parks and Recreation: with regard to
units of the State Park System; and,
The University of California: with regard to sites within the
Natural Land and Water Reserves System.
3.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The following checklist indicates the potential level of impact and is defined as follows:
Potentially Significant Impact, even with Mitigation Incorporation: A fair argument can
be made, based on the substantial evidence in the file, that an effect may be significant.
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation: Incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from a Potentially Significant Impact to a Less than
Significant Impact.
Less than Significant Impact: An impact is considered adverse but does not trigger a
significance threshold.
No Impact: There is adequate support that the referenced information shows that the
impact simply does not apply to the proposed project.
The proposed project could have a Potentially Significant Impact on the environmental
issue areas checked below. Please refer to the attached pages for discussion on mitigation
measures or project revisions to reduce these impacts to Less Than Significant levels.
Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils

Greenhouse Gas
Emissions

Hazards and Hazardous
Materials

Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population and Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation and Traffic
Utilities and Service
Systems

Mandatory Findings of
Significance

Initial Study
3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
I. AESTHETICS
Would the project:

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

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

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

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

Setting
The project site is located within the highly scenic Marina Dune Complex, between State
Route 1 (SR 1) and the Pacific Ocean. The dune complex extends across the entire 400-
acre CEMEX parcel and beyond. The Citys LCLUP describes the area just north of the
project site as the best preserved area of Marina Dune native habitat. The dunes provide a
distinct contrast to the pattern of agricultural and urbanized lands in adjacent areas. This
area of north Marina is considered the scenic gateway to the Monterey Peninsula (City
of Marina 1982).
The large dune complex is highly visible from SR 1, particularly to southbound traffic
(northbound views are oriented more inland). From SR 1, unobstructed views of the
CEMEX site extend approximately 1 mile to the north, to the Del Monte
Boulevard/Neponset Road overpass, and approximately 0.5 mile to the south, where
intervening dunes and topography begin to block views. Views of interior portions of the
CEMEX parcel and the project site are almost entirely obstructed by surrounding dunes
and vegetation on the eastern perimeter of the parcel. Views of the ocean and sandy
beach from SR 1 are largely blocked due to the height and depth of the dunes.
The CEMEX parcel is privately owned and does not provide public access. Therefore,
views of the interior portions of the large parcel are limited by lack of access and the
height of dunes and vegetation along the perimeter. However, there is lateral public
access along the shoreline (seaward of the high tide line), and the western portion of the
CEMEX parcel and the project site can be seen from the public areas of the beach.
Initial Study
The number of viewers from SR 1 would be very high due to high vehicular use of this
route, which averaged approximately 41,000 annual average daily trips in 2012
(California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2012). Due to the private ownership
and lack of easy access (the nearest vertical beach access is from Dunes Drive,
approximately 0.9 mile to the south), the number of viewers from the public beach area is
expected to be moderately low.
The City of Marina General Plan does not formally identify scenic resources within the
planning area; however, the Marina Dunes and Monterey Bay are considered natural
features that contribute to the Citys aesthetic value in the General Plan EIR (Lamphier &
Associates 2000). The CEMEX sand processing plant (formerly RMC Lonestar) is
specifically identified in the General Plan EIR as a landmark structure. Per the General
Plan EIR:
Landmarks can contribute positively to the design and appearance of a
city, providing important symbolic statements and offering points of
orientation for residents and visitors. Landmarks may include major
buildings, other prominent structures, or natural forms that are clearly
distinguishable from their surroundings due to their dominant scale or
contrast with their surroundings.
Approaching the city from the north, another landmark is the RMC
Lonestar quarry structure, with its plume of water vapor. The effect of this
structure is discordant, however, since it contrasts markedly with the
otherwise natural dune landscape.
Impact Discussion
Response to I(a): Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
For CEQA purposes, a scenic vista is generally defined as a viewpoint that provides
expansive views of a highly valued landscape for the benefit of the general public. A
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur if the proposed project would
significantly degrade the scenic landscape as viewed from public roads or other public
areas. The view of the Marina Dune Complex from SR 1 is considered a scenic vista.
Construction and decommissioning activities would create the greatest potential for
visual impacts due to the presence of large drill rigs and/or heavy construction equipment
and materials. Construction activities may be visible from SR 1, particularly in the
eastern portion of the project area where trenching and drilling are proposed for the
development of monitoring wells and placement of electrical conduit. However, public
views of these activities are expected to be largely blocked by intervening vegetation and
indistinguishable from the existing mining activities occurring at the site, including use of
heavy mining equipment and vehicles and sand mining and processing facilities.
Construction of the discharge pipeline, outfall connection, slant test well, and adjacent
monitoring wells would be entirely or partially visible from public areas of the beach.
Initial Study
Construction of the discharge pipeline and outfall connection would largely occur within
the foredune area and recreational users on the beach would have unobstructed views of
the outfall pipeline construction at a distance of less than 200 feet. This area is currently
used by CEMEX trucks and heavy machinery to access the adjacent dredge pond, which
has an 80-foot-long suction dredger in it. Therefore, project construction would not
constitute the only non-natural use occurring in this area of the dunes.
The construction impacts would be short term in nature and would occur during the
winter months, during the non-peak season for recreational beach use. Visual effects of
the construction equipment would be adverse, but minimized due to the intervening
topography and vegetation, short timeframe, and other existing coastal dependent
industrial uses within the project area. Therefore, visual impacts associated with project
construction and decommissioning would be less than significant.
During the operational testing phase, the slant test well, wellhead vault, and almost all
other project infrastructure would be located below surface, with disturbed surface areas
re-contoured and restored to as close to their original condition as possible. Minor
components would remain exposed above-ground (i.e., pole-mounted electrical
transformer, electrical panel and antenna, and slant test well sampling station). Well
operators would also visit the site on a weekly basis during operation of the well,
resulting in a marginal increase in activity at the CEMEX site.
The above-surface project components would be largely or entirely obstructed by dunes
and vegetation. The electrical panel, antenna, and sampling station would be sited behind
a large dune at the west end of the project site, but may still be visible from some areas of
the beach. These components are not expected to be discernible within the actively mined
areas from SR 1, and would be largely shielded from the beach. Due to the current
mining operations in the immediate vicinity, the substantial shielding of the structures by
existing topography and vegetation, and the limited 2 to 3-year lifespan of the project, no
substantial change to a scenic vista would occur.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Response to I(b): Would the project substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
SR 1 in the project vicinity is identified as an Eligible State Scenic Highway Not
Officially Listed by the California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Approximately 8
miles south of the project site, at the SR 1 / SR 68 intersection in the City of Monterey,
and continuing south to the San Luis Obispo County border, SR 1 is an Officially
Designated State Scenic Highway and All American Road.
The project does not include the removal of any trees and there are no trees or rock
outcroppings in the project area or immediate vicinity that would be visually impacted by
the proposed project. Visually affected dune areas would be recontoured and restored to
Initial Study
their original condition at project completion. Historic properties are discussed in Section
3.3 IV, below.
The project is located in an actively mined area and would have limited visual effects as
described in Response to I(a), above. All visible project components would be removed,
and the site restored to its original condition to the greatest extent feasible, at the
conclusion of the projects 2 to 3-year lifespan. No damage to scenic resources, including
trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within view from a state scenic highway,
would occur.
Response to I(c): Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
The central portion of the CEMEX site where the project is proposed is an actively mined
coastal dependent industrial area located within large, relatively undisturbed dune habitat
areas at the north and south ends of the parcel. The projects visual impacts would be
short term, predominantly undetectable off-site, particularly during the operational phase,
and would be similar in nature to the sites existing coastal dependent industrial uses. No
project activities are proposed within 300 feet of the CEMEX sand processing plant;
therefore, no impact to this discordant landmark would occur. Any change in the existing
visual character and quality of the project site as a result of the proposed project would be
negligible.
Response to I(d): Would the project create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
The proposed project would not result in any permanent source of light or glare that may
affect nighttime views in the area. However, short-term construction activities may occur
during nighttime hours, which may require temporary lighting. These activities would be
limited to the 4 to 5 month construction phase and 4 week decommissioning phase. No
nighttime lighting is anticipated during the operational testing phase; however,
maintenance or emergency repairs may be required during the 2 to 3-year operational
period, which may occur during night hours and include the use of lighting. This use of
lighting (if necessary) would also be short-term and limited to the period of activity.
Construction or maintenance/repair lighting would not be highly visible from public areas
outside of the large CEMEX parcel, but would constitute the only source of light in a
large, otherwise unlit and undeveloped area. Potential effects would be minimized
through development and implementation of a lighting plan to minimize temporary light
trespass.
Glare from above-surface project components (i.e., the electrical panel) is possible.
However, these components are minimal in size and number, and would be largely
Initial Study
shielded from public views during the temporary project duration. Therefore, no new
sources of substantial light or glare would result from the project.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation identified in
AES/mm-1.
Mitigation and Residual Impact
To minimize potential significant impacts from nighttime lighting, the following
measures would be implemented.
AES/mm-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a lighting plan shall be
submitted to the City of Marina Planning Services Division for review
and approval. The lighting plan shall be prepared by a qualified
engineer who is an active member of the Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America and shall address any lighting proposed for
the slant test well project. The lighting plan shall be prepared using
guidance and best practices endorsed by the International Dark Sky
Association. The lighting plan shall address all aspects of any new
sources of lighting associated with the slant test well project, including
but not limited to light towers, parking lots and pathway lighting,
construction equipment, and safety lighting. The lighting plan shall
also consider effects on wildlife in the surrounding area. The lighting
plan shall include the following in conjunction with other measures as
determined by the illumination engineer:
a. The point source of all exterior lighting shall be shielded from
off-site views.
b. Light trespass from exterior lights shall be minimized by
directing light downward and utilizing cut-off fixtures or
shields.
c. Lumination from exterior lights shall be the lowest level
allowed by public safety standards.
d. Any required lighting poles shall be colored dark to reduce
reflectivity.
The requirements of the lighting plan are not applicable to existing
light sources at the project site associated with ongoing CEMEX
mining activities and facilities.
With the incorporation of this measure, residual impacts to aesthetic resources would be
less than significant.
Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
II. AGRICULTURE
RESOURCES
Would the project:

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

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

(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?

Setting
Agriculture is the largest industry in Monterey County. The most productive and
lucrative farmlands in the County are located within the Salinas Valley, generally located
in the northern and central portions of the County. The Salinas Valley accounts for nearly
all of the agricultural production in the County and is locally known as the Salad Bowl
of the World because of its voluminous production of vegetable crops (ICF 2010). The
main types of crop production consist of cool season vegetables, strawberries, wine
grapes, and nursery crops (Monterey County 2010).
There are no agricultural parcels remaining within the City of Marina. A 1,250-acre band
of land along the southwest side of the Salinas River, within the Lands North of Urban
Growth Boundary (UGB) Geographic Subarea, is identified as an important agricultural
resource in the City of Marina General Plan (City of Marina 2000). This area contains
mostly prime agricultural soils per the Citys General Plan definition (soils classified as
Class I or II and currently in agricultural production).
The entire 400-acre CEMEX parcel is within the Other Land designation of the
California Department of Conservations Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP). Actively farmed or grazed areas adjacent to the CEMEX parcel are designated
as Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Grazing
Land (FMMP 2010). FMMP designations are shown in Figure 5, below.

Initial Study
Figure 5. Farmland Map

c:J Project Area
. --
L _ .! CEMEX Parcel Boundary
FMMP Important Farmland
- Prime Farmland
- Farmland of Statewide Importance
- Unique Farmland
D Grazing Land
- Urban and Built-Up Land
----:J Other Land
Williamson Act Farmland Security Zone
NRCS Soils
BbC - Baywood sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes
Cg -Clear Lake clay, moderately wet
Cm - Coastal beaches
Of- Dune land
OaO- Ocean loamy sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes
W-water
150 300 600 Meters
Source: California Department of Conservation, Division of
land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program, Monterey County, 2010. The U.S. Department of
NRCS Soil Survey (SSURGO) Database for Monterey County.
SWCA
[MVIRONM(NTAl <ONSULT....NTS
Environmental Setting
California American Wat er
Initial Study
No portion of the project area or CEMEX parcel is currently under a Williamson Act
contract. The closest Williamson Act land consists of two parcels located adjacent to the
CEMEX parcel, from Lapis Road to CEMEXs northern boundary (refer to Figure 5).
These parcels are identified by the Monterey County General Plan as Farmland Security
Zone Parcels (Monterey County 2010).
Impact Discussion
Response to II(a): Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to
non-agricultural use?
No portion of the project area or CEMEX parcel is designated as Prime Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland per the FMMP. Lapis Road
extends through Grazing Land and Other Land; therefore, no project traffic would pass
through areas of Prime, Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland. The closest proposed
excavation and earthmoving activities are located approximately 250 feet away from any
adjacent agricultural areas and over 1,000 feet away from the nearest Prime, Statewide
Importance, or Unique Farmland. No conversion of those lands to non-agricultural use
would occur.
Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Response to II(b): Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
The CEMEX parcel is within the Habitat Reserve and Other Open Space land use
designation and Coastal Conservation and Development zoning district. Parcels west of
the northern portion of the CEMEX parcel are zoned for agricultural use and under
Williamson Act contracts (refer to Figure 5). However, the proposed project is not
expected to conflict with carrying out adjacent agricultural operations in any way. The
proposed use would be similar to existing coastal dependent industrial uses at the
CEMEX site and would be limited in nature and duration.
Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Response to II(c): Would the project involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
The project could generate road and/or construction dust, which in excessive amounts can
damage adjacent row crops. However, the project would not generate significant traffic
trips and access roads adjacent to agricultural fields are paved; therefore, fugitive dust
from roads would not be a significant concern. Areas of ground disturbance would be
minimized and standard dust control measures would be implemented during
construction activities.
Initial Study
The proposed project would pump water from the Dune Sand and 180-FTE Aquifers to
gather data concerning the geologic, hydrogeologic, and water quality characteristic of
those units and their reaction to test pumping. There is the potential for these activities to
affect the groundwater resources that agricultural producers in the Salinas Valley rely on
for irrigation. As discussed in further detail in Section 3.3 IX, Hydrology and Water
Quality, below, the potential for such impacts is minimal. Analytical modeling indicates
that no significant drawdown of groundwater levels would occur as a result of the test
pumping activities, and the Dune Sand and 180-FTE Aquifers are heavily contaminated
in the project area due to decades of seawater intrusion. Therefore, a drawdown of water
levels in these aquifers would not impact adjacent agricultural users, who must pump
groundwater from a substantially greater depth to produce useable non-saline water.
Although the potential risk of significant impacts to agricultural water sources is
considered low, Section 3.3 IX discusses measures that would be put in place to monitor
changes in the groundwater levels and quality throughout the duration of the project and
mitigate any potential adverse effect. Therefore, the project would not result in significant
changes to available water supply that would subsequently result in the conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use.
No significant impacts to agricultural resources were identified; therefore no mitigation
measures are necessary.
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:

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

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

(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)?

(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?

Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
III. AIR QUALITY
Would the project:

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

Setting
The City of Marina is within the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB), which forms
an area of more than 5,100 square miles consisting of Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San
Benito Counties. The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD)
is the agency responsible for regulating air quality within the NCCAB by implementing
applicable regional, state and federal rules and regulations for any direct and area sources
of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants.
Ambient air quality standards are set to establish levels of air quality that must be
maintained to protect the public from the adverse effects of air pollution. Based on the
MBUAPCD website, as of January 2013, the NCCAB is in attainment of all federal
ambient air quality standards. However, under the generally more stringent state
standards, the NCCAB is currently nonattainment for ozone (O
3
), 8-hour standard, and
Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM
10
). Table 2, below, lists the NCCABs current
attainment status.
Table 2. North Central Coast Air Basin Attainment Status January 2013
Pollutant State Standards
1
National Standards
Ozone (O
3
) Nonattainment
2
Attainment/Unclassified
3
Inhalable Particulates (PM
10
) Nonattainment Attainment
Fine Particulates (PM
2.5
) Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
4
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Monterey County Attainment
San Benito County Unclassified
Santa Cruz County Unclassified
Attainment/Unclassified
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO
2
) Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
5

Sulfur Dioxide (SO
2
) Attainment Attainment
6

Lead Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
7

Notes:
1) State designations based on 2009 and 2011 air monitoring data.
2) Effective July 26, 2007, the ARB designated the NCCAB a nonattainment area for the State ozone
standard, which was revised in 2006 to include an 8-hour standard of 0.070 ppm.
3) On March 12, 2008, EPA adopted a new 8-hour ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. In April 2012, EPA
designated NCCAP attainment/unclassified based on 2009-2011 data, with a design value of 0.070
Initial Study
ppm.
4) In 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour standard for PM
2.5
from 65 to 35 g/m3. In 2009, EPA designated
the NCCAB as attainment/unclassified.
5) In 2011, EPA indicated it plans to designate the entire state as attainment/unclassified for the 2010
NO
2
standard. Final designations have yet to be made by EPA.
6) In June 2011, the ARB recommended to EPA that the entire state be designated as attainment for the
2010 primary SO
2
standard. Final designations have yet to be made by EPA.
7) On October 15, 2008 EPA substantially strengthened the national ambient air quality standard for
lead by lowering the level of the primary standard from 1.5 g/m3 to 0.15 g/m3. Final designations
were made by EPA in November 2011.
8) Nonattainment pollutants are highlighted in Bold.

To achieve compliance with the state air quality standards, the MBUAPCD adopted the
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1991 (most recently revised in 2008), which
established control measures for achieving and maintaining attainment with the state
ozone standard. Ozone, the primary constituent of smog, is formed in the atmosphere
through complex chemical reactions involving volatile organic compounds (VOC) and
nitrogen oxides (NO
x
) in the presence of sunlight. The primary sources of VOC in the
NCCAB are on- and off-road motor vehicles, cleaning and surface coatings, solvent
evaporation, landfills, petroleum production and marketing, and prescribed burning.
Primary sources of NO
x
are on- and off-road motor vehicles, stationary source fuel
combustion, and industrial processes. The basin also experiences air quality impacts
associated with transported Bay Area NO
x
emissions (MBUAPCD 2013). The 2009-2011
Triennial Plan Revision of the AQMP documented that the air basin continued to attain
the 1-hour ozone standard and recommended adoption of five control measures to make
progress towards achieving the 8-hour standard.
Impact Discussion
Response to III(a): Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
The MBUAPCD uses future population projections to generate emission forecasts upon
which the AQMP and necessary control measures are based. Monterey Countys current
population of 421,494 (California Department of Finance 2013) is less than the AQMPs
projected 2010 population of 464,847 persons. Because the project would not result in an
increase in population or long-term operational emissions beyond the 2 to 3-year
timeframe, indirect emissions associated with the project are deemed to be consistent
with the AQMP. The slant test well, monitoring wells and associated infrastructure would
not directly implicate or conflict with any control measures within the AQMP. The
proposed project would not conflict with or otherwise obstruct implementation of the
AQMP.
Response to III(b): Would the project violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
Initial Study
The project would generate vehicle emissions from construction equipment and worker
trips. Earthwork (i.e., trenching and excavation) would generate fugitive dust during
construction and decommissioning activities. Construction emissions are typically
considered short-term, as they occur only during the construction of the project. For the
proposed slant test well, the operational duration of the project is also short-term in
nature because the well would only operate for up to 24 months and then be
decommissioned. The potential for significant air quality impacts is minimized by the
limited duration and scale of the project.
The MBUAPCD has developed criteria pollutant emission thresholds, which meet or
exceed state and federal air quality thresholds, and established criteria in the
MBUAPCDs 2008 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to identify the level of construction
and operational activity that could result in significant impacts if not mitigated. Per the
MBUAPCD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, construction-related impacts to air quality
would be potentially significant if a project would generate PM
10
emissions of 82 lb./day
or more. It is presumed that the 82 lb./day threshold could be exceeded when
earthmoving activities exceed 2.2 acres/day. Construction projects below the screening
threshold of 2.2 acres/day are assumed to be below the 82 lb./day threshold of
significance (MBUAPCD 2008).
The projects total estimated construction footprint is approximately 0.75 acre and
excavation activities would be spread out over a period of 4 to 5 months. This level of
activity is substantially below the 2.2 acre/day threshold. Decommissioning activities
would be limited to the same footprint and would occur over a 4-week period and,
therefore, also well below the screening threshold. Even when considered cumulatively
(0.75 acres of disturbance during construction + 0.75 acres of disturbance during
decommissioning = 1.5 acres of total disturbance), construction and decommissioning
activities would be well below the screening threshold of 2.2 acres per day.
There are no extenuating circumstances that would indicate that PM
10
emissions may
approach the 82 lb./day threshold despite the limited area of earthwork. On average,
excavation and earthmoving activities generate about 38 lb./day/acre of PM
10
(MBUAPCD 2008). Based on this average, the project would generate a total of 57 lbs.
of PM
10
during the entire project lifetime, in a worst-case cumulative scenario (38
lbs./acre * cumulative 1.5 acres/day = 57 lbs./day). Therefore, construction-related
emissions would be well below applicable MBUAPCD thresholds and impacts would be
Operational emissions would include emissions from weekly vehicle trips to the project
site, continuous operation of the slant test well, and a one-time repositioning of the wells
packer device. For preliminary project screening purposes, the CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines indicate that potentially significant impacts on ozone could result from light
industrial uses 23.9 acres in size or greater. The proposed project proposes a 0.75 acre
coastal dependent industrial land use, well below the applicable threshold. Levels of
service and congestion at adjacent intersections would not be affected by the negligible
increase in operational traffic (weekly trips to the project site by one or two well
operators, or up to four additional [one-way] vehicle trips). Entrained road dust would not
Initial Study
be a significant concern, as access roads to the CEMEX site are paved. These activities
would be well within applicable thresholds of the MBUAPCD CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines for all criteria pollutants.
Response to III(c): Would the project 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)?
The project would not emit significant quantities of criteria pollutants during either short-
term construction activities or long-term operations. The project is a short-term testing
and research facility and would not cause any growth-inducing effects or cause an
exceedance of established population projections to occur, which may indirectly generate
additional emission sources. However, the NCCAB is currently non-attainment for ozone
(8-hour standard) and PM
10
. Implementation of standard dust control measures, such as
reducing the amount of disturbed area where possible and watering sand/dirt stockpiles,
and standard diesel emission reduction measures, such as maintaining construction
equipment in proper working condition and minimizing diesel equipment idling, would
reduce the projects contribution to area PM
10
and ozone precursor emissions.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation described in AQ/mm-
1 and AQ/mm-2.
Response to III(d): Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
The only sensitive receptors in the project vicinity are recreational users in the public
beach area adjacent to the project site. The number of recreational users in this area is
limited by lack of access, the timing of construction and decommissioning activities
during the winter months, and the existing mining activities within the CEMEX site. The
remainder of the large undeveloped CEMEX parcel provides a substantial buffer between
the project area and any sensitive receptors in adjacent areas. Adjacent uses north, east
and west of the CEMEX parcel include undeveloped dunes, vast agricultural land, and
the Pacific Ocean. The south end of the CEMEX site touches the northernmost limits of
urbanized development within the City of Marina; however, these areas are not expected
to experience project-related air quality effects associated with the project due to their
distance (approximately 0.7 mile at minimum) and the limited project activities proposed.
As described in III(b), above, the project would not result in the emission of substantial
pollutant concentrations and no sensitive receptors would be exposed to significant
pollutant concentration as a result of development or operation of the project. In addition,
mitigation is identified (AQ/mm-1 and AQ/mm-2) to reduce the generation of fugitive
dust and construction equipment emissions, which would further minimize effects on
sensitive receptors.
Initial Study
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation described in AQ/mm-
1 and AQ/mm-2.
Response to III(e): Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Construction of the proposed project and associated drilling activities would generate
odors associated with construction smoke/dust and equipment exhaust and fumes. Drill
tailings and excavated materials may also contain objectionable odors within unearthed
materials.
Although recreational beach users and CEMEX personnel would be affected by any
objectionable odors resulting from project activities, the number of persons within these
potentially affected groups would be minimal. The Marina Dunes Recreational Vehicle
Park is the nearest land use that includes a substantial number of people that would be
sensitive to objectionable odors. Because of its location approximately 0.7 mile away
from the project site on Dunes Drive, this location would not experience any odor-related
effects of the project. The proposed construction activities would also be similar in nature
to the existing mining activities conducted by CEMEX at the site and would not differ
significantly from those resulting from any other type of construction project. Any effects
would be short-term in nature and limited to the construction and potentially
decommissioning phases of the project. The project would not create objectionable odors
affecting a substantial number of people.
To minimize potential significant impacts associated with construction emissions and
generation of fugitive dust (PM
10
), the following measures would be implemented.
AQ/mm-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following Best Management
Practices and standard mitigation measures for reducing fugitive dust
emissions shall be noted on project grading plans. All measures shall
be adhered to during all project construction and decommissioning
activities.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Water all sand/dirt stockpiles at least twice daily. Increased
watering frequency may be required when wind speeds exceed
15 mph.
c. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15
mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site.
d. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials
shall be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard
Initial Study
(minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of
trailer).
e. Plant appropriate vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas
that are planned for habitat restoration as soon as possible.
f. Cover inactive storage piles with methods approved in advance
by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department
of Fish and Wildlife.
g. Install wheel washers at the entrance to the construction site
for all exiting trucks.
h. Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the
construction site.
i. Post a publicly visible sign which 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 be visible to ensure
compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance).
AQ/mm-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following Best Management
Practices and standard mitigation measures for reducing nitrogen
oxides (NO
x
), reactive organic gases (ROG) and diesel particulate
matter (DPM) emissions from construction equipment shall be noted
on project grading plans. All measures shall be adhered to during all
project construction and decommissioning activities.
a. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according
to manufacturers specifications.
b. Diesel powered equipment shall be replaced by electric
equipment whenever feasible to reduce NO
x
emissions.
c. Diesel-powered equipment shall be replaced by gasoline-
powered equipment whenever feasible.
d. Diesel construction equipment meeting the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) Tier 1 emission standards for off-
road heavy-duty diesel engines shall be used. Equipment
meeting CARB Tier 2 or higher emission standards shall be
used to the maximum extent feasible.
e. Catalytic converters shall be installed on gasoline-powered
equipment, if feasible.
Initial Study
f. All on- and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more
than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing
areas and or job site to remind drivers and operators of the 5-
minute idling limit.
g. Diesel equipment idling shall not be permitted within 1,000 feet
of sensitive receptors.
h. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the
minimum practical size.
i. The number of construction equipment operating
simultaneously shall be minimized through efficient
management practices to ensure that the smallest practical
number is operating at any one time.
j. Construction worker trips shall be minimized by providing
options for carpooling and by providing for lunch onsite.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts to air quality resources would
be less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IV. 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?

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

(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,

Initial Study
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IV. BIOLOGICAL
RESOURCES
Would the project:

vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
(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 native wildlife nursery sites?

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

(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?

This section is generally structured to separately discuss two distinct biological
environments within the project area: the terrestrial (land-based) environment and the
marine environment. The evaluation of potential project effects on terrestrial biological
resources is based on the applicants project description, site investigations conducted by
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) on September 6, 2013, and November 13,
2013, and on the following technical studies, which are included in Appendix B:
Technical Memorandum, Biological Resources Assessment MPWSP Temporary
Slant Test Well Project (Zander Associates 2013);
Memorandum, Special Status Species within the Vicinity of the Proposed Test
Well Sites, Marina, CA (ESA Biological Resources 2012);
Biological Assessment for the MPWSP Temporary Slant Test Well Project,
Marina, California (Zander Associates 2013);
Informal Consultation Summary, March 4, 2014 Meeting with Jake Martin,
USFWS (RBF Consulting 2014); and
Rare and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment for the California American
Water Temporary Slant Test Well Project, Marina, Monterey County, California
(SWCA 2014).
Initial Study
The discussion of the marine environmental setting and the MBNMS is largely based on
the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan (available at:
http://montereybay.noaa.gov/intro/mp/mp.html). Project-specific marine surveys were
not required by the MBNMS or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) and were not conducted
as a part of this review; therefore, the marine environment is discussed more generally, in
terms of the entire Marine Sanctuary.
Setting
Terrestrial Environment
Special-Status Species
Based on the existing data and site inspections, the proposed project would be
constructed within and directly adjacent to an existing unimproved access road on the
CEMEX property and among foredune habitat at the access road terminus. The existing
access road traverses disturbed coastal sand dunes, a habitat type that can support a
variety of special-status species. The Biological Resources Assessment (Zander 2013)
evaluated numerous special-status species for occurrence in and near the project area and
determined five special-status species are known to occur in or near the project area.
Monterey Spineflower
Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens) is an annual herb that occurs
at elevations between 3 and 450 meters in chaparral cismontane woodland, coastal dunes,
coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland on sandy soils. Monterey spineflower is
federally threatened under the Endangered Species Act and has a California Native Plant
Society rare plant ranking of 1B.2.
Monterey spineflower individuals were identified in the proposed project area during
surveys conducted on April 25, 2013 (Zander 2013), and were observed in adjacent bare
sand areas of the sand dunes and in some areas along the edge of the CEMEX access road
(refer to Figure 6). Monterey spineflower individuals were not observed, nor are they
expected to occur, in the active roadbed proposed for use during the project due to regular
vehicular disturbance associated with ongoing CEMEX operations. All of the observed
spineflower occurrences were east of the existing CEMEX settling ponds and outside of
the anticipated project area of disturbance.
Smiths Blue Butterfly
Smiths blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi) is a federally endangered species that
occurs in a variety of habitats, including coastal dunes. The butterfly is dependent on
coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium) and seacliff buckwheat (E. parvifolium)
throughout its life. Adults are active mid-June to early September, but typically stay in
close proximity to the host plants. Based on surveys conducted in 1985 and 1986, the
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) shows occurrences of Smiths blue
butterfly in the project vicinity (CNDDB 2013). Surveys conducted by Thomas Reid
Associates in 1996 and 1997 also indicate that this species occurs in the area (Zander
2013). The Biological Resources Assessment documents observations of numerous coast
Initial Study
buckwheat plants along the CEMEX access road through the project area, but none
within the active roadbed or anticipated project area of disturbance (Zander 2013).
Western Snowy Plover
The Pacific coast population of western snowy plovers (Charadrius nivosus) is listed as
federally threatened and is considered a California Species of Special Concern (SSC) by
the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Both resident and migratory
individuals compose the coastal snowy plover population. The Pacific coast population
frequents sandy beaches and estuarine shores, and requires sandy, gravelly, or friable soil
substrates for nesting. The species nesting season extends from March 1
st
through
September 30
th
. Nests typically occur in flat, open areas, with sandy or saline substrates,
with vegetation and driftwood usually sparse or absent.
Snowy plover survey data provided by Point Blue (Point Blue 2013) shows that snowy
plovers are known to utilize the western portion of the project area for nesting and
wintering. The most recent nesting data available (Point Blue 2014, unpubl. data)
identified 50 nesting attempts along the CEMEX parcel with 17 successfully hatched for
a 34 percent successful hatch rate. The nests are generally located between the shoreline
and the base of the foredunes. However, some nests have been located around the
CEMEX ponds and adjacent to the CEMEX access road (refer to Figure 6).
The shoreline along the CEMEX parcel is within designated critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast distinct population segment (DPS) of the western snowy plover and is
within Recovery Unit 4 Sonoma to Monterey Counties, California (as defined in the
Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan [USFWS 2007]). The CEMEX shoreline lies
within the Moss Landing to Monterey specific location (CA-65) and the Lonestar Beach
and interior areas subarea of Recovery Unit 4 (Zander 2013). According to the Recovery
Plan, the management potential for plovers in Recovery Unit 4 is highest in CA-65 and
the Lonestar Beach subarea management potential is second only to the Salinas River
National Wildlife Refuge within CA-65 (Zander 2013).
California Legless Lizard
The California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) is considered a SSC by CDFW. It is an
elusive, fossorial (sub-surface) lizard that occurs in loose soils of coastal dunes and other
communities, from immediately above the mean high tide line through sand dunes and
inland to sandy areas associated with oak woodlands, grasslands, and maritime chaparral.
The species burrows into sand and leaf litter beneath plants to forage for insects and other
invertebrates. Undisturbed dune habitat near the proposed project area supports suitable
habitat for legless lizards; however, areas proposed for development generally lack native
vegetation that is associated with typical legless lizard habitat.

Initial Study
Figure 6. Existing Biological Setting

0 100 200
Source: Esri, icubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP,
and the GIS User Community. The U.S Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database f or Monterey County.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Critical Habitat data, 201 4.
SWCA
~
~ ~
ENVIRONMEtHAl CONSUL TAt-ITS
s
Legend
Project Area
Habitat Assessment Study Area
Coastal Dunes
Dredge and Settlement Ponds
Ruderai /Landscaped/Disturbed
Sandy Beach
Western Snowy Plover Critical Habitat
Sensitive Species
IZI Plover Nest Locations Before 201 0
+ Failed Plover Nests 2010
Hatched Plover Nests 2010
Hatched Plover Nests 201 1
Failed Plover Nests 2012
e Hatched Plover Nests 2012
+ Failed Plover Nests 2013
Coast buckwheat
D Spineflower
NRCS Soils
BbC - Baywood sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes
Df- Dune land
OaD- Ocean loamy sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes
W - Water
Existing Biological Conditions
California Ameri can Water
Initial Study


Initial Study
Coast Horned Lizard
The coast horned lizard (Phyrnosoma coronatum [blainvillii]) is considered a SSC
species by CDFW. It is a relatively large horned lizard, with numerous pointed scales
along the sides of the body and over the back. The species range extends from northern
California to the tip of Baja California, distributed throughout foothills and coastal plains
in areas with abundant, open vegetation such as chaparral or coastal sage scrub. The
species typically occupies open country, especially sandy areas, washes, flood plains, and
wind-blown deposits in a wide variety of habitats, including coastal dunes such as those
in the vicinity of the project, that support bushes for cover and abundant ants or other
insects for foraging. Undisturbed dunes near the proposed project area may provide
suitable habitat for coast horned lizard; however, the species is not expected to occupy
the disturbed roadbed and adjacent areas due to the absence of appropriate vegetation.
Sensitive Natural Habitats
The proposed project is located in critical habitat for western snowy plover. The dune
habitat located in the project area supports rare and endangered species; therefore, it is
afforded special consideration in the City of Marina Local Coastal Program (LCP). In
addition, the dredge and settling ponds within the project area meet the state definition of
a wetland. These resources are addressed individually below.
Critical Habitat
The western portion of the project area is located in CA 22, Monterey to Moss Landing
critical habitat unit for western snowy plover (refer to Figure 6). Whenever a species is
proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), the USFWS must consider whether there are areas of habitat that are essential to
the species conservation. Those areas may be designated as critical habitat, which
indicates that the area is considered essential for the conservation of the species and may
require special management and protection. A critical habitat designation does not
prohibit further development; however, federal agencies are required to ensure that their
activities do not adversely modify critical habitat to the point that it will no longer aid in
the species recovery.
The most recent designation of Monterey spineflower critical habitat does not include any
portion of the project area.
Rare and Endangered Species Habitat City of Marina Local Coastal Program
The foredune and hind dune habitats in the project area support several rare and
endangered plant and wildlife species. The City of Marina LCP requires any development
within protected species habitat to be evaluated at a project-specific level to determine
the presence of Primary Habitat and Secondary Habitat areas. Primary Habitat is
defined to include habitat for all identified plant and animal species which are rare,
endangered, threatened, or are necessary for the survival of an endangered species and
all native dune vegetation, where such vegetation is extensive enough to perform the
special role of stabilizing Marinas natural sand dune formations (City of Marina 1982).
According to the LCP, identified Primary Habitat shall be protected and preserved. All
development must be sited and designed so as not to interfere with the natural functions
of the Primary Habitat. Secondary Habitat (or support habitat adjacent to areas of Primary
Initial Study
Habitat) must also be identified. Investigations of Secondary Habitat should identify the
role and importance of the Secondary Habitat area in relation to the Primary Habitat. All
development in the Secondary Habitat area must be sited and designed to prevent
significant adverse impacts on the adjacent Primary Habitat areas.
A Rare and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment was prepared by SWCA in May
2014 (refer to Appendix B). Primary and Secondary Habitat areas were identified in and
adjacent to the project area (refer to Figure 7). Primary Habitat Areas consist of coastal
dunes and sandy beach that have potential to support special-status species, as well as
several man-made ponds associated with the existing CEMEX plant, due to their likely
classification as wetlands under the California Coastal Commissions definition. Other
areas of the project site support coast buckwheat and/or seacliff buckwheat, which are
necessary for the survival of the federally endangered Smiths blue butterfly. These areas
also meet the LCPs definition for Primary Habitat.
Secondary Habitat areas include buffers around the Primary Habitat areas, though much
of this buffer area consists of heavily disturbed mining areas associated with ongoing
CEMEX operations and provides only limited suitable habitat for special-status species.
Wetlands
The CEMEX facility operates a dredging pond and three settling ponds adjacent to the
proposed work area. The westernmost dredging pond is located in the sandy beach and
foredunes approximately 400 feet north of the proposed slant test well insertion point.
This dredging pond receives surface flows from the Pacific Ocean during incoming tides
and/or storm events. Therefore, the dredging pond has a hydrological connection to the
Pacific Ocean and is subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jurisdiction. The
three settling ponds are located between the dredging pond and the proposed work area.
The settling ponds are within as little as 35 feet of the proposed work area. Based on
2005 aerial imagery, the settling ponds have a surface hydrological connection to the
dredging pond, at least occasionally. The occasional connection is likely dependent on
the status of CEMEX activities and the available sand and/or water in the dredging pond.
Since the settling ponds have a hydrologic connection to the dredging pond, it is likely
that they would be subject to USACE jurisdiction. None of the ponds support significant
wetland vegetation; therefore, USACE would likely consider the ponds to be other
waters of the United States.
The California Coastal Commission does not use the same parameters as USACE to
define wetlands. The CCC regulations (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations)
establish a one-parameter definition that only requires evidence of a single wetland
indicator (hydric soils, wetland hydrology, or hydrophytic vegetation) for a feature to be
considered a wetland. Despite the fact that the ponds are man-made, actively disturbed,
and used to support coastal dependent industrial mining uses, based on the site
conditions, it is likely that the CCC would consider the dredging and settling ponds to be
state-regulated wetlands.

Initial Study
Figure 7. LCP Primary and Secondary Habitats

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
\
.
............ --.
-.:==----Feet
0 100 200 400
N
. ... --
..

W ~
~
s
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
SWCA
ENVIRONMENTAL (ONSULTII.NTS
c:J Project Area
c:J Habitat Assessment Study Area
c:J Construction Footprint
- - - Mean High Tide Line
Primary Habitat
~ Secondary Habitat
:::::J 100-foot pond buffer
Primary and Secondary Habitats
Sl ant Test Well Project
Marine Environment
The project area includes an area within the MBNMS where test water would be
discharged via an existing wastewater outfall (refer to Figure 2, above). The MBNMS
was designated as a federally protected area in 1992 and is managed by NOAA. The
MBNMS includes coastal waters from Rocky Point, in Marin County, to Cambria, in San
Luis Obispo County (approximately 90 miles both north and south of the project site).
The MBNMS includes 276 miles of shoreline, which is approximately one quarter of
Californias coast. It extends an average distance of 30 miles from shore, encompasses
5,322 square miles of ocean, and at its deepest point, reaches 12,713 feet (more than 2
miles) (MBNMS 2014).
The MBNMS includes a variety of habitats that support extensive marine life, including
34 species of marine mammals, over 180 species of seabirds and shorebirds, at least 525
fish species, 4 turtle species, 31 different invertebrates, and over 450 species of marine
algae. Its natural resources include the nations largest contiguous kelp forest, one of
North Americas largest underwater canyons, and the closest-to-shore deep ocean
environment off the continental United States. Its highly productive biological
communities host one of the highest levels of marine biodiversity in the world, including
26 federally listed threatened and endangered species (MBNMS 2008). Federally listed
species include six species of large whales, the Southern sea otter, Steller sea lion,
Guadalupe fur seal, California brown pelican, California clapper rail, western snowy
plover, marbled murrelet, four species of sea turtles, six species of salmon or steelhead,
and the tidewater goby (MBNMS 2008). The MBNMS is also a meeting place for the
geographic ranges of many species. It lies at the southern end of the range for some
species, like the Steller sea lion (occurring from central California north to Alaska and
Japan), and the northern end of the range for other species, like giant kelp (occurring
from San Francisco south to Baja California, Mexico) (MBNMS 2008).
The MBNMS includes one of four major coastal upwelling regions worldwide. The
MBNMS Final Management Plan describes the upwelling process as follows:
Coastal upwelling occurs along the western edges of continents, where
winds from the northwest drive oceanic surface waters away from shore
due to the Coriolis effect. These shallow, relatively warm waters are
replaced by deep, colder and nutrient rich waters driving high primary
productivity, allowing phytoplankton to bloom, which in turn support
zooplankton, providing a key prey resource for higher-order predators
such as fishes, birds, and whales. Globally, these upwelling regions rival
the productivity of tropical rain forests, and account for nearly 95 percent
of the annual global production of marine biomass, in spite of only
representing 0.1 percent of the oceans total surface area.
The seasonal upwelling that occurs within MBNMS makes Monterey Bay extremely
productive in terms of being able to support a variety of species, including some whales
and small schooling fish (e.g., sardine, herring). The nearshore midwater zone contains
over 80 species of fish, sharks, and rays including flatfish such as halibut, sand dabs,
flounder, turbot, and sole, which are closely associated with sandy habitats, as well as
surfperch, rockfish, gobies and sculpins which are normally associated with rocky
habitats. Midwater schooling fish include anchovy, herring, smelt, sardines, and
silversides.
Special-Status Species
Marine Mammals
All MBNMS marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act
(MMPA). Several marine mammals are also protected under the ESA. Marine mammals
that are known to occur within the MBNMS include:
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) Federally threatened
Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi) State and Federally Threatened
Northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus) Depleted
Southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) Federally threatened
Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) Federally endangered
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) Federally endangered
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) Federally endangered
Pacific right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) Federally endangered
Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) Federally endangered
Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) Federally endangered
Marine mammals most likely to occur in the vicinity of the MRWPCA outfall include the
southern sea otter and humpback whale. The southern sea otter is common along the
Monterey Bay Coast and the humpback whale is sometimes seen at the head of Monterey
Canyon and is somewhat likely to be present in the project area.
Federally Listed Fish
Four federally listed fish species have the potential to occur in the marine project area:
steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss, south-central California coast DPS), Chinook salmon
(O. tshawytscha, central California ESU and Sacramento River winter-run), and coho
salmon (O. kisutch, central California ESU). These species are listed as threatened under
the Endangered Species Act, except for the Sacramento River run of Chinook, which are
listed as endangered. Steelhead and salmon are anadromous species that use both fresh
and salt water at different stages in their life cycle (incubation and juvenile rearing in
freshwater, maturation at sea, and adult migration into rivers for reproduction). Adults or
smolts may use the marine project area in migration to and from coastal streams, and as
rearing during early marine residency.
Invertebrates
Invertebrate species in the MBNMS include squid, sponges, anemones, jellies, worms,
corals, tunicates, snails, octopus, clams, and arthropods such as barnacles, crabs, and spot
prawns. Thousands of various species of invertebrates populate the MBNMS. Most
invertebrate species are not harvested commercially, with the exception of squid, spot
prawn, and Dungeness crab, rock crab, and octopus. Various types of invertebrates are
found in all habitats from the sandy beach to intertidal, mid-water, and deep sea.
White abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) is a federally endangered marine invertebrate known
to occur in the MBNMS. White abalone are herbivorous gastropods (the same taxonomic
class as snails and slugs) that live in rocky ocean waters. White abalone are reported to be
most abundant between depths of 80 to 100 feet, making them the deepest occurring
abalone species in California.
Sea Turtles
Four species of federally-listed sea turtles are known to exist within the MBNMS: green
turtle (Chelonia mydas), leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead turtle
(Caretta caretta), and olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea). In the Pacific Ocean,
breeding colony populations on the Pacific coast of Mexico of both green turtles and
olive ridley turtles are listed as endangered; all others are listed as threatened.
Sensitive Natural Habitats
The MBNMS encompasses eight different marine and shoreline habitat areas, including
rocky shores, kelp forests, sandy bottoms, estuaries, submarine canyons, deep sea, open
ocean, and seamounts. Areas that would potentially be affected by the project are
described below. Other areas, including rocky shores, estuaries, submarine canyons, deep
sea and seamounts, are located outside of the potentially affected area. The marine
project area is also located within designated essential fish habitat (EFH) for groundfish,
coastal pelagic species, and Pacific salmon. Each of these habitats is briefly discussed
below.
Kelp Forests
Kelp provides a unique and diverse habitat utilized by numerous species, including
marine mammals, fishes, other algae, and invertebrates. Along the rocky coastline, just
beyond the breaking waves, several species of kelp grow from the hard substrates.
Although some individuals can persist for up to three years, the overall structure of the
kelp forest is very dynamic. Kelp canopy cover varies seasonally; it is thickest in late
summer and thins or disappears when large winter swells remove weakened older adults.
The following spring, the next generation of individuals takes advantage of the thin
canopy cover and increase in available light to grow rapidly. This, in additional to
nutrient rich waters caused by upwelling, allows some species of kelp to grow up to 12
inches per day. The measured productivity (per square foot of sea floor) of a kelp forest is
among the highest of any natural community.
In central California, the two primary canopy-forming species in kelp forests are giant
kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) and bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana). Both can be found in
the same kelp forest, but giant kelp is more typical of the Monterey Bay area. Some
vertebrates, such as sea otters and many fishes, reside within kelp forests; others, such as
seabirds, harbor seals, sea lions, and gray whales, visit kelp forests while foraging for
food. Giant kelp and other algae also support large populations of benthic invertebrates,
which in turn attract higher-order predators.
Sandy Bottoms
Most of the ocean floor within the MBNMS is covered with sand or mud. The lack of
hard substrate and shifting sand prevent algae or seaweeds from growing. However,
many organisms live in the sand, generally in two broad zones: a shallow region
dominated by crustaceans, and a deeper area dominated by more sedentary polychaete
worms.
Open Ocean
Although oceans cover 70 percent of the Earths surface, only 5 percent of the Earths
surface consists of typical marine ecosystems, like coral reefs or kelp forests. The
remaining 65 percent make up the open ocean ecosystem, which typically lies well
offshore where the water depth is greater than 330 feet. The waters of MBNMS are part
of the eastern Pacific Ocean. Open ocean waters are 13,100 feet deep on average and in
the Pacific basin reach a maximum depth of 36,000 feet.
Essential Fish Habitat
The proposed project is located within designated essential fish habitat (EFH) for
groundfish, coastal pelagic species, and Pacific salmon. EFH is broadly defined by the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the
Sustainable Fisheries Act to include those waters and substrate necessary to fish for
spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. EFH is identified for any species
managed under a federal fishery management plan (FMP). The MSA requires that federal
agencies consult with the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries)
when taking any action that may adversely affect EFH. The MSA defines an adverse
effect as any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH (50 Code of Federal
Regulations [CFR] 600.810).
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat for Steller sea lions includes the rookeries at Ao Nuevo Island within the
MBNMS, approximately 40 miles northwest of the project site. No other federally listed
species under NOAA Fisheries jurisdiction have proposed or designated critical habitat
within the MBNMS.
Impact Discussion
Response to IV(a): Would the project 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Monterey Spineflower
As proposed, the project would include excavation activities in proximity to known
Monterey spineflower occurrences. The project construction and decommissioning
phases would be implemented in the fall and winter months when live Monterey
spineflower are not likely to be present. However, the Monterey spineflower seed bank
would remain during the dormant (non-vegetative) winter season at the locations where
live individuals were located. During this time, grading or vehicular traffic that removes
or turns over the top soil containing Monterey spineflower seed could hinder the
germination success of the seed in the following season.
The operational phase of the project would be conducted over 24 months and would span
the growth and blooming period of Monterey spineflower. During this time, vehicle and
foot traffic has the potential to crush or otherwise disturb live Monterey spineflower
individuals.
The applicant has consulted with the USFWS and incorporated mitigation measures into
the project description that would minimize the potential for impacts to Monterey
spineflower, including late season surveys to flag previously identified occurrences,
avoidance of flagged areas, biological monitoring during grading activities and
excavation, and educational training for construction personnel. These measures have
been modified as necessary and included in the MMRP to ensure sufficiency and
compliance. Additional mitigation measures identified below would further reduce the
potential for significant effects on this species, including additional avoidance measures
and restoration of any disturbed dune habitat areas. With implementation of the
mitigation measures identified below, potential impacts to the species would be less than
significant.
Smiths Blue Butterfly
Since project activities would be conducted in proximity to the host plant(s) for the
federally endangered Smiths blue butterfly, the proposed project has the potential to
impact Smiths blue butterfly and/or its habitat. Potential direct impacts include mortality
of adult butterflies resulting from collision with project construction or operations
vehicular traffic during months when adult butterflies are active (i.e., windshield hits), or
mortality of larvae or pupae if the host plant must be removed or disturbed during
construction. Potential indirect impacts include loss of habitat if the host plant(s) must be
removed during construction or operational activities, or if dust associated with project
activities settles on the nectaries of buckwheat plants, adversely affecting the butterflies
food source.
All observed occurrences of buckwheat are outside of the proposed project disturbance
areas and construction activities would be limited to the winter months outside of the
butterfly flight season (June to September). Therefore, direct impacts to Smiths blue
butterfly are not anticipated. However, indirect impacts on larvae or pupae stages of
Smiths blue butterfly could potentially occur as a result of surface disturbance in close
proximity to buckwheat plants. The applicant has incorporated measures into the project
description that would minimize the potential for impacts to Smiths blue butterfly and
buckwheat, including buffering and avoidance of areas known to contain buckwheat,
construction during the butterflies non-flight season, biological monitoring during
construction/decommissioning activities, and educational training for construction
personnel. These measures have been modified as necessary and incorporated into the
MMRP to ensure sufficiency and compliance. Additional mitigation measures identified
below would further reduce the potential for significant effects on this species, including
additional avoidance measures and restoration of any disturbed dune habitat areas. With
implementation of the mitigation measures identified below, potential impacts to the
species would be less than significant.
The potential effects on snowy plovers and their habitat are discussed in terms of the
construction and decommissioning phases and the operational phase of the project.
Activities proposed during the construction and decommissioning phases of the project
(particularly in the western portion of the project area) have the potential to result in
direct disturbance of western snowy plovers and their habitat, including drilling of the
slant test well and monitoring wells, installation and decommissioning of the proposed
wellhead vault and electric panel / sampling location, and trenching and development of
the discharge pipeline and connection to the existing outfall junction structure.
As proposed, these activities would occur during the winter months outside of the snowy
plover nesting season. However, site grading and excavation for these project elements
would re-contour and compact approximately 320 linear feet of historically occupied
snowy plover nesting and wintering habitat. Based on recent surveys, the beach and dune
habitats located to the north and south of the proposed wellhead vault and discharge
pipeline are important roosting areas for wintering snowy plovers (Point Blue 2013).
Currently, these areas are rarely used for recreation or other human activities due to the
lack of easy access and CEMEX operations within this area are generally limited to the
periodic use of equipment to move dredge anchors around the dredge pond. Therefore,
plovers in the area are not subject to routine disturbances. Movement and noise
associated with construction activities in proximity to wintering snowy plovers could
disturb foraging and resting behaviors. In addition, the effects of human-induced sand
disturbance in long-established plover nesting habitat are not well understood, but may
affect localized breeding behavior and nesting success (Zander 2013). In some cases,
increased human disturbance can cause birds to abandon habitat altogether (Zander
2013).
The operational phase of the project would occur over a 24-month timeframe which
spans the nesting and wintering snowy plover seasons. Activities associated with the
operational phase of the project, including weekly site visits and the one-time
repositioning of the packer device, may result in adverse impacts to western snowy
plover during their nesting and wintering periods, as discussed below.
Snowy plovers are known to nest in the beach and dune areas immediately west of the
proposed wellhead vault and have been documented in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed electrical panel and sampling location. Nesting records indicate that at least
seven nesting attempts have occurred within the westernmost portion of the project area
since 2011, with two successful hatches in 2011 and one in 2012 (Point Blue 2014,
unpubl. data; refer to Figure 6). Additional nesting attempts have occurred in adjacent
beach areas over the same period.
A plover may establish a nest in areas that would be directly accessed during the
operational phase of the project (i.e., on the surface above the wellhead vault or in the
immediate vicinity of the electrical panel / sampling station). Maintenance staff travelling
to or from the site to collect water samples or perform other routine tasks may create
noise or other disturbances that could cause adult snowy plovers to abandon their nests
and move to a new location.
The proposed routine site visits would also generally increase the amount of human
presence in the area, which snowy plovers may perceive as threats, thus causing snowy
plovers to move or fly to a new location. This type of disturbance may reduce foraging
efficiency and opportunities for rest, which in turn may deplete energy reserves and result
in lower reproductive success (Brown et. al. 2000; Zander 2013).
The proposed operational activities are not substantially different from existing
conditions and on-going CEMEX mining operations within the western portion of the
project area; however, the potential increase in activity, as noted above, may have an
adverse impact on snowy plovers and their nesting behavior. Mitigation is proposed to
minimize the risk of adversely affecting nesting and wintering plovers, including timing
construction during the non-nesting season, biological training and monitoring, and re-
contouring and restoration of habitat areas. Therefore, with implementation of mitigation
and avoidance of nesting plovers, potential impacts would be less than significant level.
The NEPA Lead Agency for the project (MBNMS) initiated consultation with USFWS to
determine the potential for impacts to snowy plover. USFWS has determined that formal
consultation and an incidental take permit would not be necessary as long as earthmoving
activities were restricted to the non-nesting season and additional appropriate mitigation
was adopted (RBF Consulting March 5, 2014, Informal Consultation Summary). All
mitigation recommendations coming out of that consultation process, including revision
of the applicants proposed mitigation measures to eliminate any option for non-
compliance (i.e., elimination of terms such as if necessary and if required), and
suspension of operational activities until authorized by USFWS in the event a nesting
bird is found in areas near the wellhead that could be affected by operations, are included
in the MMRP to reduce the potential for adverse effects to snowy plovers during all
project phases.
California Legless Lizard
Vegetation in and adjacent to the project area provides suitable shelter and foraging
habitat for California legless lizard. Project activities such as grading, trenching, and
drilling that would uproot, trample, or crush vegetation have the potential to directly
impact California legless lizard, and removal of vegetation or grading in dune areas that
are not actively disturbed could result in indirect impacts through loss of habitat. As
proposed, the majority of the project would be conducted in areas lacking suitable
vegetation (i.e., within the CEMEX access road and adjacent sandy areas with little
vegetative growth); therefore, California legless lizard habitat would largely be avoided.
Additional measures have been recommended, including pre-construction surveys and
biological monitoring during project construction and decommissioning, to minimize the
risk of adverse effects within suitable habitat areas. With implementation of mitigation
measures, potential impacts to the species would be less than significant.
Coast Horned Lizard
Undisturbed dunes near the proposed project area may provide suitable habitat for coast
horned lizard, but the species is not expected to occupy the disturbed roadbed and
adjacent areas. While it is unlikely that coast horned lizards would occur in the project
area, if they were to stray into the project area from adjacent dune scrub habitat during
construction or operations, direct impacts could include injury or mortality associated
with vehicle movements or grading, trenching, or drilling activities. As proposed, the
majority of the project would be constructed and operated in areas outside of suitable
coast horned lizard habitat; therefore, the project would have low likelihood of causing
impacts to the species. With implementation of standard mitigation measures, including
pre-construction surveys and biological monitoring during project construction and
decommissioning, potential impacts to the species would be less than significant.
Therefore, impacts to terrestrial species would be less than significant with mitigation
described in BIO/mm-1 through BIO/mm-18.
Marine Environment
The project proposes drilling and trenching activities in proximity to the shoreline as well
as the discharge of test water pumped from underlying aquifers into the Pacific Ocean via
an existing outfall pipe. On-shore activities would occur at a minimum of approximately
150 feet inland from mean high tide and no in-water activities are proposed other than the
discharge. The absence of in-water activities and disturbance significantly reduces any
potential for adverse effects on marine species. However, marine species could be
impacted by on-shore noise and vibration associated with project construction and
drilling, and water quality impacts associated with the discharge could impact species in
the vicinity and their habitat. No detectable noise or vibration would occur during the
operational testing phase.
Noise and Vibration
Because there is no in-water construction proposed in the project area, only marine
species that travel or rest out of the water or on the beach are likely to be affected by
project construction. On-shore construction activities could disturb shorebirds or marine
mammals that use the shoreline area and/or beach area in proximity of the project. High
frequency human generated airborne noise may affect marine species that are above the
surface of the water or on the beach. High sound levels or vibration can cause behavioral
changes in marine mammals, mask their ability to detect important sounds due to
background noise, and cause physical damage to hearing systems (Marine Mammal
Commission 2007).
The terrestrial portions of the proposed work area are largely located in the fore and hind
dune areas and are not expected to provide regular resting areas for pinnipeds (i.e., seals,
sea lions, walruses). Hauling-out is a behavior associated with pinnipeds, where they
temporarily leave the water between periods of foraging activity for sites on land for
mating, giving birth, predator avoidance, thermal regulation, social activity, and/or rest.
On occasion, a pinniped may haul out on the beach near the high tide line; however, the
proposed work area is not a regular haul-out site. The potential for adverse effects on
marine species resulting from airborne noise and vibration is low because of the distance
between the proposed drilling activities and the marine environment. Drilling would
occur a minimum of 300 feet inland and grading, excavation and trenching activities
would occur approximately 150 feet or more inland.
Sound levels generated from construction and on-shore drilling are not anticipated to
transfer to the aquatic environment, particularly at a level that would be distinguishable
above ambient in-water background noise (i.e., the sound of waves, boats, etc.). The
applicant proposes to use noise blankets to reduce airborne noise effects on snowy
plover; this mitigation would similarly serve to protect pinnipeds and other nearshore
marine species from airborne noise impacts associated with project construction or
decommissioning.
Substantial on-shore noise and vibration can potentially propagate through the sediment
and into the ocean through the ocean floor, affecting nearshore fish and mammals. Based
on personal communications with Jacqueline Meyer, NOAA Fisheries Biologist and
Hydroacoustic Specialist, the potential for adverse effects on marine species as a result of
the proposed on-shore drilling activities would be very low (Jacqueline Meyer, NOAA
Fisheries, personal communication with Emily Creel, SWCA, March 31, 2014). Both
sonic and rotary drilling would produce noise and vibration, but because attenuation is
heavily dependent on substrates, there are no standardized noise and vibration attenuation
rates that can be used to estimate the sound levels that would occur at the ocean floor as a
result of the on-shore drilling activities. However, for a measurable sound pressure wave
to propagate through substrates and enter the marine environment via the underlying
sediment, a very large pulse of sound (such as those associated with high impact actions
such as pile driving) would typically be required (Jacqueline Meyer, NOAA Fisheries,
personal communication with Emily Creel, SWCA, March 31, 2014). No high impact or
pulse-producing activities are proposed during construction or decommissioning of the
project; therefore, the potential for noise or vibration effects on marine species is very
low.
Therefore, potential adverse effects to marine species associated with noise and vibration
would be less than significant.
Water Quality
The discharge of test water into the Pacific Ocean could potentially result in water quality
impacts within the area of discharge if measures are not taken to ensure the test water
meets applicable regulatory standards and is safe to discharge into the ocean. Water
quality of the pumped water is not known at this time; however, it is anticipated that it
would be comprised mostly of tidally influenced water and would not result in significant
water quality concerns for marine species, based on compliance with existing regulations
described below.
The existing outfall operates under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit #CA0048551 to discharge secondary treated wastewater from the
MRWPCAs Regional Treatment Plant through a diffuser positioned 11,260 feet offshore
at a depth of approximately 100 feet in Monterey Bay. MRWPCA-treated wastewater is
reclaimed for agricultural irrigation during the summer months and released through the
outfall in the wetter winter months. The outfall is outfitted with port diffusers containing
duckbill valves to produce the rapid mixing of discharges with ambient ocean water,
which would further minimize any potential impacts to the ocean environment.
The proposed project would change the current discharge baseline by adding between
1,000 and 2,500 gpm of groundwater for approximately 24 months. Though exact water
quality information for the proposed discharge is not yet available, there is the potential
for water quality pumped out of the aquifer to be unsuitable for untreated discharge into
the ocean (i.e., water pumped from this depth could have low dissolved oxygen levels,
bacterial contamination, elevated levels of ammonia, etc.).
NPDES is a program, authorized by the Clean Water Act, to control water pollution by
regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States to
ensure water quality is adequate to preserve the designated beneficial use(s) of a
particular water body. Designated beneficial uses of the Pacific Ocean include water
contact and non-contact recreation, navigation, commercial and sport fishing, marine
habitat, rare and endangered species habitat, and wildlife habitat. In order to ensure
discharges into the Pacific Ocean are consistent with these beneficial uses, the NPDES
program provides two levels of control: technology-based limits (based on the ability of
dischargers in the same industrial category to treat wastewater) and water quality-based
limits (if technology-based limits are not sufficient to provide protection of the water
body). To meet technology-based limits, industrial dischargers are required to meet Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) and Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), and municipal dischargers (like
MRWPCA) are required to meet secondary (biological) treatment standards (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management 2014). To meet
water-quality objectives, NPDES permits include effluent limits, which serve as the
primary mechanism for controlling discharges of a particular pollutant into receiving
waters.
The California Ocean Plan was adopted by the California State Water Board in 1972
(most recently amended in 2005). The Ocean Plan establishes water quality objectives
and programs of implementation to achieve and maintain its objective of protecting
beneficial uses of the Pacific Ocean. In addition to the beneficial uses identified by the
NPDES Program, the following additional beneficial uses of the Pacific Ocean are
identified under the Ocean Plan: aesthetic enjoyment, mariculture (the cultivation of
marine organisms for food and other products in the open ocean), preservation and
enhancement of designated Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), fish
migration, fish spawning and shellfish harvesting, and industrial water supply.
The MRWPCAs existing NPDES permit meets all applicable NPDES program standards
and also implements the requirements of the Ocean Plan (Central Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board [RWQCB] 2008). The applicant is coordinating with MRWPCA
to have the NPDES permit amended to include the slant test well discharge. Mitigation
has been identified that requires any test water discharge to be permitted under a new or
modified NPDES permit and treated (if necessary) to meet all applicable NPDES and
Ocean Plan requirements. If the requisite NPDES permit authorization is not obtained,
the project would not be able to move forward.
Discharges consistent with the Ocean Plan are considered safe to marine species and
habitat. Water quality samples taken during exploratory borings at the CEMEX site
indicate that pumped water from the aquifers would meet applicable water quality
standards and would not need to be treated. Mitigation has been identified to ensure
compliance with the NPDES permit and Ocean Plan requirements prior to discharge of
pumped test water into the outfall (see BIO/mm-17).
Because available water quality information indicates that the pumped test waters would
be safe for discharge into the Pacific Ocean, the potential for adverse effects on marine
species or habitat is considered low. Mitigation has been included to ensure any
discharges would be in compliance with NPDES permit requirements and the Ocean
Plan. With implementation of this measure, the proposed discharge would not adversely
affect water quality or marine species in the project area.
Therefore, impacts to marine species would be less than significant with mitigation
described in BIO/mm-17.
Response to IV(b): Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by
the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and
Wildlife Service?
There is no riparian habitat in the project area. However, construction, operation,
maintenance, and decommissioning of the slant test well project would require
excavation, trenching, drilling, and heavy equipment access within coastal dune and
sandy beach habitat that support a variety of special-status species. The proposed project
has the potential to impact western snowy plover critical habitat at the western end of the
existing CEMEX access road, sensitive coastal dune habitat, and areas of Primary and
Secondary Habitat as defined by the Citys LCP. The project could also result in the
spread or introduction of invasive exotic plant species within the coastal dunes via
transport by construction equipment or operational vehicles or use of imported fill
material.
The western portion of the project area is located in CA 22, Monterey to Moss Landing
critical habitat unit for western snowy plover. Based on the adverse modification
determination included with the designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast
distinct population unit of the western snowy plover (77 FR 36727), there are five
activities that may affect critical habitat:
1. Management actions in snowy plover habitat;
2. Dredging and dredge spoil placement that permanently removes the essential
physical or biological features of the habitat;
3. Construction and maintenance of facilities that interfere with snowy plover
nesting, breeding, or foraging, or that result in increases in predation;
4. Stormwater and waste water discharge that could impact invertebrate abundance;
and
5. Flood control actions that alter the essential biological or physical features of the
habitat.
The project area encompasses approximately 0.62 acre of designated snowy plover
critical habitat at the western end of the CEMEX access road. Approximately 0.15 acre of
critical habitat within the construction footprint would be directly disturbed as a result of
excavation, trenching, and grading activities during project construction and
decommissioning. These activities could interfere with snowy plover nesting, breeding,
and foraging known to occur in this area. The above-ground features of the project (i.e.,
the electrical panel / sampling station, and monitoring well caps) could also provide new
perching locations for avian predators, resulting in increased predation. No flood control
actions, dredging or permanent removal of habitat is proposed. Additionally, as discussed
above, test water discharge would be subject to NPDES permit and Ocean Plan
requirements and is not expected to affect invertebrates or other marine species that serve
as a plover food source.
The project is not expected to alter essential physical and biological features to an extent
that appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for snowy plover
(Zander 2013). Mitigation is identified to minimize long-term or permanent impacts on
plover habitat, including minimizing the area of disturbance, installation of features (wire
excluders) on above-ground components to deter avian predators, consultation with Point
Blue biologists, construction during the plover non-nesting season, siting of the project in
existing disturbed areas within or adjacent to the active CEMEX access road to the extent
feasible, and re-contouring and restoration of disturbed areas upon completion of
construction and decommissioning. Restoration activities would be performed in
consultation with Point Blue, the City, and USFWS to ensure all essential physical and
biological features of the habitat are restored in areas of disturbed dunes and sandy beach,
including designated critical habitat areas. With implementation of these measures, no
long-term or permanent effects on sensitive habitat would occur.
The proposed project has the potential to result in impacts to Primary and Secondary
Habitat as defined by the LCP and identified in the Rare and Endangered Species Habitat
Assessment (SWCA 2014). While the proposed project has been designed to minimize
impacts to biological resources and associated habitat to the greatest extent feasible,
impacts could result from vegetation removal, grading, excavation, vehicle movements,
or construction of the slant test well or monitoring wells. Construction and
decommissioning activities could also result in erosion and hazardous material spills (i.e.,
fuel, oil, lubricants) in sensitive habitat areas.
The LCP does not prohibit development in Primary Habitat; however, all adverse effects
must be fully mitigated. The project area encompasses approximately 1.9 acre of Primary
Habitat and 0.68 acre of Secondary Habitat (SWCA 2014). Direct disturbance within the
construction footprint would include 0.26 and 0.45 acre of Primary and Secondary
Habitat respectively (refer to Figure 7). The proposed project would be located in existing
disturbed areas (predominantly within the CEMEX access road) to the greatest extent
feasible to reduce impacts to sensitive habitat. However, portions of the project area
located adjacent to the CEMEX access road and/or west of the proposed wellhead vault
are within identified Primary Habitat; therefore, any potential impacts must be mitigated.
Mitigation is identified below to reduce impacts to sensitive habitat, including
minimization of the area of disturbance, re-contouring and restoration of disturbed dune
and sandy beach habitat, an invasive species control program, siting of stockpiles and
construction staging areas outside of sensitive habitat, spill response and cleanup
measures, and consultation with Point Blue, the City, and USFWS. All surface areas
would be restored to their original condition upon completion of project construction and
no long-term changes in habitat within the project area would occur.
Therefore, impacts to terrestrial habitat would be less than significant with mitigation
described in BIO/mm-1 through BIO/mm-18.
Marine Environment
No in-water activities are proposed as part of the proposed slant test well project other
than test water discharge via the existing MRWPCA outfall pipe. Any such discharge
would be subject to NPDES permitting requirements and Ocean Plan water quality
standards, which have been established with the specific goal of maintaining the quality
of marine habitat, rare and endangered species habitat, and wildlife habitat within the
Pacific Ocean. Therefore, the potential for adverse effects to marine habitat would be
minimal. NOAA Fisheries was consulted regarding the potential for adverse effects to the
marine environment and EFH as a result of the proposed project. Because the project
would pump from a tidally influenced aquifer and discharges would be subject to the
requirements of a new or modified NPDES permit, NOAA Fisheries expressed that it had
no concerns related to fisheries and that an EFH Assessment was not necessary (email
and personal communications between Joyce Ambrosius, NOAA Fisheries, and Bridget
Hoover, MBNMS, August 22, 2013 to November 7, 2013).
Therefore, impacts to sensitive marine habitat would be less than significant.
Response to IV(c): Would the project 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?
The proposed project would include earthwork and drilling within approximately 300 feet
of the CEMEX dredging pond and 30 feet of the three settling ponds. Although these
ponds are man-made and used for coastal dependent industrial mining purposes, they
likely qualify as other waters by USACE and wetlands under the CCC definition.
No project activities are proposed within the boundaries of the dredging or settling ponds
and no direct removal or filling would occur. Currently, CEMEX traffic accesses the
western portion of the CEMEX site via an internal graded access road that passes along
the perimeter of the three settling ponds. Project activities within the roadway may force
CEMEX traffic out of the currently traveled roadbed onto the shoulder in closer
proximity to the ponds, potentially creating an increased risk of disturbance. However,
alternative access routes to the ponds exist and the applicant would consult with the
property owner to ensure project activities do not interrupt CEMEX operations. The
ponds do not support significant sensitive vegetation or habitat due to the level of
disturbance associated with their mining use, and the disturbance proposed adjacent to
the ponds would not be substantially different from existing CEMEX operations.
Exclusionary fencing along the boundary of the roadway in the vicinity of the ponds has
been included to ensure project activities do not force truck traffic north in closer
proximity to the ponds.
There is a potential that pumping activities could cause drawdown within the surrounding
areas of the aquifers, which could result in a lowering of water levels within the ponds.
Due to their mining use, the ponds currently experience extreme fluctuations in water
level, as water is frequently purged from the settling ponds to feed the dredge pond or
percolate back into the ground. The high level of activity within the pond prevents the
establishment of any substantial wetland vegetation, though isolated species do occur
within the banks of the ponds. If substantial drawdown did occur, it would be limited to
the maximum operational phase of 24 months. Drawdown for that duration would not
significantly impact any wetland species that exist in the vicinity of the ponds; those
plants would be expected to recover as water levels are restored after conclusion of the
pumping program. Due to the consistent fluctuations in water levels, drawdown of water
levels would not constitute a significant change from existing conditions.
The closest vernal pond (Vernal Pond Number 4) is located approximately 1 mile south
of the project area. Drawdown is expected to be limited to areas in the immediate vicinity
of the slant test well and is not expected to occur outside of the CEMEX parcel (refer to
Section 3.3 IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, below). Therefore, Vernal Pond Number 4
is not expected to experience any drawdown associated with the test pumping program.
The risk of impacts associated with drawdown would be low and resulting impacts would
be minimal.
Therefore, potential adverse effects on jurisdictional USACE other waters and CCC
wetlands would be less than significant with mitigation identified in BIO/mm-4 and
HYD/mm-1. Refer to Section 3.3 IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, for more detailed
analysis of the potential for drawdown as a result of pumping activities.
Marine Environment
The marine project area does not support federally or state protected wetlands; no
impacts would occur.
Response to IV(d): Would the project 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 native wildlife nursery sites?
The proposed project would be conducted in a relatively small footprint that is largely
located in previously disturbed areas. The ongoing disturbances in the area associated
with sand mining have been occurring for several decades. The long duration of the
ongoing mining activity has likely allowed the local terrestrial wildlife species to adapt
their movements around the disturbances. The proposed project would not create new
disturbances that would significantly interfere with local terrestrial wildlife movements,
because most structures associated with the project would be installed underground or
constructed in an underground vault. Use of native wildlife nursery sites for western
snowy plover would not be significantly impeded by the slant test well structures or
construction footprint. In addition, the project disturbance areas do not support rivers or
streams suitable for fish migration.
Therefore, potential adverse impacts associated with fish or wildlife movement corridors
Marine Environment
The project does not propose any in-water activity other than discharge of the test water,
which would be similar to existing MRWPCA discharges. The project would not result in
any the placement of any barriers or physical structures that could affect the movement of
marine species in-water or along the shoreline.
Therefore, impacts to the movement of marine species would be less than significant.
Response to IV(e): Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
As discussed in the Response to IV(b) above, the project is located is located among
sensitive natural resources that are afforded special protection in the Citys LCP. The
applicant has coordinated with the USFWS, CDFW, and NOAA Fisheries, and has
designed the project to utilize existing disturbed habitat areas and avoid existing
resources to the extent possible through construction timing and layout.
Development within Primary Habitat is not prohibited by the LCP, but effects must be
fully mitigated. The Rare and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment prepared for the
project (SWCA 2014) included an analysis of project consistency with applicable policies
in the Citys LCP and Zoning Ordinance. The project was found to be consistent with
LCP requirements as a result of the limited size and duration of disturbance and the
ability to restore habitat to its original condition after completion of construction
activities. The project would not interfere with the natural function of Primary Habitat or
affect sensitive wetlands. Disturbed areas would be restored after project construction,
potentially improving the quality of habitat in the project area. Mitigation has been
identified, including preparation of a Management and Restoration Plan, to further
minimize impacts to rare and endangered species consistent with LCP policies.
Therefore, the project would not be in conflict with any applicable policies protecting
biological resources or environmentally sensitive habitats and impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation described in BIO/mm-1 through BIO/mm-18.
Marine Environment
The project includes a discharge of pumped test waters into the Pacific Ocean via the
existing MRWPCA outfall. The discharge would not be substantially different from
existing outfall discharges and mitigation has been included to ensure compliance with
NPDES permit and Ocean Plan requirements prior to discharge.
Therefore, the project would not be in conflict with any applicable policies protecting
biological resources and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation
described in BIO/mm-17 and HYD/mm-1.
Response to IV(f): Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation
Plans that involve the CEMEX property or surrounding areas; however, the proposed
project area is within designated critical habitat for the western snowy plover. The
USFWS has prepared and currently implements Recovery Plans for western snowy
plover and its habitat in the project area. As discussed above, with implementation of
avoidance and minimization measures, significant impacts to the critical habitat are not
anticipated.
Therefore, no significant conflicts with the species Recovery Plans would occur and
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation described in BIO/mm-1 through
BIO/mm-18.
Marine Environment
The aquatic portions of the project site are located in the Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary. NOAA Fisheries and the MBNMS have adopted the Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary Management Plan, which includes 23 action plans. The majority of the
action plans are grouped into four main marine management themes: coastal
development, ecosystem protection, water quality, and wildlife disturbance. Because
impacts to marine species and their environment would be minimal as discussed in
Response to IV(a) and IV(b), above, the project would be consistent with the policies of
the National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan and related plans.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation described in
BIO/mm-17.
To minimize potential significant impacts to sensitive biological resources within and
surrounding the project area, the following mitigation measures would be implemented.
Preconstruction Surveys
BIO/mm-1 Prior to construction, the applicant shall retain a qualified biological
monitor(s), approved by the City, to ensure compliance with all
measures identified in the project environmental documents and
permits. Monitoring shall occur throughout the duration of
construction and decommissioning activities, or as directed by
relevant regulatory agencies. Monitoring may be reduced during
project operation, as determined through consultation with the City,
USFWS, and CDFW.
BIO/mm-2 A qualified biologist(s) shall conduct preconstruction surveys for
special-status species as described below.
a. Because of the dynamic nature of sand dunes and the tendency
for Monterey spineflower to establish in recently-disturbed
areas, surveys for Monterey spineflower and buckwheat (host
plant for Smiths blue butterfly) shall be conducted within all
project disturbance areas and within 20 feet of project
boundaries during the blooming period for the spineflower
(April-June) in the year prior to construction to identify and
record the most current known locations of these species in the
project vicinity. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified
botanist, and shall include collection of Global Positioning
System (GPS) data points for use during flagging of sensitive
plant species locations and avoidance buffers prior to
construction.
b. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted for special-status
species no more than 14 days prior to construction. If project
construction takes place during the avian nesting season
(February 15
th
through September 1
st
), the survey shall
encompass all suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet of the
project. Should active nests be identified, avoidance buffers
shall be established (250 feet for passerines and up to 500 feet
for raptors) until a qualified biologist can confirm that nesting
activities are complete. Variance from the no disturbance
buffers may be implemented when there is compelling
biological or ecological reason to do so. Any variance
requested by the applicant shall be supported with a written
statement by a qualified biologist and subject to City and
CDFW approval.
c. One to two weeks prior to initiation of construction and
decommissioning activities, a qualified biologist, in
consultation with Point Blue, shall field evaluate the nature
and extent of wintering snowy plover activity in the project
area and shall make avoidance recommendations regarding
construction activities to minimize disturbance to plovers. The
applicant shall comply with all Point Blue avoidance
recommendations.
d. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist(s) for California legless lizard and coast horned
lizard prior to disturbance of any suitable habitat. Surveys
shall utilize hand search methods in areas of disturbance
where these species are expected to be found (i.e., under
shrubs, other vegetation, or debris on sandy soils). Any
individuals located during the survey shall be safely removed
and relocated in suitable habitat outside of the proposed
disturbance area.
Environmental Awareness Training
BIO/mm-3 Prior to construction and decommissioning activities, a qualified
biologist shall conduct an environmental awareness training for all
construction personnel, which at a minimum shall include:
descriptions of the special-status species that have potential to occur
in the project area; their habitat requirements and life histories as
they relate to the project; the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures that will be implemented to avoid impacts to the species and
their habitats; the regulatory agencies and regulations that manage
their protection; and, consequences that may result from unauthorized
impacts or take of special-status species and their habitats. The
training shall include distribution of an environmental training
brochure, and collection of signatures from all attendees
acknowledging their participation in the training. Subsequent
trainings shall be provided by the qualified biologist as needed for
additional construction or operations workers through the life of the
project.
Project Workspace Boundary and Access Identification
BIO/mm-4 Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall coordinate with
construction crews to identify and mark the boundaries of project
disturbance, locations of special-status species and suitable habitat,
avoidance areas, and access routes. GPS data collected during
preconstruction surveys completed in 2012, 2013, and 2014 shall be
used to flag the known locations of Monterey spineflower and
buckwheat for avoidance during construction. Avoidance buffers shall
be established and flagged or fenced as necessary to avoid surface
disturbance or vegetation removal. The monitoring biologist shall fit
the placement of flags and fencing to minimize impacts to any sensitive
resources. At a minimum, the biologist shall direct the placement of
highly visible exclusion fencing (snow fence or similar) at the
following locations:
a. Around sensitive snowy plover habitat areas that do not
require regular access;
b. Areas along the northern edge of the CEMEX access road in
the vicinity of the settling ponds; and
c. In between the work area and any identified occurrence of
Monterey spineflower or buckwheat within 10 feet of the
existing access road or work area.
All delineated areas of temporary fencing shall be shown on grading
plans and shall remain in place and functional throughout the
duration of construction and decommissioning activities.
Biological Monitoring
BIO/mm-5 A qualified biologist(s) shall be present during all project construction
and decommissioning activities, and as needed during operational
activities as determined in accordance with BIO/mm-1, to monitor for
special-status species and to limit potential impacts to suitable habitat.
The biologist(s) shall monitor construction equipment access and shall
have authority to halt work activities, if the potential for impacts to
special-status species or habitat is identified, until the issue can be
resolved. The qualified biologist(s) shall immediately report any
observations of special-status species to the project applicant, the City
and any additional relevant regulatory agencies (CDFW, USFWS), as
necessary.
BIO/mm-6 During the operational phase, a qualified biologist shall consult with
Point Blue monitors on a weekly basis during the plover nesting
season to stay current with nesting activity in the vicinity of the slant
test well. If active plover nests are located within 250 feet of the
project or access routes, avoidance buffers shall be established to
minimize potential disturbance of nesting activity, and the biologist
shall coordinate with and accompany Cal Am operational staff as
necessary during the nesting season to guide access and activities to
avoid impacts to nesting plovers. The biologist shall contact the City
and USFWS immediately if a nest is found in areas near the wellhead
that could be affected by project operations. Operations shall be
immediately suspended until written authorization to proceed is
provided by USFWS.
BIO/mm-7 To ensure Point Blue has adequate staff and funding to complete
necessary monitoring and coordination throughout development and
operation of the slant test well project, Cal Am shall provide any
necessary funding to Point Blue in an amount agreed upon by Point
Blue and the applicant.
Construction Timing and Workspace Limits
BIO/mm-8 All construction and decommissioning activities shall be conducted
between October 1
st
and February 28
th
, outside of the blooming period
for Monterey spineflower, the active flight season for adult Smiths
blue butterflies and active larval stage of the species, and the nesting
season for western snowy plover and other avian species protected by
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Construction activities shall be
restricted to the designated construction areas and CEMEX access
road. No construction equipment, materials, or activity shall occur
outside of the specified areas. This measure shall be included on all
construction and grading plan sets.
BIO/mm-9 In order to minimize potential for vehicular collision with special-
status species, all construction, decommissioning, and operational
traffic shall maintain speeds of 10 miles per hour or less on access
roads within the CEMEX parcel. All personnel shall conduct a visual
inspection for special-status species around and under all vehicles
prior to moving them. This measure shall be included on all
construction and grading plan sets.
Construction Noise and Visual Disturbance Attenuation
BIO/mm-10 Noise blankets shall be installed to provide visual and sound
attenuation during all drilling operations to minimize potential
disturbance of wintering western snowy plover. This measure shall be
included on all construction and grading plan sets.
Special-status Species Predator Avoidance
BIO/mm-11 Wire excluders or similar anti-perching devices shall be incorporated
into the top of all aboveground structures (e.g., electrical panel) to
deter perching by avian predators. This measure shall be included on
all construction and grading plan sets.
BIO/mm-12 Construction personnel shall be required to keep all food-related trash
items in sealed containers and remove them daily to discourage the
Following construction, all trash and construction debris shall be
removed from work areas and properly disposed of at a certified
landfill. All vegetation removed from the construction site shall be
taken to a certified landfill to prevent the spread of invasive species.
This measure shall be included on all construction and grading plan
sets.
Project Area Restoration
BIO/mm-13 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall develop a
Restoration Management Plan (Plan) consistent with the requirements
of the City of Marina LCP. At a minimum, the Plan shall include a
description of the following methods and metrics: ratios of plants to be
replaced based on a minimum replacement of 3:1, or as otherwise
directed by regulatory agencies; areas of habitat to be restored, which
shall at minimum include all areas of temporary disturbance in
identified Primary or Secondary Habitat, except for areas actively
used by CEMEX for mining purposes; timing of restoration activities;
monitoring of restoration success; and any required reporting to
relevant agencies. The Plan shall also include all relevant conditions
of approval or requirements related to site restoration from permits
issued by regulatory agencies for the project. The applicant shall seek
input and/or review of the Plan from relevant regulatory agencies
prior to finalization, including at a minimum the City, USFWS,
CDFW, and CCC. The Plan shall be implemented: 1) during and
immediately following construction and prior to operation of the test
well, and 2) during and immediately following decommissioning
activities.
BIO/mm-14 After construction, all disturbed areas shall be restored and
revegetated to preconstruction contours and conditions to the extent
feasible, in accordance with the Restoration Management Plan.
Following decommissioning of the test well, all disturbed areas shall
be re-contoured and revegetated as determined necessary and in
coordination with applicable agencies and representatives of Point
Blue to ensure that the optimum ground configuration is obtained for
potential nesting plovers and other special-status species that may
occur in the area.
BIO/mm-15 To ensure that restoration efforts are successful and unanticipated
events are expeditiously managed, restored areas shall be monitored
following planting and during operation of the test well and for 5
years following planting and decommissioning of the test well. Success
criteria will include plant cover and species composition/diversity,
which shall meet or exceed adjacent undisturbed dune habitat on the
CEMEX parcel as determined by the biological monitor. Success
criteria shall, at a minimum, be consistent with the requirements of the
existing Lapis Revegetation Plan prepared for the RMC Lonestar
Lapis Sand Plant (25 percent average vegetative cover and species
diversity of all species listed in Group A of the Plan present and
providing at least 1 percent cover).
Invasive Species Control
BIO/mm-16 During construction and decommissioning activities, the biological
monitor(s) shall ensure that the spread or introduction of invasive
plant species is avoided to the maximum extent possible through the
following measures, which shall be included in all construction and
grading plan sets:
a. When practicable, invasive exotic plants in the project area
shall be removed and properly disposed of at a certified
landfill.
b. The use of imported soils for fill shall be limited to the greatest
extent feasible. Soils currently existing on-site shall be used for
fill material to the extent feasible. If the use of imported fill
material is necessary, the imported material must be obtained
from a source that is known to be free of invasive plant species,
or the material must consist of purchased clean material.
c. The Restoration Management Plan shall include an invasive
species control program to be implemented throughout the
duration of the project and shall emphasize the use of native
species expected to occur in the area.
Water Quality Control
BIO/mm-17 Prior to operation of the test well and any discharge of pumped test
water into the Pacific Ocean, the project applicant shall provide the
City with a valid NPDES permit or other RWQCB approval for the
proposed slant test well discharge. The NPDES permit or approval
shall incorporate all relevant standards of the California Ocean Plan.
Erosion and Hazardous Spill Avoidance
BIO/mm-18 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a
grading plan identifying all stockpile and staging areas. Stockpiles
and staging areas shall not be placed in areas that have potential to
experience significant runoff during the rainy season. All project-
related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to project sites
shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill prevention and cleanup
materials shall be on-site at all times during construction. Cleaning
and refueling of equipment and vehicles shall occur only within
designated staging areas. The staging areas shall conform to standard
Best Management Practices (BMPs) applicable to attaining zero
discharge of storm water runoff. No maintenance, cleaning or fueling
of equipment shall occur within Primary or Secondary Habitat areas,
or within 50 feet of such areas. At a minimum, all equipment and
vehicles shall be checked and maintained on a daily basis to ensure
proper operation and to avoid potential leaks or spills. The grading
plan shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Marina.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts to biological resources would
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

(a) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource
as defined in section 15064.5 of the
CEQA Guidelines?

(b) Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an archaeological
resource pursuant to section 15064.5 of
the CEQA Guidelines?

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

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

This evaluation of potential project effects on cultural resources is based on the Cultural
Resources Survey Report for the California American Water Slant Test Well Project,
City of Marina, Monterey County, California (SWCA 2014), and site investigations
conducted by SWCA on November 13, 2013, and March 4, 2014. The Cultural Resources
Survey Report is included as Appendix C.
Setting
The project area is within the traditional boundaries of the Mutsun sub-group of the
Costanoan people, who occupied the region during the Late Period (A.D. 1300-1769).
According to historic accounts, the kalenta ruk tribelet of the Mutsun branch occupied the
Monterey Peninsula near the project area. The Spanish designation for this tribelet was
San Carlos. Mutsun speakers occupied the lands inland from the coast around the Pajaro
and upper Salinas rivers, and numbered approximately 2,700 in 1770. The rich resources
of the ocean, bays, valleys, and mountains provided Ohlone-speaking peoples with food
and all their material needs.
The Native American population in this region came into contact with European culture
at the beginning of Spains land exploration and settlement in A.D. 1769. Traditional
lifeways were altered drastically during the late 1700s to early 1800s when the Spanish
placed their capital at Monterey, built forts at Monterey and San Francisco, and
established seven Franciscan missions to convert native peoples to Christianity and the
European way of life. Large-scale epidemics swept through the mission population and
remaining villages. It is estimated that the combined Costonoan population fell from a
pre-contact total of 10,000 down to 2,000 by the end of the mission period in 1834.
The City of Marina General Plan identifies areas of high archaeological sensitivity as the
terraces and beaches along the Salinas River, the peripheries of vernal ponds, and coastal
beaches.
The project area is located within a sand mining facility that has been in operation since
1906. Numerous structures and equipment at the CEMEX parcel are more than 50 years
old. The Cultural Resources Survey Report prepared for the project identified the Lapis
Sand Mining Plant as a historic district eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR as
one of the earliest and remaining sand mining operations in the southern Monterey Bay.
The Lapis Sand Mining Plant was established in 1906 by the E.B. and A.L. Stone
Company. The Oakland, California based construction firm believed the sand from the
surrounding dunes to be ideal for concrete production and needed a steady supply of the
building material in the aftermath of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and subsequent
fires. The Stone Company purchased the land from John A. Armstrong, an early settler
and rancher who sold the company 400 acres at $2 per acre with the stipulation that a
fence be built to keep his cattle out of the sand dunes. Initial development of the plant
included the construction of a small superintendents residence and the Lapis Siding, a
rail line which connected to the Southern Pacific Monterey Branch mainline rail. Using a
locomotive crane, sand was scooped by dragline or crane directly into railroad cars and
shipped to the San Francisco Bay Area with little or no processing.
The historic district with nine contributing built environment resources were identified,
recorded, and evaluated in the Cultural Resources Survey Report (SWCA 2014). The
Lapis Sand Mining Plant historic district includes the following contributors: Sorting
Plant, Washing Plant, Canal Flume, Lapis Siding, Superintendents Residence,
Bunkhouse, Garage/Office, Maintenance Shop, and Scale House. There are a number of
small ancillary buildings spread throughout the property that are associated with the
above-mentioned resources. In addition there are a number of settling ponds and a
dredging pond that were initially developed as part of the modernization of the facility in
1959-60. The geographic boundaries and location of these features have frequently
shifted since their initial development. According to historic photographs, the current
dredging boat and crane that floats atop the dredging pond was put into operation
sometime after 1966.
Cultural resources are present within the offshore marine environment as well, and are
protected by MBNMS regulations. Archeologists estimate approximately 1,276 reported
vessel (shipwrecks or aircraft) losses within the waters of the MBNMS, and 718
prehistoric sites along its shores (MBNMS 2014).
Impact Discussion
Response to V(a): Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in section
15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 defines a historical resource as (among other
things) a resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historic Resources (CRHR).
The eastern portion of the project area includes seven contributors to the Lapis Sand
Mining Plant historic district: Superintendents Residence, Bunkhouse, Office/Garage,
Maintenance Shop, Lapis Siding, Canal Flume, and Scale House. The proposed project
includes drilling and ground disturbance using mechanical equipment in proximity to
these resources. Trenching and directional horizontal drilling is proposed in an area
through which the Lapis Siding extends. As proposed, development of the project would
result in direct damage or removal of the Siding, causing a significant impact on an
historic district contributor. There is adequate room in adjacent areas to complete all
proposed construction activities and avoid direct impacts to the Siding and all other
structures.
The proximity of other contributing resources to the earthmoving activities associated
with the project would leave them potentially vulnerable during project construction and
decommissioning. Accidental contact with mechanized equipment could cause damage to
the buildings, resulting in a loss of historic integrity and an adverse effect to historic
properties. Given the industrial nature of the property, these activities would generally be
consistent with the ongoing mining activities at the site, and are not anticipated to
substantially increase existing noise or vibration levels which could adversely affect
historic resources. The project is also not anticipated to have any visual effects to the
historic district, as the slant test well and related components would largely be below
ground. Mitigation has been included in order to reduce impacts to historic properties
during construction and/or decommissioning activities.
Due to the limited nature of the proposed construction activities, and because the project
components would largely be placed below ground surface and would be virtually
undetectable off-site, no significant effect to historic resources would occur after
implementation of appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures.
Therefore, potential adverse effects on historic resources would be less than significant
with mitigation identified in CR/mm-1.
Response to V(b): Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to section
15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines?
The project area has been extensively surveyed for archaeological resources and no
resources have been identified within the project area. However, the coastal region of
Monterey County is considered highly sensitive with respect to archaeological resources
due to the numerous resources that were commonly exploited by Native Americans
throughout prehistory. Geologic mapping by Dibblee (1998) indicates that the project site
is immediately underlain by younger Quaternary alluvial deposits of Holocene age, which
have the potential to contain archaeological resources. The historic use of the Lapis Sand
Mining Plant may have generated archaeological deposits as well, including refuse pits
and buried foundations. For these reasons, the project area should be treated as
potentially sensitive for the presence of both prehistoric and historic archaeological
resources. The area of greatest sensitivity is the eastern end of the direct APE that
contains the buildings associated with the historic district. This area was subject to less
ground disturbance related to sand mining than the rest of the project area, and it is more
likely to contain buried historic archaeological features due to the proximity of the extant
historic buildings.
Mitigation has been included requiring all proposed disturbance activities to be
conducted in coordination with a qualified archaeologist and monitored as necessary to
ensure no unknown subsurface archaeological resources are disturbed. With
implementation of these measures, the potential for significant adverse impacts to
archaeological resources would be low.
Therefore, potential adverse effects on archaeological resources would be less than
significant with mitigation identified in CR/mm-2 and CR/mm-3.
Response to V(c): Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Fossils are generally found in geologic deposits of sedimentary rock (i.e., sandstone,
siltstone, mudstone, claystone, or shale) and are generally regarded as older than 10,000
years (the generally accepted boundary marking the end of the last Pleistocene glacial
event and the beginning of the current period of climatic amelioration of the Holocene).
Sedimentary deposits are generally necessary for fossil preservation to adequately isolate
and preserve the organism from destructive chemical and physical processes.
The project site is underlain by eolian (wind-deposited or wind-formed) sand, referred to
as the Flandrian and Pre-Flandrian dune complexes, as well as sand deposited by ocean
wave action. There are no unique geologic features within the project area (other than the
dune complex, which is addressed in Section 3.3 IV, Biological Resources, above) and
the potential for paleontological resources to exist in eolian deposits is very low. Deeper
sub-surface sediments through which the slant test well and monitoring wells would
extend may have increased potential for containing fossils or other paleontological
resources; however, due to the limited nature of activities proposed at these depths
(drilling of the 22-inch diameter slant test well and 4-inch diameter monitoring wells) the
potential for impacts would be low.
Soil borings taken at the project area indicate that sub-surface sediments in the vicinity of
the project area are generally composed of dune sand to a depth of 35 to 36 feet below
surface grade, and underlying layers of Pleistocene-age fluvial and estuarine deposits of
Quaternary Valley Fill, Pleistocene-age Quaternary Aromas Sand, and Plio-Pliestocene-
age Quaternary Paso Robles Formation beyond that to the maximum depth of the boring
(306 feet below surface grade). Based on the report, Pleistocene age deposits exist below
the sand dune depth of approximately 35 to 36 feet.
The deeper portions of the wells would enter geologic units with the potential to contain
Pleistocene-aged fossils; however, because the majority of project disturbance would
occur at depths that are unlikely to contain fossils, the potential for impacting a
paleontological resource is considered negligible. Although not specifically defined by
CEQA, application of the related definition of a unique archaeological resource would
mean the resource would not merely add to the current body of knowledge, but would
have a high probability of: (1) containing information needed to answer important
scientific research questions in which there is demonstrable public interest in; (2) having
a special and particular quality such as being the oldest or the best available example of
its type; or (3) being directly associated with a scientifically recognized important
prehistoric event (California Public Resources Code Section 21083.2). The discovery and
recovery of any unique paleontological resources within the area of disturbance is very
low because of the depth, area, and type of disturbance within the Pleistocene deposits.
Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant.
Response to V(d): Would the project disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No human remains are known to exist at the CEMEX site, and the likelihood for
unknown remains to exist is very low in areas of previous mining activity. In addition,
based on the archaeological survey, there is no evidence indicating presence of burial
sites within the affected area. However, the discovery of unknown human remains is
always a possibility during ground disturbances. Protocol for properly responding to the
inadvertent discovery of human remains is identified in the State of California Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5. This code section states that no further disturbance shall
occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be
notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric,
the Coroner will notify the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC),
which will determine and notify a most likely descendant. The potential for discovery of
unknown buried human remains at the site is low, and compliance with existing state law
requirements would minimize adverse impacts.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with the disturbance of human remains would be
less than significant with mitigation identified in CR/mm-4.
To minimize potential impacts from disturbance of historic and archaeological resources,
the following measures would be implemented.
CR/mm-1 The project shall be redesigned to avoid significant adverse effects to
historic resources; in particular, direct impacts to the Lapis Siding
that is identified as a contributor to the Lapis Sand Mining Plant
Historic District shall be avoided. Because the Siding extends through
the eastern portion of the construction footprint, the construction plans
shall be redesigned to locate all project components and construction
activities in adjacent areas that do not contain structures associated
with the Lapis Sand Mining Plant historic district. Avoidance of
impacts to historic district contributors in close proximity to
construction activities shall be accomplished by installing flagging or
safety fencing around, or covering with plywood, any adjacent
buildings or structures that are within 5 feet of mechanized equipment.
CR/mm-2 A qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interiors
professional qualifications standards in archaeology (National Park
Service 1983) shall be retained to provide archaeological services for
the project. Archaeological services for the project shall at minimum
include the following:
a. Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, an
archaeological monitor working under the direction of the
qualified archaeologist shall conduct a brief awareness
training session for all construction workers and supervisory
personnel. The training shall explain the importance of and
legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological
resources. Each worker should learn the proper procedures to
follow in the event that cultural resources or human
remains/burials are uncovered during ground-disturbing
activities, including those that occur when an archaeological
monitor is not present. These procedures include work
curtailment or redirection and the immediate contact of the site
supervisor and the archaeological monitor. It is recommended
that this worker education session include visual images or
samples of artifacts that might be found in the project vicinity,
and that the session take place on-site immediately prior to the
start of ground-disturbing activities.
b. An archaeological monitor working under the direction of the
qualified archaeologist shall monitor all ground disturbance in
areas within 100 feet of the historic buildings within the
eastern portion of the project area. These include the
Superintendents Residence, Bunkhouse, Garage/Office,
Maintenance Shop, and Scale House. The timing and duration
of the monitoring may be adjusted during project
implementation by the qualified archaeologist, in consultation
with the City, whose decision shall be informed by the apparent
sensitivity of the sediments in the project area once they are
exposed.
CR/mm-3 In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are
exposed during ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in
the immediate vicinity (25 feet) of the discovery shall be halted while
the resources are evaluated for significance by the qualified
archaeologist. Construction activities could continue in other areas. If
the discovery proves to be significant, additional work, such as
archaeological data recovery or project redesign, may be warranted
and would be discussed in consultation with the City.
CR-mm-4 In the event of inadvertent discovery of human remains, no further
disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner shall be notified of the
find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be
prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant
(MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48
hours of notification, and may recommend scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with
Native American burials. The California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 process shall be noted on project grading and
construction plans and reviewed during the construction worker
awareness training session.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts to cultural resources would be
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VI. 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:

(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)

(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?

(iv) Landslides?
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

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

(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?

(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?

(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?

This evaluation of potential project effects associated with geology and soils is based on
the Geotechnical Investigation for the California American Water Temporary Slant Test
Well Project, Marina, Monterey County, California (GeoSoils, Inc. 2014). The
Geotechnical Investigation utilized subsurface evaluation performed by and soil logs
provided by Geoscience in March 2014. These studies are included as Appendix D.
Setting
Regional Geology
The project area is situated near the southerly margin of the northwesterly reach of the
Salinas River Valley. The Salinas River Valley is located within the southern sub-
province of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California (GeoSoils 2014). This
sub-province extends south of San Francisco Bay to the Santa Ynez River. The Coast
Ranges geomorphic province consists of many elongate mountain ranges and narrow
valleys that extend approximately 600 miles from the California/Oregon border to the
Santa Ynez River (approximately 150 miles south of the project area). These landforms
are generally oriented parallel the coastline, the result of northwest-trending strike-slip
faulting within the region.
On-site Soils
The project area is predominantly comprised of dune land (Df), with the easternmost 400
feet containing Baywood sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes (BbC) (refer to Figure 5, Farmland
Map). The project area also includes small areas of Coastal Beaches (Cm) near the
shoreline, water (W) at a pond location north of the CEMEX access road, and Oceano
loamy sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes (OaD) near the entrance to the CEMEX facility. All
surface disturbance would occur in dune land or Baywood sand (although the slant test
well would extend subsurface through Coastal Beaches). These soils are described below:
Dune land dune land consists of gently sloping to steep areas of loose wind-
deposited quartz and feldspar sand on hummocks, mounds, and hills. Some dunes
are partly stabilized by coastal or inland vegetation, and others are blowing,
shifting, and/or encroaching onto adjacent lands. Drainage is excessive and
permeability is rapid in dune land. Runoff is very slow or slow and the risk of soil
blowing is high or very high. Dune land is used predominantly for recreation and
some wildlife habitat.
Baywood sand Baywood sand is a gently sloping to rolling soil on stabilized
sand dunes. Permeability is rapid and runoff is slow to medium. The erosion
hazard is slight to moderate, but if vegetative cover is removed, the soil is subject
to soil blowing and water erosion. Baywood sand in Monterey County were
predominantly limited to military uses at former Fort Ord, but they have limited
use for grazing and browsing wildlife as well.
Coastal Beaches coastal beaches occurs on narrow sandy beaches and adjacent
sand dunes. It is partly covered by water during high tides and is exposed during
low tides. Drainage is excessive to very poor and permeability is very rapid.
Runoff is slow, but the erosion hazard is very high because of wind and wave
action. Coastal beaches are uses predominantly for recreation.
Oceano loamy sand Oceano loamy sand is an undulating to rolling soil on eolian
dunelike hills. Permeability is rapid. Runoff is slow to medium, and the erosion
hazard is slight to moderate. This soil is used mostly for range.
Faults and Seismic Setting
The entire Monterey Bay area is located within a seismically active area; however, there
are no known active faults within the immediate proximity of the project site. The closest
Alquist-Priolo zoned fault is the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 18 miles
northeast of the project site. The largest known earthquake on the San Andreas Fault was
a magnitude 8.3 earthquake that occurred on April 18, 1906. Additional known active
faults in the project vicinity include the Reliz Fault, Rinconada Fault, Monterey Bay
Fault, Palo Colorado Fault, Navy Fault, Chupines Fault, and Vergeles Fault, all located
within approximately 15 miles or less of the project site. The closest is the Blanco section
of the Reliz Fault Zone, located approximately 830 feet northeast of the project site
(GeoSoils 2014).
The maximum horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site was estimated
using the EQFAULT program (a computer program that determines seismic hazards
using digitized California faults as earthquake sources). The maximum horizontal ground
acceleration is used to determine what design parameters in the California Building Code
(CBC) should be utilized for the project. Conformance with corresponding CBC criteria
for seismic design does not constitute a guarantee or assurance that significant structural
damage, ground failure, or surface manifestations will not occur in the event of a large
earthquake in the region. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to
eliminate all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
Impact Discussion
Response to VI(a): Would the project expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving: (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); (ii)
strong seismic ground shaking; (iii) Seismic-related ground
failure, including liquefaction; (iv) Landslides?
Rupture of a Known Earthquake Fault
The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and no
known active faults transect the project area. Thus, the potential for surface fault rupture
is considered very low.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with surface rupture would be less than
significant.
Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Because of the short-term nature of the project, the likelihood of a major earthquake
occurring during the 2 to 3-year lifetime of the proposed project is substantially reduced.
However, should one occur, the project would be situated in an area of high to very high
seismic risk. Risks would be generally limited to structural damage to the proposed slant
test well and/or related infrastructure, as the project does not include habitable or
occupied structures. Risk of injury or death would be low.
Compliance with CBC and other applicable standards would typically indicate that risks
to people and structures, including those associated with seismic instability, were
properly safeguarded against. A geotechnical investigation has been conducted, which
includes a site specific seismic evaluation of the project site and recommends additional
engineering techniques that should be incorporated into the project design (GeoSoils
2014). Through compliance with the CBC and recommendations in the Geotechnical
Investigation, the structural components of the project would be designed to withstand
anticipated seismic and geologic stresses according to current established engineering
practices. Mitigation is identified to ensure project compliance with these standards.
Therefore, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than
significant with mitigation described in GEO/mm-1.
Seismic-related Ground Failure, Including Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon where earthquake-induced ground motion causes
relatively cohesionless (saturated or partially saturated) soil to lose strength and stiffness,
causing it to act like a liquid. One of the primary factors controlling the potential for
liquefaction is depth to groundwater. Liquefaction only occurs below the water table, but
after it occurs, it can propagate upward into overlying non-saturated soil. Geotechnical
analysis of the project area indicates that the site has a moderate potential for liquefaction
in two layers at approximate depths between 26 and 28 feet below ground surface (bgs)
and 42 and 48 feet bgs (GeoSoils 2014).
Given the potential for liquefaction, the project area is also susceptible to liquefaction-
induced settlement. The anticipated total ground surface settlement potential was
determined to be approximately 1.5 to 3 inches, with a differential settlement of
approximately 0.75 to 2 inches over a 50-foot horizontal span (GeoSoils 2014).
Risk of injury or death would be low as minimal human presence would occur. The
project would be designed to tolerate the identified extent of settlement potential (i.e.,
through emergency shut off mechanisms, flexible connections, and the ability to
accommodate the vertical and lateral movement in the well shaft) with implementation of
identified mitigation.
Therefore, impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure would be less than
significant with mitigation described in GEO/mm-1.
Landslides
The project area is located within a sand dune complex comprised of relatively dry,
cohesionless, and poorly consolidated sands near the surface. Sloughing is expected to
occur on dune slopes until the angle of repose (the steepest angle of relative to the
horizontal plane to which a material can be piled without sliding) is reached (likely 30 to
35 degrees from horizontal).
Risk of injury or death would be low as minimal human presence would occur.
Recommendations to protect against dune sloughing are included in the Geotechnical
Investigation to further minimize risk to structures.
Therefore, impacts associated with landslides would be less than significant with
mitigation described in GEO/mm-1.
Response to VI(b): Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
The wind and/or water erosion potential is high or very high for Dune land and coastal
beaches and slight to moderate for Baywood sand and Oceano loamy sand. The proposed
project would require earthmoving activities, grading and excavation that would
potentially create increased water runoff, de-stabilization of soils, steepened slopes, and
removal of vegetation, all of which could lead to increased surface runoff and soil
erosion. In areas of disturbance adjacent to dune slopes, sliding or shifting of sand would
likely occur until the critical angle of repose if met, as discussed above (see Landslides).
The project does not involve extensive hillside grading or other components that would
significantly increase soil erosion. Recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation
are identified to reduce the potential for dune sloughing, and excavated areas would be
backfilled with previously-excavated material and restored to their original contour,
thereby reducing long-term impacts.
Therefore, impacts associated with soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than
significant with mitigation described in GEO/mm-1 and BIO/mm-13 through BIO/mm-
15.
Response to VI(c): Would the project 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?
The Geotechnical Investigation identifies the majority of the project site as within the
surficial sediment of Quaternary dune deposits (Qd) loose dune sand and drift sand.
The easternmost portion of the site is within older surficial sediments of Quaternary older
dune deposits (Qod) older stabilized dune and drift sand. These units and on-site soils
are susceptible to liquefaction, settlement, dune sloughing, and lateral spreading.
According to the Monterey County 2007 General Plan, groundwater extraction is one of
the principal causes of subsidence in Monterey County, as a result of cumulative
drawdown of the groundwater table. But, the General Plan also indicates that there is
limited documented evidence of regional subsidence. As discussed in Section 3.3 IX,
Hydrology and Water Quality, below, a significant drawdown is not expected, and the
project is not expected to generate a substantial risk of subsidence. Any minimal
subsidence would likely occur incrementally and would not manifest at the project site
under controlled withdrawal conditions.
Although located in an identified area of geologic instability, the project does not propose
the development of habitable structures that would be subject to a risk of failure or
collapse in the event of unstable geologic conditions or activity. The risk of damage to
sub-surface structures would be minimized to less than significant levels through
compliance with all recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation and standards of
the CBC.
Therefore, impacts associated with geologic stability would be less than significant with
mitigation described in GEO/mm-1.
Response to VI(d): Would the project 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?
Soils in the project area include Dune land, Coastal beaches, Oceano loamy sand, and
Baywood sand. These soil units generally have very limited clay content, and therefore
low potential for expansion. In addition, the project does not include any habitable
structures; therefore the project would not create a risk to life.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than
significant.
Response to VI(e): Would the project 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?
The project does not propose the installation or use of any septic tanks or other on-site
wastewater disposal systems. Portable restroom and hand washing facilities would be
used during construction and decommissioning activities. Pumped water would be
discharged into the Pacific Ocean and would not implicate on-site soils.
Therefore, impacts associated with the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater
disposal systems would be less than significant.
To minimize potential impacts associated with geologic and seismic hazards, the
following measures would be implemented.
GEO/mm-1 The project shall be designed to meet or exceed all applicable
requirements of the CBC. Design and construction of the project shall
meet or exceed all conclusions and recommendations in the
Geotechnical Investigation for the California American Water
Temporary Slant Test Well Project, Marina, Monterey County,
California, dated April 3, 2014 (GeoSoils 2014), including the
following:
a. Concrete mixes for structural members shall conform to
Exposure Class C2 in Table 4.3.1 of ACI 318.
b. An allowable vertical bearing value of 2,000 pounds per
square foot (psf) shall be used in the design of a wellhead
vault, which shall be supported on engineered fill materials
prepared and compacted in accordance with the
recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation. The
bearing value shall be increased by 20 percent for each
additional 12 inches in wellhead vault depth to a maximum
vertical allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf.
c. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.25 coefficient of friction
shall be utilized for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied
by the dead load.
d. Passive earth pressure shall be computed as an equivalent
fluid having a density of 150 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with a
maximum earth pressure of 1,500 psf.
e. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the
passive pressure component shall be reduced by one-third.
f. The upper 6 inches of passive pressure shall not be utilized in
the foundation design if footings are not confined by slabs or
pavement.
g. Structures shall be engineered to withstand preliminary
settlements under the design-level earthquake of 1.5 to 3 inches
with a potential differential settlement of 0.75 inch to 2 inches
over a 50-foot horizontal span (i.e., angular distortions of
approximately 1/800 to 1/300).
h. Lateral earth pressures shall be consistent with the following.

If wellhead vault walls are designed for select backfill
conditions, native soils shall be kept below a 1:1 (h:v)
projection up from the heel of the wall footing.
i. Subdrains for wellhead vault walls shall minimally consist of a
4-inch perforated, Schedule 40 or SDR 35 drain pipe (with
perforations oriented down), encased in 1 cubic foot of clean,
crushed 0.75-inch to 1.5-inch gravel and wrapped in filter
fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent). The subdrain
shall flow via gravity (minimum 1 percent fall) to an approved
drainage facility as evaluated by the project civil engineer.
j. Should wellhead vault walls retain more than 6 feet of earth
materials, as measured vertically from the bottom of the wall
footing at the heel to daylight , the walls shall be evaluated for
a seismic surcharge (in general accordance with 2013 CBC
requirements). Walls in this category shall maintain an
overturning Factor-of-Safety (FOS) of approximately 1.25
when the seismic surcharge (increment) is applied. For
restrained walls, the seismic surcharge shall be applied as a
rectangular load distribution from the bottom of the footing
(excluding shear keys) to the top of the backfill at the heel of
the wall footing. For cantilevered walls, the pressure shall be
applied as an inverted triangular distribution. This seismic
surcharge pressure (seismic increment) may be taken as 12H
where "H" for walls is the dimension previously noted as the
height of the backfill to the bottom of the footing. The resultant
force shall be applied at a distance 0.6 H up from the bottom of
the footing. For the evaluation of the seismic surcharge, the
bearing pressure may exceed the static value by one-third,
considering the transient nature of this surcharge.
k. Actual slab thickness and steel reinforcement shall be provided
by the project structural engineering based on use and project
loading requirements. From a geotechnical standpoint, the
concrete slab-on-grade floor for the wellhead vault shall be a
minimum of 4.5 inches thick and be minimally reinforced with
No. 3 steel reinforcement bars placed at 18 inches on center in
two perpendicular directions. The steel reinforcement shall be
placed in the middle of the slab and supported on chairs.
Hooking of steel reinforcement shall not be permitted.
Concrete slab-on-grade floors shall be constructed on very low
expansive (E.I. < 21 and PI < 15) subgrade materials that
have been prepared in accordance with the recommendations
in the Geotechnical Investigation.
l. All grading shall conform to the guidelines presented in the
2013 CBC (CBSC 2013) and the City of Marina, except where
specifically superseded herein. When code references are not
equivalent, the more stringent code shall be followed.
m. During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the
general grading procedures of the contractor shall be observed
and the fill selectively tested by the geotechnical consultant. If
unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they
shall be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant. All
applicable requirements of local and national construction and
general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and
Health Act (OSHA), and the Construction Safety Act shall be
met.
n. Prior to grading, a meeting shall be held between the
applicant, the project civil and geotechnical consultants, and
the grading contractor so that clarifications or amendments to
earthwork recommendations can be provided (if necessary)
and to review the earthwork schedule.
o. The contractor shall take precautionary measures to protect
work, especially during the rainy season. Failure to do so may
result in additional remedial earthwork.
p. Organic material and/or miscellaneous debris shall be
removed from the areas of proposed grading prior to the start
of work.
q. Any previous foundations, existing underground utilities, or
other subsurface structures uncovered during the
recommended remedial excavations shall be observed by the
applicants geotechnical consultant so that appropriate
recommendations can be provided (if necessary).
r. Cavities or loose soils remaining after demolition and site
clearance shall be cleaned out and observed by the
geotechnical consultant. The cavities shall be replaced with fill
materials that have been moisture conditioned to at least
optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent
of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557).
s. Due to the susceptibility of the site to undergo seismic
(dynamic) settlement during the design earthquake and to
mitigate compression of low-density, near-surface dune
deposits, the upper 10 feet of the surficial earth materials shall
be removed where settlement-sensitive improvements are
proposed. The removed soils may be reused as engineered fill
provided the major concentrations of organic and deleterious
material have been removed prior to placement. Remedial
grading excavations shall be completed below a 1:1 (h:v)
projection down from the bottom, outboard edge of the
wellhead vault and the spring line of any underground utilities.
Remedial grading excavations shall be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant. If significantly loose/compressible
soils are exposed at the bottom of remedial grading
excavations, deeper removals may be necessary. Once
approved by the geotechnical consultant, the bottom of the
remedial grading excavations shall be scarified, thoroughly
wetted, and recompacted with vibratory compaction
equipment.
t. Fill materials shall be cleansed of major vegetation and debris
prior to placement.
u. At a minimum, fill materials located below a 1:1 (h:v)
projection down from the bottom, outboard edge of the
wellhead vault or spring line of underground utilities that
intersects with the bottom of the remedial grading excavation
shall be moisture conditioned and mixed to achieve the soils
optimum moisture content, placed in relatively thin (i.e., 6- to
8-inch) lifts, and then recompacted to at least 90 percent of the
laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Wellhead vault wall and
underground utility trench backfills shall be placed under
similar methods. In order to enhance performance under the
design-level earthquake, the compaction of the fill materials
supporting the wellhead vault and underground utilities, as
well as wellhead vault wall backfill may be increased to 95
percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Additional
increased performance of the wellhead vault, underground
utilities, and wellhead vault walls under the design earthquake
may include the use of soil cement. This would involve mixing
fill soils supporting the wellhead vault and underground
utilities as well as wellhead vault wall backfill with cement
introduced at 6 percent by weight.
v. The maximum to minimum fill thickness beneath the wellhead
vault shall not exceed a ratio of 3:1 (maximum:minimum).
Based on the conditions exposed during construction, this may
require some over-excavation of the underlying earth
materials.
w. Any oversized rock materials or concrete debris greater than 4
inches in any dimension shall not be placed in engineered fills.
Oversize constituents shall be removed and replaced with
acceptable-sized materials or be reduced to acceptable size
and re-used in the fill.
x. If necessary, any import materials shall be observed and
evaluated for suitability by the geotechnical consultant prior to
placement on the site. At least 3 business days of lead time
shall be allowed by builders or contractors for proposed
import submittals. This lead time will allow for particle size
analysis, specific gravity, relative compaction, expansion
testing, and blended import/native characteristics as deemed
necessary. Import soils for a fill cap shall be very low
expansive (E.I. < 21 and PI < 15).
y. Temporary slopes for excavations greater than 4 feet, but less
than 20 feet in overall height shall conform to CAL-OSHA
and/or OSHA requirements for Type C soils. Temporary
slopes, up to a maximum height of 20 feet, may be excavated
at a 1.5:1 (h:v) gradient, or flatter, provided groundwater
and/or running sands are not exposed. Building materials, soil
stockpiles, and/or heavy equipment shall not be
stored/operated within 1.5(H) of the tops of any temporary
slope where H equals the height of the temporary slope. All
temporary slopes shall be observed by a licensed engineering
geologist and/or geotechnical engineer prior to worker entry
into the excavation.
z. Debris impact structures may be used to protect critical project
infrastructure where located within a horizontal distance of
H/2 from the base (toe) of any ascending dune slope (where
H equals the height of the ascending slope). The debris
impact structure shall be at least 4 feet high and capable of
retaining a single-event active pressure of 125 pcf. Debris
impact structures shall be periodically maintained. Any
accumulated materials shall be removed as quickly as possible.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts to geology and soil resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
Would the project:

(a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?

(b) Conflict with any applicable plan,
policy or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?

Setting
Greenhouse gases (GHG) are any gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere,
and are different than the criteria pollutants discussed in Section 3.3 III, Air Quality,
above. The primary GHGs that are emitted into the atmosphere as a result of human
activities are carbon dioxide (CO
2
), methane (CH
4
), nitrous oxide (N
2
O), and fluorinated
gases. These are most commonly emitted through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural
gas, and coal), agricultural practices, decay of organic waste in landfills, and a variety of
other chemical reactions and industrial processes (e.g., the manufacturing of cement).
Carbon dioxide is the most abundant GHG and is estimated to represent approximately
80-90 percent of the principal GHGs that are currently affecting the earths climate.
According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), transportation (vehicle
exhaust) and electricity generation are the main sources of GHG in the state.
Impact Discussion
Response to VII(a): Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
GHG and climate change are national and even global issues that must be considered on a
large scale. Most individual activities would not cause an individually significant GHG
effect. Therefore, the potential significance of a projects impact on GHGs and climate
change must be considered in the context of the projects contribution of GHG in
combination with all other sources.
The MBUAPCD has not yet adopted plans for regulating GHGs or addressing climate
change, although it maintains an inventory of GHG emissions both basin-wide and by
county. Therefore, a screening level analysis was conducted using the thresholds adopted
by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). Based on
thresholds in the SLOAPCDs CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SLOAPCD 2012), a
project could potentially result in a significant impact associated with GHG emissions if
it exceeds the Bright-Line Threshold of 1,150 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO
2
e) per year. An exceedance of this threshold would require preparation of
CalEEMod modeling to quantify emissions and determine impacts.
According to the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the relevant 1,150 metric ton
significance criterion is equivalent to a general heavy industrial facility of 53,000 square
feet (1.2 acres) or a commercial research and development facility of 93,000 square feet
(2.1 acres) (SLOAPCD 2012). The project proposes a coastal dependent industrial use
that would encompass a 0.75-acre construction footprint, and operational facilities within
a significantly smaller area. Based on this equivalency, the GHG emissions from this
project would be less than 1,150 metric tons per year.
The proposed project would not generate significant project-related traffic and would
require limited amounts of electricity for the projected 2 to 3-year lifespan of the project.
Therefore, the projects individual short-term contribution to overall GHG emissions
would be negligible.
Therefore, impacts associated with GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Response to VII(b): Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or
regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
California has passed several pieces of legislation in the past few years aimed at dealing
with GHG emissions and climate change. Executive Order S-3-05 set a goal to reduce
Californias GHG emissions to: (1) 2000 levels by 2010; (2) 1990 levels by 2020; and (3)
80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. These goals were reinforced in 2006 with the
passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) which set forth the same emission reduction goals
and further mandated that the CARB create a plan, including market mechanisms, and
develop and implement rules to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of
greenhouse gases. Executive Order S-01-07 set forth Californias low carbon fuel
standard, which requires the carbon intensity of the states transportation fuels to be
reduced by 10 percent by 2020. And Senate Bill 97 (SB 97) required amendments to the
CEQA Guidelines to address GHG emissions; the amendments were put into effect on
March 18, 2010.
There are no MBUAPCD policies or regulations specifically related to GHG emissions.
However, as discussed in the Response to VII(a), above, the project would not exceed
adopted GHG thresholds applied by adjacent jurisdictions and is not anticipated to
generate significant GHG emissions due to the minimal traffic generated, limited energy
use, and the temporary nature of activities. The project would not conflict with the
statewide regulations listed above.
Therefore, impacts associated with GHG regulations would be less than significant.
No significant impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions were identified;
therefore no mitigation measures are necessary.
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VIII. 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?

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

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
VIII. HAZARDS AND
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

(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?

(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?

(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?

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

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

Setting
Based on a search of the California Department of Toxic Substance Controls EnviroStor
database and the State Water Resources Control Boards Geotracker system, there are no
environmental cleanup sites, including leaking underground tank sites, land disposal
sites, military sites, or other cleanup sites, on the CEMEX site or in the project vicinity.
The Marina Fire Station is located at 211 Hillcrest Avenue, approximately 2 miles south
of the project area. There are no known emergency response plans or emergency
evacuation plans that involve access within the CEMEX parcel.
Impact Discussion
Response to VIII(a): Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
The project does not propose the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
and would not significantly change existing land uses or cause a routine or permanent
increase in the potential for hazardous substances to be used in the project area. Potential
impacts resulting from the short-term presence of hazardous substances within the project
site during construction activities are discussed in Response to VIII(b), below.
Therefore, impacts associated with the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous
materials would be less than significant.
Response to VIII(b): Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Oils, gasoline, lubricants, fuels, and other potentially hazardous substances would be
used and stored on-site during construction and decommissioning activities. However,
such use would be short-term and subject to standard requirements for the handling of
hazardous materials. Should a spill or leak of these materials occur during construction or
decommissioning activities, sensitive biological resources within the project vicinity
could be adversely affected. However, there is no indication that the project would result
in a potential risk of hazardous materials spills above other standard construction
activities.
The project does not propose the use, storage or discharge of any hazardous substances
during project operation and would not change the existing land use of the project site or
substantially increase the potential use of hazardous materials in the project vicinity.
Therefore, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public through
foreseeable accident or upset during the operational phase. A significant upset event
during project operation could cause damage to the well structures or discharge system
resulting in a spill of pumped seawater into the surrounding area. However, this risk is
minimized by the short duration of the project, and pumped test water is anticipated to be
predominantly comprised of seawater that would not cause significant adverse effects in
the event of a spill near the shoreline.
Drilling activities can create the potential for frac-out, an inadvertent leak of drilling
lubricants, particularly when drilling underlies sensitive habitats, waterways, or areas of
concern for cultural resources. The Proposed Action does not propose the use of any
drilling fluids other than water; therefore, frac-out is not a concern.
Mitigation has been identified to reduce potential effects, including preparation of a
Hazardous Material Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan; cleaning and
refueling of equipment within appropriately designated areas; requirements for
immediate cleanup of spills and the presence of spill prevention and cleanup materials
on-site at all times; and proper siting of all potentially hazardous substances away from
sensitive areas during construction (refer to BIO/mm-18 and HAZ/mm-1).
Therefore, impacts associated with the accidental spill of hazardous materials would be
less than significant with mitigation described in HAZ/mm-1.
Response to VIII(c): Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
The closest schools to the project site are located within the more urbanized central
portions of the city over 1 mile south of the project area. The project does not propose the
emission or handling of any acutely hazardous substances and would not generate a risk
of release of hazardous substances in proximity of a school facility.
Therefore, impacts associated with a release of hazardous materials in proximity of a
school would be less than significant.
Response to VIII(d): Would the project 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?
There are no environmental cleanup sites, including leaking underground tank sites, land
disposal sites, military sites, or other cleanup sites, on the CEMEX parcel or in the
project vicinity. However, the project area has been altered by almost 100 years of
industrial mining uses, and disturbed dune habitat within the construction footprint
contains tailings, equipment, and materials associated with past mining activities. The
construction footprint also includes the past known location of a rail spur that extended
along the CEMEX access road.
There is the potential that construction or decommissioning activities could result in the
inadvertent discovery or disturbance of buried hazardous materials associated with past
mining and railroad activities at the site. Based on a review of the sites mining history
and location, and the limited area of project disturbance, the risk of disturbing unknown
buried hazardous materials is considered low. Mitigation has been identified to further
minimize the potential for effects and to ensure proper plans are in place in the event of
an inadvertent discovery.
Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous materials sites would be less than
significant with mitigation described in HAZ/mm-1.
Response to VIII(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?
The Marina Municipal Airport is located approximately 2.7 miles southwest of the
project site. The project area is not included within the 2006 Draft Marina Municipal
Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (ACLUP). The project would not pose a risk to
air traffic in the area and would not be subject to increased safety risks associated with
airport operations based on its location, height, and nature of the project.
Therefore, impacts associated with safety hazards in proximity of an airport would be less
than significant.
Response to VIII(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?
There are no private airstrips within the Marina Planning Area or areas within Monterey
County jurisdiction north and northeast of the project site.
Therefore, impacts associated with safety hazards in proximity of a private airstrip would
Response to VIII(g): Would the project impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
The project would be internally located on the CEMEX parcel, and would not
significantly affect or interfere with evacuation routes or emergency response plans
outside of the project area. In the event of an emergency necessitating evacuation of the
CEMEX site (i.e., a tsunami warning), workers within the CEMEX facility may need
access to the internal access road to exit the site.
The project has been designed to avoid impacts on the existing mining operations and
infrastructure, including through preservation of vehicle access along the internal access
road during construction activities to the extent feasible. It is possible that trenching
within the roadway for installation of the electrical conduit may result in a diversion of
internal traffic for short periods of time; however, an alternative route exists for all but
the easternmost 400 feet of the area where trenched construction within the road would
occur over the course of approximately two days. Construction activities that would
block vehicle access in or out of the interior portions of the site could interfere with
evacuation plans in the event of an emergency. However, the risk of an emergency
requiring evacuation during the short construction or decommissioning schedules is low.
If necessary, workers could exit the site to the parking area on foot.
The applicant has proposed mitigation, including advance notice and coordination with
the property owner (CEMEX) so that construction and decommissioning activities could
be scheduled and designed to avoid disruption of existing mining activities to the extent
feasible. In the event construction activities within the access road would conflict with
CEMEX access or operations, timing of construction would be coordinated with CEMEX
to occur outside of the facility operations (i.e., nighttime or weekend construction).
Therefore, impacts associated with emergency evacuation at the CEMEX facility would
be less than significant with mitigation described in HAZ/mm-2.
Response to VIII(h): Would the project expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving wild land fires, including
where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
The proposed project is not located in an area of high wildfire risk and would not expose
people or structures to a substantial risk of wildfires. The Marina Fire Department is
located approximately 2 miles south of the CEMEX site; therefore, response times in the
event of an emergency would be within acceptable levels.
Therefore, impacts associated with wildfire risk would be less than significant.
To minimize potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials, the
HAZ/mm-1 Prior to construction, the applicant shall prepare a Hazardous
Material Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan to
minimize the potential for, and effects of, spills of hazardous or toxic
substances or the inadvertent discovery of buried hazardous materials
during construction or decommissioning of the project. The plan shall
be submitted for review and approval by the City, and shall include, at
minimum, the following:
a. A description of hazardous materials to be used, storage
procedures and construction and decommissioning site
maintenance and upkeep practices;
b. Identification of a person or persons responsible for
monitoring implementation of the plan and spill response;
c. Identification of BMPs to be implemented to ensure minimal
impacts to the environment occur, including but not limited to
the use of containment devices for hazardous materials,
training of construction staff regarding safety practices to
reduce the chance for spills or accidents, and use of non-toxic
substances where feasible;
d. A description of proper procedures for containing, diverting,
isolating, and cleaning up spills, hazardous substances and/or
soils, in a manner that minimizes impacts on sensitive
biological resources;
e. A description of the actions required if a spill or inadvertent
discovery occurs, including which authorities to contact and
proper clean-up procedures; and
f. A requirement that all construction personnel participate in an
awareness training program conducted by qualified personnel
approved by the City. The training must include a description
of the Hazardous Materials Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure Plan, the plans requirements for spill
prevention, information regarding the importance of
preventing spills, the appropriate measures to take should a
spill or inadvertent discovery occur, and identification of the
location of all clean-up materials and equipment.
HAZ/mm-2 Prior to commencement of construction or decommissioning activities,
the applicant shall consult with the property owner (CEMEX)
regarding construction/decommissioning operations and schedule. The
project applicant shall provide advance notice of construction
activities and construction shall be scheduled during non-peak hours
to avoid disruption of existing mining activities to the extent feasible.
Coordination shall include construction and decommissioning phase
parking needs and the number of on-site construction crewmember
vehicles shall not be more than can be accommodated within the
CEMEX parking area, as determined by the property owner. If the on-
site parking area is insufficient to accommodate project crewmembers,
the applicant shall implement carpooling, off-site parking, shuttle
service to the site, or other similar measures to reduce the number of
vehicles at the site consistent with property owner approval. If
construction activities within the CEMEX access road would conflict
with CEMEX operations, such construction shall be conducted during
non-operational mining periods (i.e., nighttime or weekends).
Construction activities shall be conducted to avoid any need for the
grading of any new access roads for use by CEMEX.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts associated with hazards and
hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND
WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

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

(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)?

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

(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 that would result in flooding on-
or off-site?

(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?

(f) Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?

(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?

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
IX. HYDROLOGY AND
WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

(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?

(j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?

This evaluation of potential project effects associated with hydrology and water quality is
based, in part, on the following studies:
ESA-PWA Memorandum: Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with
Sea Level Rise, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (ESA-PWA 2014);
Technical Memorandum: Review of Coastal Erosion Analysis by ESA-PWA
(2014) for the California American Water Temporary Slant Test Well
Environmental Impact Evaluation (Sea Engineering, Inc. 2014); and
Draft Review of California American Water Companys Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project (SWRCB 2013).
ESA-PWA 2014 and Sea Engineering 2014 (collectively referred to as the coastal
erosion studies) evaluated the potential for shoreline erosion and wave run-up at the
project site. SWRCB 2013 provides a preliminary evaluation of Cal Ams right to pump
water from the aquifers under the CEMEX site, and discusses issues related to drawdown
of water levels and seawater intrusion. These studies are included in Appendix E.
Setting
Surface Hydrology
Figure 8 shows the existing hydrologic conditions of the project area. Portions of the
CEMEX parcel along the shoreline are within the 100-year flood zone, which is
delineated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to identify areas
with a flood elevation that would be subject to inundation or flooding in the event of a
100-year storm. A 100-year storm is an event of a magnitude that has 1 percent chance of
occurring in any given year. The FEMA 100-year flood zone in this location is delineated
fairly closely to the shoreline except along the Salinas River north of the project site,
where the flood zone includes large areas of relatively flat agricultural fields adjacent to
the channel. FEMA has designated the flood zone along the CEMEX shoreline as a
coastal flood zone, with hazards related to velocity (wave action). The westernmost
portion of the project area extends up to the eastern limits of the 100-year flood zone.
In general, the height of the dunes on the CEMEX parcel protects the inland areas from
tsunami and wave run-up danger. However, a small portion of the project area located on
the seaward side of the foredunes is within the Monterey County tsunami inundation area
as identified by the California Geological Survey (CGS) (CGS 2009).
Monterey Bay's southern coast is experiencing coastal erosion more rapidly than any
other region in the state of California. Erosion at the coastal dunes between the mouth of
the Salinas River and Monterey Harbor has been measured at rates between 1.0 and 6.0
feet per year. A statewide study by the California Energy Commission found that
approximately 4.4 square miles of coastline in Monterey County is susceptible to erosion
from expected sea level rise, and predicted that coastal dunes will retreat by up to 1,300
feet.
Surface hydrology and stormwater runoff in the project area is guided by the undulations
of the dunes. Runoff flows naturally towards the Pacific Ocean or collects in low spots
between the dunes and percolates into the ground.
Subsurface Hydrogeology
The project area is within the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (SVGB), which extends
approximately 100 miles inland from Monterey Bay in the northwest to the headwaters of
the Salinas River in the southeast. Major aquifers are named for the depth at which they
occur in the basin and include the 180-Foot Aquifer, 400-Foot Aquifer, and 900-Foot or
Deep Aquifer. A near-surface water-bearing zone comprised of dune sands, commonly
referred to as the Dune Sand Aquifer, also exists, but is not considered a viable water
source due to its poor quality. The Dune Sand Aquifer is not regionally extensive and is
not a recognized sub-basin within the SVGB (SWRCB 2013).
Based on existing data from recent subsurface exploratory borings conducted at the
CEMEX site, the project vicinity is immediately underlain by the Dune Sand Aquifer,
which generally occurs throughout the project area at depths ranging from ground surface
to approximately 50 feet below mean sea level (bmsl). The Dune Sand Aquifer has been
described as a silty, fine to medium or fine to coarse grained quartz sand (Geoscience
2013). Throughout the Salinas Valley, the Dune Sand Aquifer and underlying 180-Foot
Aquifer are separated by a thick, impermeable layer of confining blue clay known as the
Salinas Valley Aquitard. The limited permeability of the clay in the aquitard restricts the
flow of groundwater between the two aquifers, maintaining a distinct hydraulic
separation between the two.

Figure 8. Flood Zone Map

c:J Project Area
~ : _ ~ CEMEX Parcel Boundary
D
Special Flood Hazard Areas Subject to Inundation by the
1% Annual Chance Flood (100-year Flood)
(Zones A, AE, AO, AH, AR, A99, V, and VE)
Tsunami Inundation Area
150 300 600 Meters
Source: Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Marina
Quadrangle (California Emergency Management Agency- California
Geological SuJVey- University of Southern California, July 1, 2009). Digital
Flood Insurance Rate Map Database, Monterey County, California,
USA Federal Emergency Management Agency
SWCA
HIVIRONMNTAL CONSULTANTS
Flood Zone Map
Slant Test Well
However, the Salinas Valley Aquitard is known to thin out as it approaches the ocean in
some areas and recent exploratory borings taken at the CEMEX site indicate a lack of the
confining layer at that location. The aquifer material that underlies the Dune Sand
Aquifer at the project site is hydrostratigraphically equivalent to the 180-Foot Aquifer of
the Salinas Valley (consisting of similar bodies of rock), though the geologic materials
encountered in borings at the CEMEX site were formed in a different depositional
environment. However, the sediments at the CEMEX site are located at similar elevations
as those of the 180-Foot Aquifer; therefore, the unit is referred to as the 180-Foot
equivalent aquifer (180-FTE), which assumes that, although geologically different, the
two are hydraulically connected. The 180-FTE at the project site generally ranges from
approximately 50 to 200 feet bmsl.
Because the Salinas Valley Aquitard does not exist at the project site, or exists only in
limited sporadic patches, it is anticipated that some level of hydraulic conductivity and
communication currently exists between the Dune Sand and 180-FTE Aquifers.
Distinction between the two is determined at the depth where the relatively uniform sand
of the Dune Sand Aquifer changes to bedded material of the underlying terrace deposits.
The 180-FTE Aquifer is underlain by the 400-Foot Aquifer, which exists at depths
ranging between 250 bmsl to the total depth of borings (approximately 550 bmsl).
Borings indicate that these two aquifers are at least partially separated by a lower aquitard
(180/400-Foot Aquitard); however, water samples indicate that these aquifers are also
hydraulically connected.
Groundwater Supply
Groundwater recharge in the lower portion of the Salinas Valley is largely a result of
infiltration along the channel of the Salinas River and its tributaries. This accounts for
approximately 50 percent of the total recharge within the SVGB. Approximately 40
percent of the total recharge is from irrigation return water and the remaining 10 percent
is a result of precipitation, subsurface inflow, and seawater intrusion. Approximately 95
percent of outflow from the Basin is a result of pumping, with the remaining 5 percent
caused by riparian vegetation evapotranspiration. Groundwater withdrawals, both
historically and currently, outpace groundwater recharge of fresh water, which has
resulted in overdraft conditions. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
estimates a current overdraft of approximately 21,000 acre feet annually (SWRCB 2013).
Groundwater Quality
Historic and current pumping of the 180-Foot Aquifer has caused significant seawater
intrusion into the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin, which was first documented in the
1930s. The Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) monitors seawater
intrusion in the county and uses the Secondary Drinking Water Standard upper limit of
500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) concentration for chloride to determine the seawater
intrusion front and impairment to a source of water.
MCWRA currently estimates seawater has intruded into the 180-Foot (or 180-FTE)
Aquifer approximately 5 miles inland as shown on Figure 9 and into the 400-Foot
Aquifer approximately 3 miles inland as shown on Figure 10. This seawater intrusion has
resulted in the degradation of groundwater supplies, requiring numerous urban and
agricultural supply wells to be abandoned or destroyed. In MCWRAs latest groundwater
management plan (2006), an estimated 25,000 acres of land overlies water that has
degraded to 500 mg/L chloride.
The Central Coast RWQCB's Basin Plan indicates that application of irrigation water
with chloride levels above 355 mg/L may cause severe problems to crops and/or soils
with increasing problems occurring within the range of 142-355 mg/L. The MCWRA and
the Central Coast RWQCB show impairment to the water in the intruded area for
drinking and agricultural uses. Since this groundwater is impaired, it is unlikely that this
water is or will be put to beneficial use.
Local agencies have taken steps to reduce the rate of seawater intrusion and enhance
groundwater recharge in the SVGB, including limiting groundwater extractions and
installation of new groundwater extraction facilities in certain areas within the seawater
intrusion zone. To enhance groundwater recharge, efforts have also been made to
increase fresh water percolation through the Castroville Seawater Intrusion Project
(CSIP) which was completed in 1998. The CSIP is a program operated by the MRWPCA
that reduces groundwater pumping from seawater intruded areas and distributes recycled
wastewater to agricultural users within the SVGB. The program provides a form of
groundwater recharge by effectively reducing groundwater extraction in those areas of
the Basin. Despite these and other efforts, seawater intrusion continues its inland trend
into the Basin (SWRCB 2013).
Water samples taken from the exploratory borings at the CEMEX site indicate that both
the Dune Sand Aquifer and the 180-FTE Aquifer contain saline (salt) water and are
substantially influenced by the sea. Groundwater quality sampling from the borings has
shown that the chloride and total dissolved solids concentration in the Dune Sand and the
180-FTE Aquifers are very similar, reflecting the expected hydraulic continuity between
the two. Groundwater quality data collected in September 2013 through April 2014 at the
CEMEX site is summarized in Table 3 below.

Figure 9. Historic Seawater Intrusion Map 180-Foot Aquifer

MONTEREY
BAY
Historic Seawater Int rusion Map
Legend Pressure 180-Foot Aquifer - 500 mg/L Chloride Areas
15eaw;rter Intruded Areas By Year
- 1944
- 1965
- 1975
1997
1999
2001
1985 2003 ClCities
1993 - 2005
Map Date: August 6, 2012
Figure 10. Historic Seawater Intrusion Map 400-Foot Aquifer

MONTEREY
BAY
BLANCORD
Legend
Historic Seawater Intrusion Map
Pressure 400-Foot Aquifer- 500 mg/L Chloride Areas
Seawater Intruded Areas By Year
- 1959
- 1975
- 1985
- 1990
- 1993
1995 - 2005
1997 - 2007
1999 - 2009
- 2001 - 2011
2003 D eiti es
0 0.5 1.5 2
--
--
Miles
NOie: The seale and C>OnlliJ!ration ofal ir1fofmttion shown

for SUI'IIey or desQn wol'k. CCN1tours Iiles are <i"lwn from

Table 3. Water Quality Data
Boring ID
Inland
Distance
from Shore
(feet)
Water
Quality Test
Zone
Number
Sample
Depth
Aquifer Unit
Chloride
(mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)
CX-B1WQ 350
Zone 6 51-61
Dune Sand
13,675 24,452
Zone 5 84-94 14,755 28,111
Zone 4 134-144
180-FTE
14,050 26,921
Zone 3 182-192 17,995 32,034
Zone 2 237-247 8,796 16,122
Zone 1 274-284 400-Foot 14,184 24,888
CX-B2WQ 1,450
Zone 4 55-65 Dune Sand 14,464 26,968
Zone 3 104-114
180-FTE
14,099 27,316
Zone 2 161-171 7,408 14,708
Zone 1 215-225 13,026 23,936
CX-B4 2,700
Zone 5 58-68 Dune Sand 2,045 4,815
Zone 4 110-120
180-FTE
11,044 24,000
Zone 3 155-165 10,128 20,500
Zone 2 248-258 13,566 27,200
Zone 1 306-316 400-Foot 14,013 29,800

Impact Discussion
Response to IX(a): Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements?
The proposed discharge of test waters would be subject to the requirements of an NPDES
permit for the MRWPCA outfall that would be modified to include the additional
pumped water (refer to BIO/m-17). The NPDES permit would incorporate requirements
of the California Ocean Plan. Pumped water would be tested for a range of analytes prior
to discharge into the ocean and through regular sampling and monitoring throughout
project operation. Discharged water is expected to be in compliance with the Ocean Plan
without the need for any treatment prior to discharge. Proposed discharge via the existing
MRWPCA outfall would be conducted in accordance with applicable permitting
requirements and through consultation with the RWQCB and MRWPCA. Therefore, no
impacts to water quality are expected.
There is a low potential that the well would capture discharged MRWPCA wastewater
from the ocean. However, the diffuser portion of the outfall is located almost 9,000 feet
(over 1.5 miles) away from the nearest portion of the slant test well screen. Previous
modeling of a full-scale subsurface intake system that included six subsurface intake slant
wells approximately 1 mile south of the project area estimated that full-scale pumping
activities could affect a 2-mile radius zone of influence (SWRCB 2013). The zone of
influence for the slant test well has not been determined; however, it is presumed that it
would be smaller than the full-scale system and the risk of capturing discharged
wastewater 1.5 miles away is considered negligible. The addition of pumped seawater
into the outfall during periods when treated wastewater is flowing may slightly improve
water quality by diluting the treated wastewater with pumped seawater prior to discharge
in the ocean.
Construction waste would be hauled off-site and disposed of at a certified disposal
location (such as the Monterey Peninsula Landfill). Portable restroom and hand washing
facilities would be supplied by a properly licensed provider and waste disposed of in
accordance with applicable requirements.
Therefore, impacts associated with a violation of water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements would be less than significant with mitigation described in
BIO/mm-17.
Response to IX(b): Would the project 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)?
The temporary slant test well would pump between 1,000 and 2,500 gpm of water from
the Dune Sand and 180-FTE Aquifers over a maximum 24-month operational period. The
proposed rate of pumping would equal an approximate extraction of between 4.5 and 11
acre feet of water per day, and 3,226 to 8,064 acre feet over the life of the project.
Extraction of this amount of water has the potential to cause drawdown of groundwater
levels in areas surrounding the intake portion of the well. Determining the amount of
drawdown that would result from full-scale MPWSP pumping activities is a key purpose
of the slant test well project. The project applicant has analytically modeled the potential
for drawdown during operation of the slant test well and estimates that a maximum
drawdown of approximately 3.8 feet in water levels could occur near the center of the
vertical projection of the slant test well screen. At a distance of 2,500 feet from the well,
drawdown is estimated to be approximately 0.3 feet (4 inches). Drawdown is not
expected to extend beyond the CEMEX parcel in any significant amount and significant
impacts at any off-site wells in the project vicinity are not anticipated. Figure 11 shows
the preliminary modeled drawdown contours.
Figure 11. Preliminary Modeled Drawdown Contours

Previous analysis of a full-scale subsurface intake system at this location estimated the
potential for drawdown to occur within a 2-mile radius of the intake wells (SWRCB
2013). According to information from the SWRCBs GAMA database, there are
approximately 14 wells within 2 miles of the MPWSP (CEMEX) site. All of these wells
are within the seawater intruded portion of the 180-FTE and/or 400-Foot Aquifers. Areas
in the immediate vicinity of the slant test well that could potentially experience marginal
amounts of drawdown are not expected to have usable water supplies in the Dune Sand or
180-FTE Aquifers where pumping would occur due to the extent of seawater intrusion in
that area. Therefore, drawdown of water in surrounding wells would not constitute an
adverse effect on a usable water source.
The SWRCB concluded in its Draft Review of California American Water Companys
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (SWRCB 2013) that because of the existing
state of seawater intrusion, which results from a landward (inland) gradient or slope of
groundwater flow, more of the water captured by the proposed MPWSP pumping
activities would come from the up-gradient (seaward) direction and a smaller proportion
of the water captured by the pumping would be from the down-gradient (inland)
direction. Water captured from the seaward direction would likely be seawater, whereas
water captured from the inland direction would have a greater likelihood of capturing
some portion of freshwater. Therefore, because the existing gradient indicates more water
would be captured from the seaward direction, there is a reduced possibility that the wells
would capture freshwater.
Cal Am is coordinating closely with adjacent well owners regarding any concerns they
may have associated with drawdown of their water supplies and has proposed to closely
monitor the rate of drawdown and implement mitigation measures in the event actual
drawdown exceeds current estimates established through analytic modeling. Possible
mitigation measures include monetary compensation (i.e., for increased pumping costs or
for upgraded wells), provision of replacement water from alternative sources, or a
reduction in pumping activities.
Pumping activities would be of a limited duration and would not create a long-standing
use or right to water within the aquifers. The water pumped from the aquifers would
primarily be tidally influenced groundwater and is not expected to significantly reduce
available freshwater supplies for existing or planned land uses. The effects of the
pumping program would be closely monitored through its duration to determine the
precise amount of drawdown caused by the slant test well. Due to the minimal extent of
drawdown anticipated, and the unusable condition of wells in the Dune Sand, 180-FTE,
and 400-Foot Aquifers in the project area, it is not anticipated that identified
compensatory mitigation measures would be necessary. However, they are included as
required mitigation in the event actual drawdown substantially exceeds modeled
estimates.
Approximately 226,000 gallons (0.7 acre foot) of water would be needed for drilling
activities and would be obtained from the City of Marinas domestic water supply. The
Citys supplies would be sufficient for project construction needs.
Therefore, impacts associated with a depletion of groundwater supplies would be less
than significant with mitigation described in HYD/mm-1.
Response to IX(c): Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result
in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Due to the limited disturbance proposed and undulating nature of the project site, the
project would not significantly alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. No
surface water channels would be altered as a result of the project, and all disturbed areas
would be restored to pre-existing conditions to the extent feasible at the conclusion of
construction activities. However, on-site soils are highly susceptible to erosion and
earthmoving activities could result in erosion and/or siltation in sensitive adjacent areas.
Consistent with the City of Marina General Plan Policy 4.121.1, preparation of an erosion
control plan would be required prior to issuance of a grading permit to ensure that project
construction and the installation of sub-surface or surface-level structures would not
result in significant erosion or siltation and would not significantly change the rate, flow
or course of surface runoff.
Therefore, impacts associated with erosion and siltation would be less than significant
with mitigation described in HYD/mm-2.
Response to IX(d): Would the project 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 that would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
Refer to the Response to IX(c), above. The project would not substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the area or increase the rate or amount of runoff. Potential
risks associated with flooding would be minimal due to the short-term nature of the
project and limited amount of development proposed.
Therefore, impacts associated with drainage and flooding would be less than significant
Response to IX(e): Would the project 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?
The project would not create or contribute substantial amounts of runoff water and no
stormwater drainage systems are located within the project area. Runoff at the site would
flow naturally towards the Pacific Ocean or collect in inundations within the dunes and
percolate into the ground consistent with existing conditions. The potential for creating
polluted runoff would be minimal after implementation of HAZ/mm-1, which requires
that the applicant prepare a Hazardous Material Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan to minimize risk of spills during construction and decommissioning
activities.
The operational project components would be located almost entirely sub-surface, and
would not result in an increase in impervious surfaces or significant increase in the
amount of runoff at the project location. The installation of the structures would not
substantially alter percolation rates or capacity at the site.
Therefore, impacts associated with stormwater runoff would be less than significant
Response to IX(f): Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
It is anticipated that because of the existing state of seawater intrusion, which results
from a landward (inland) gradient or slope of groundwater flow, more of the water
captured by the proposed MPWSP pumping activities would come from the up-gradient
(seaward) direction and a much smaller proportion of the water captured by the pumping
would be from the down-gradient (inland) direction. Pumping activities that capture
substantial amounts of up-gradient seawater could slightly reduce the landward (inland)
gradient flow of groundwater in the area. This would equate to a slowing of seawater
intrusion (SWRCB 2013), though the slant test wells effect on groundwater flows would
be negligible in the context of the larger SVGB. Therefore, the project is not expected to
increase existing seawater intrusion in the project area.
Borings at the CEMEX site do not include evidence of any confining clay layer
separating the Dune Sand and 180-FTE Aquifers at the project location, and water quality
samples indicate hydraulic connectivity and communication between the two aquifers.
Therefore, cross-contamination between the aquifers as a result of drilling and pumping
from the slant test well would not be a concern, as the two aquifers are already in
hydraulic continuity. The slant test well would be terminated at the floor of the 180-FTE;
therefore, cross-contamination in the 400-Foot Aquifer would not occur. Additionally,
water samples indicate hydraulic connectivity between the 180-FTE and 400-Foot
Aquifer, despite the presence of a 180/400-Foot Aquitard.
Therefore, impacts associated with other degradation of water quality would be less than
significant.
Response to IX(g): Would the project 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?
The project does not propose the development of any housing and would not place
housing within a 100-year flood zone.
Therefore, no impacts associated with the placement of housing within a flood hazard
zone would occur.
Response to IX(h): Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows?
The project components would be almost entirely sub-surface and would not impede or
redirect flood flows. The westernmost portion of the project area is within the tsunami
inundation area identified by the California Geological Survey and directly adjacent to
the 100-year flood zone. The City of Marinas LCP indicates that wave run-up is
generally blocked by the dunes in the project area, yet the Marina coastline is generally
experiencing the effects of long-term coastal erosion. Despite the limited duration of the
project, the slant test well and related facilities are proposed in an area that could be
potentially impacted by coastal erosion or flooding, particularly in a significant storm
event.
The Citys LCP includes prohibitions regarding the placement of structures on the ocean-
side of the dunes, in areas subject to wave erosion in the next 50 years, or in the tsunami
run-up zone. Support facilities for coastally dependent industry are the only exception.
The risk of inundation as a result of coastal erosion and wave run-up at the project site
during a significant storm event has been estimated by ESA-PWA for the MPWSP (ESA-
PWA 2014). Based on the ESA-PWA study, the slant test well and wellhead vault are
proposed in an area at risk of potential inundation in a worst-case scenario event (refer to
Figure 12).
To maintain consistency with the Citys LCP and to mitigate potential effects associated
with inundation and structural damage to slant test well facilities, which could, in turn,
result in a need for additional maintenance and repair activities, the slant test well and
wellhead vault should be sited outside of areas subject to wave erosion through the
duration of the project. There are adequate locations situated within adjacent areas of the
CEMEX access road that could accommodate the wellhead vault and the project
applicant has identified a feasible alternate location within the CEMEX access road
southeast of the settling ponds where relocation would be possible.
The new location, approximately 240 feet to east of the existing slant test well insertion
point, would create a greater buffer between the slant test well and sensitive snowy
plover habitat and recreational uses along the beach and would more than double the
distance between the slant test well and the CEMEX settling ponds. Therefore, no
adverse secondary impacts to resources would occur. Although the discharge pipeline and
outfall connection would be within the storm erosion hazard zone, this use would fall
within the LCP exception for support facilities for a coastally dependent uses.
Well decommissioning proposes removal of well casing and all physical structures within
5 vertical feet of the surface elevation. Therefore, it is possible that components of the
slant test well and monitoring wells below that elevation and remaining at the site after
the decommissioning phase of the project would eventually be exposed as a result of
coastal erosion and bluff retreat over the next 100 years. Mitigation is included to ensure
all proposed infrastructure associated with the project is removed to a sufficient depth to
avoid any potential for future resurfacing of project components. Based on a worst case
scenario of coastal erosion and bluff retreat, removal to the depth of 40 feet below ground
surface would be required (Sea Engineering 2014). Removal of well casing down to 40
feet would not be technically or economically restrictive and would ensure no potential
for long-term effects of the project would occur.
Therefore, impacts associated with coastal erosion and inundation would be less than
significant with mitigation described in HYD/mm-3.

Figure 12. Coastal Erosion Storm Hazard Map

50 100 200 Feet
Source: ESA PWAAnalysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea
Level Rise, 03/1912014. Aerial Imagery: Esri , i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX,
GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community. 05/0512010.
SWCA
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Erosion Hazard Zones
Sl ant Test Well P
Response to IX(i): Would the project 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?
The Salinas River would be a receiving body of flood waters in the event of a dam failure
at the San Antonio Dam, located in southern Monterey County at San Antonio Lake, or
the Lake Nacimiento Dam, located in northern San Luis Obispo County at Lake
Nacimiento, over 80 miles south of the city of Marina. The two dams are situated on
opposite sides of the Monterey/San Luis Obispo County boundary line, and are separated
by less than 3 miles in some areas. The dams outflow into the Nacimiento River and San
Antonio Rivers, which are tributaries to the Salinas River.
The project does not propose development of habitable structures; therefore, risk of
injury or death in the event of flooding is substantially reduced. A review of the Flood
Insurance Rate Map for Monterey County indicates that the project area is within Zone
X, which indicates minimal flood risk hazard (GeoSoils 2014). The project area is well
outside of the Nacimiento Dam failure inundation zone per the City of Marina General
Plan (City of Marina 2000).
Therefore, impacts associated with flooding in the event of dam failure would be less
than significant.
Response to IX(j): Would the project create inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow?
A seiche is a standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water. Seiches
and seiche-related phenomena have been observed on lakes, reservoirs, swimming pools,
bays and seas. Tsunamis are produced when movement occurs on faults in the ocean
floor, usually during very large earthquakes. Such sudden vertical movements displace
the overlying water column, creating a wave that travels outward from the earthquake
source. An earthquake anywhere in the Pacific Ocean can cause tsunamis around the
entire Pacific basin. Since earthquakes within the Pacific basin are not uncommon,
tsunamis are not uncommon. The westernmost portion of the project area is within the
tsunami inundation area identified by the California Geological Survey.
A mudflow or mudslide is the rapid (up to 50 miles per hour) movement of a large mass
of mud formed from loose earth and water. Similar terms are mudslide (not very liquid),
mud stream, and debris flow (e.g. in high mountains). Despite the surrounding dunes, the
larger slope of the project area is relatively flat.
Portions of the project would be located within areas at risk of inundation during a
tsunami, seiche, or storm surge event. Mitigation has been identified to relocate the slant
test well and wellhead vault outside of identified coastal hazard areas. The discharge
pipeline and outfall connection would still be within the tsunami inundation area and
potentially impacted by a storm event occurring during the project lifetime, but these
components would not be sensitive to inundation. The projects short-term duration
further minimizes the likelihood that a significant storm event would occur. Except for
dune sloughing, which is discussed in Section 3.3 VI, Geology and Soils, there is no
significant risk of mudflow.
Therefore, impacts associated with coastal erosion and inundation would be less than
significant with mitigation described in HYD/mm-3.
To minimize potential impacts associated with hydrology and water quality, the
HYD/mm-1 Prior to construction, the applicant shall prepare a groundwater
monitoring plan for City review and approval. The plan shall
determine, through preliminary monitoring and sampling prior to
pumping activities, a baseline condition of groundwater levels and
quality, including the reasonable range of natural fluctuations, in the
Dune Sand, 180-FTE, and 400-Foot Aquifers. The effects of pumping
activities on groundwater levels and quality in the Dune Sand, 180-
FTE, and 400-Foot Aquifers shall be monitored throughout the
duration of pumping activities. Monitoring activities shall be
conducted through regular assessment of the proposed on-site
monitoring wells, as well as through additional coordination with
surrounding well owners, including CEMEX and adjacent agricultural
water users within 2 miles of the slant test well site, to identify changes
in off-site water levels to the maximum extent feasible.
A drawdown of 1 foot above natural fluctuations on groundwater
levels shall be considered a significant adverse effect on water supply.
If pumping activities reflect a drawdown of 1 foot or greater on any
adjacent well, compensatory mitigation shall be required. Feasible
mitigation shall include consultation with the affected water user and
implementation of compensatory mitigation measures, including
monetary compensation (i.e., for increased pumping costs or for
upgraded wells), or provision of replacement water from alternative
sources. If compensation or other remediation is found to be
unfeasible, pumping activities shall be adjusted so that no more than 1
foot of drawdown on usable water sources would result.
The plan shall designate a person or persons to monitor
implementation of the monitoring plan and to order implementation of
mitigation if necessary. The name and telephone number of the
person(s) shall be listed in the monitoring plan and provided to the
City prior to the start of construction. The plan shall include a
requirement for regular reporting (no less than annually) on the
results of the monitoring activities, and the reports shall be submitted
to the City and other relevant regulatory agencies.
HYD/mm-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit an
erosion control plan for approval by the City Public Works Director.
The plan shall be prepared by an appropriately certified professional
and shall include a schedule for the completion of erosion- and
sediment-control structures, which ensures that all such erosion-
control structures are in place by mid-November of the year that
construction begins. The plan shall identify standard Best
Management Practices to be implemented to address both temporary
and permanent measures to control erosion and reduce sedimentation.
Site monitoring by the applicants erosion-control specialist shall be
undertaken and a follow-up report shall be prepared that documents
the progress and/or completion of required erosion-control measures
both during and after construction and decommissioning activities. No
synthetic plastic mesh products shall be used in any erosion control
materials. All plans shall show that sedimentation and erosion control
measures are installed prior to any other ground disturbing work.
HYD/mm-3 The slant test well and wellhead vault shall be sited to avoid areas
identified in the coastal erosion memorandum prepared by ESA-PWA
(March 2014) as subject to coastal erosion during the duration of the
project. The alternative slant test well location shall avoid all
identified sensitive plant species and shall be limited to the graded
area of the CEMEX access road to the maximum extent feasible. The
slant test well location shall not encroach north of the graded roadway
in closer proximity to the CEMEX settling ponds or Canal Flume. At
project decommissioning, the slant test well and all related
infrastructure shall be removed to a depth of no less than 40 feet
below ground surface to eliminate the possibility for future re-
surfacing and exposure of submerged well casing or related project
components as a result of coastal erosion and shoreline retreat.
Implement BIO/mm-17 and HAZ/mm-1.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts associated with hydrology and
water quality would be less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X. LAND USE AND
PLANNING
Would the project:

(a) Physically divide an established
community?

Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
X. LAND USE AND
PLANNING
Would the project:

(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?

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

Setting
The project is located within the California Coastal Zone, has a General Plan land use
designation of Habitat Reserve and Other Open Space, and is located within the Coastal
Conservation and Development (C-D) Zoning District with a Coastal Development
Permit Combining District (CP) overlay. The project would be subject to the policies and
regulations of the Citys LCP, General Plan, and Zoning Ordinance, as well as other
applicable regional plans such as the Central Coast RWQCB Basin Plan and MBUAPCD
Air Quality Management Plan.
Impact Discussion
Response to X(a): Would the project physically divide an established
community?
All project activities would be located on central portions of the industrial CEMEX site.
The project would be limited in duration and would not substantially change existing land
uses at the site or surrounding areas.
Therefore, no impacts associated with the physical division of an established community
would occur.
Response to X(b): Would the project 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?
Due to the projects generally limited effects and duration, as described in other sections
of this document, the project is expected to be generally consistent with applicable land
use plans, policies and regulations. It proposes a new coastal dependent industrial use that
is similar in nature to the industrial mining activities that have historically occurred at the
project site, and would not result in any substantial land use incompatibilities due to the
remote location and minimal operating activities. Due to the proposed temporary nature
of the facility, the project would have few long-lasting effects, and would not implicate
land use planning considerations beyond the 2 to 3-year lifespan. Therefore, the project
would be generally consistent with the policies and standards of the General Plan.
The City of Marina General Plan clarifies that in the event of any apparent inconsistency
between the LCP and General Plan, the LCP shall prevail for that portion of Marina
within the Coastal Zone. The policies set out in the LCP are generally related to
provisions for and the protection of public access to and along the beach; the priority of
recreational, visitor-serving and coastal-dependent uses within the coastal zone; the
restoration and protection of sensitive biological, marine and water resources and/or
habitat areas; and the protection of scenic and visual qualities.
The LCLUP gives priority to coastal-dependent development on or near the shoreline
while ensuring that environmental effects are mitigated to the greatest extent possible.
Allowable uses within the Coastal Conservation and Development (C-D) zoning district
include uses that are dependent upon salt water, the unique coastal-marine environment
found in Marina, and/or on resources present only in this portion of Marinas Coastal
Zone, with provisions that development be sited in already disturbed areas and new
access roadways be kept to the minimum.
Planning guidelines of the LCP include measures for the protection of rare and
endangered species and their habitats, wetlands and vernal ponds. As discussed in Section
3.3 IV, Biological Resources, above, the project has been designed to avoid impacts to
these resources to the greatest extent feasible, and the implementation of available
mitigation measures would sufficiently protect the on-site biological resources. The Rare
and Endangered Species Habitat prepared for the project included a consistency analysis
and concluded that the project would be generally consistent with applicable LCP
policies (SWCA 2014).
As discussed in Section 3.3 IV, above, the project is designed and/or would incorporate
identified mitigation measures to ensure no project activities would result in changes in
the existing use of the access road adjacent to the settling ponds (potential wetland
features). Therefore, no effect on the settling ponds would occur, consistent with
applicable wetland protection policies of the LCP and General Plan.
The proposed project serves a necessary and beneficial purpose by gathering necessary
information to accurately study the potential hydrogeologic effects of the MPWSP. The
proposed use would be consistent with conditionally permitted uses within the C-D
district, which include both coastal research and educational uses and coastal dependent
industrial uses.
The approved Reclamation Plan for the CEMEX operation includes decommissioning of
the mining facility and restoration of historically and currently mined areas.
Implementation of the proposed project would not be inconsistent or interfere with
implementation of the Reclamation Plan because the slant well would be
decommissioned following the 24-month operational phase.
Therefore, impacts associated with conflicts with applicable land use policies or
regulations would be less than significant.
Response to X(c): Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
There are no adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans
that apply to the project area or larger CEMEX site. Refer also to Response to IV(f),
Biological Resources, above, for additional discussion.
Therefore, no impacts associated with the potential to conflict with an applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan would occur.
No significant impacts to land use and planning were identified; therefore no mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XI. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

(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?

(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?

Setting
The project would be located in an interior portion of the CEMEX sand mining plant,
which has been actively mined for Silica Sand since 1906. According to the Reclamation
Plan prepared for the site pursuant to the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
of 1975, site operations include the mining and processing of between 250,000 and
1,000,000 cubic yards of sand per year (RMC Lonestar 1989). The Cultural Resources
Survey Report prepared for the project (SWCA 2014; refer to Appendix C) summarized
the historical mining activities at the CEMEX site, which is summarized in Section 3.3 V,
above.
Impact Discussion
Response to XI(a): Would the project 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?
The project site and larger CEMEX parcel contain known mineral resources that have
been actively mined since 1906. The proposed project would include the total excavation
of approximately 650 cubic yards of material, including drill cuttings and surface
excavation materials. These materials, particularly the surface excavated sands, are
potentially valuable mineral resources. Of the 650 cubic yards of material, approximately
425 cubic yards would be used to backfill previously excavated areas. No significant
impact to the availability or value of the mineral resources would result from the
excavation, backfilling, packing, and grading of these sands. However, approximately
225 cubic yards of material would be disposed of at an approved landfill site, resulting in
a loss of availability.
The vast majority of the materials to be disposed (approximately 200 cubic yards) would
consist of drill cuttings generated during the drilling of the slant test well and monitoring
wells. Due to the depth of the proposed drilling activities, it is unlikely that the cuttings
would contain significant amounts of minable sand. The remaining 25 cubic yards of
material to be disposed of would consist of surface-level sands displaced by the
installation of project components. The bulk of this material would likely consist of
mineable sands.
Based on available information identified in the 1989 Reclamation Plan, the amount of
sand being mined at the CEMEX facility ranges from 250,000 to 1,000,000 cubic yards
per year. The amount of material that would be made unavailable (25 cubic yards)
constitutes between 0.01 and 0.0025 percent of the anticipated range of production.
This one-time loss of minable sand would not result in regional effects that could impact
residents of the state in general. The applicant has designed the project to avoid impacts
to existing CEMEX operations to the extent feasible, including through notification and
coordination with CEMEX prior to construction/decommissioning activities (see
HAZ/mm-2). The City also consulted the California Department of Conservation State
Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) regarding the project. In a March 20, 2014 letter,
SMGB confirmed that they had no concerns with the project, because based on their
review, no preclusion of existing surface mining operations or completion of currently
approved reclamation activities would occur.
Therefore, impacts associated with loss of availability of known mineral resources would
Response to XI(b): Would the project 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?
The mining activities occurring at the CEMEX site are identified in the Citys LCP,
General Plan, and other related planning documents. Although not specifically designated
as a locally important mineral resource recovery site, the planning documents recognize
the longstanding established use of the project area for that purpose.
The project may result in minor temporary disturbances to ongoing mining activities,
particularly during the short-term construction and decommissioning phases. However,
the applicant is coordinating closely with the property owner and has designed the project
to avoid any significant interference with mining operations. No substantial loss in the
availability of the site would occur as described above.
Therefore, impacts to a delineated mineral resource recovery site would be less than
significant.
No significant impacts to mineral resources were identified; therefore no mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XII. 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?

(b) Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive ground borne vibration or
ground borne noise levels?

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

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

(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?

Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XII. NOISE
Would the project result in:

(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?

Setting
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with
normal activities, causes actual physical harm, or when it has adverse effects on health
(Michael Brandman Associates 2013). Sound is produced by the vibration of sound
pressure waves in the air. Sound pressure levels are used to measure the intensity of
sound and are described in terms of decibels. The decibel (dB) is a logarithmic unit,
which expresses the ratio of the sound pressure level being measured to a standard
reference level. A-weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subjective response of the
human ear to a broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very
high frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those
frequencies that are audible to the human ear.
The Citys General Plan includes land use policies contained in the Community Land Use
Element designed to avoid conflicts between noise-sensitive uses and major noise
sources. Identified noise-sensitive uses are residences, schools, and parks. Maximum
allowable exterior noise exposure in industrial areas is 70 decibels (up to 80 decibels
would be conditionally acceptable.
The Citys Municipal Code establishes standards for construction noise in Chapter 9.24
and 15.04. Pursuant to the Municipal Code, construction activities are limited by the
following conditions:
When adjacent to a residential use, including transient lodging, construction noise
is limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on every day of the week except
Sundays and holidays, when construction activities are limited to the hours of
10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
During daylight savings time, construction activities adjacent to residential uses
can be extended by 1 hour, to 8:00 p.m.
No construction activities may result in a decibel level of more than 60 decibels
for 25 percent of an hour at any receiving property line.
The 400-acre CEMEX parcel serves as a large buffer between the project area and any
surrounding noise-sensitive uses. The nearest residences are located in the Marina Dunes
RV Park over 0.5 mile south of the project area, and the closest park is the Marina Dunes
Preserve located approximately 0.6 miles south of the project area. The closest schools
are Ione Olson Elementary School and Miss Barbaras Child Development Center,
located over 1.25 miles south of the project area. Although not specifically identified as a
noise-sensitive use in the Citys General Plan or Municipal Code, the beach area
immediately to the west is used by the public for recreational purposes.
Ambient noise at the project area is dominated by wind and wave action at the shoreline,
as well as traffic on SR 1 and within the CEMEX mining facility.
Impact Discussion
Response to XII(a): Would the project result in 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?
The project would not result in the development of any permanent noise sources, as the
use would be temporary and limited to the 2 to 3-year project period. Operational noise
would be minimal because project components would predominantly be buried or located
within the sub-surface wellhead vault. Short-term construction and decommissioning
activities would involve the use of heavy machinery, drill rigs, earthmoving equipment,
and other activities that would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels.
Although not specifically identified as a noise-sensitive use, recreational beach users
adjacent to the CEMEX parcel would be the user group most likely to be impacted by
construction and decommissioning activities.
The project proposes two on-shore drilling methods that would constitute the most
dominant noise sources: sonic drilling would be used to install the two monitoring wells
and dual rotary drilling would be used for construction of the slant test well. Sonic
drilling methods utilize high frequency resonant energy created from mechanical
oscillations to liquefy (or fluidize) the immediately surrounding soil material allowing the
drill head to rapidly penetrate the substrate. The dual rotary drilling method involves a
slow rotation of the outer temporary casing and the internal dual wall reverse drill string.
Based on a noise evaluations completed to evaluate worker safety during drilling
activities, noise from sonic drills typically ranges between 106 dBA at 0 feet from the
drill to 96 dBA at a distance of 25 feet from the drill. Noise levels generated from dual
rotary drilling typically range from 105 dBA at 0 feet from the drill to 84 dBA at 50 feet
(Layne Christensen Company 2000).
Noise levels and frequencies attenuate and decrease as the distance from the source
increases. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on whether the noise
is a point or line source as well as ground absorption, atmospheric effects and refraction,
and shielding by natural and manmade features. Ground absorption typically ranges
between 6 to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of the distance from the source depending on
site conditions (i.e., soft-site vs. hard-site conditions). Soft-site conditions (7.5 dBA
reduction) account for the average sound propagation loss over natural surfaces such as
normal earth and ground vegetation. Hard-site conditions (6 dBA reduction) reflect
attenuation rates over hard ground such as asphalt, concrete, stone and very hard packed
earth. The project area constitutes a soft site, due to the presence of natural dunes. Noise
walls also achieve an approximately 5 dBA reduction when tall enough to break the line
of sight (Michael Brandman Associates 2013).
Due to the low risk of significant noise impacts associated with the project, no project-
specific noise evaluation was completed. However, using the general attenuation rates
discussed above, drilling noise of approximately 105 dBA would be expected to decrease
by as much as 40 dBA over the distance between the proposed drilling activities and the
public beach areas (350 feet or more), resulting in potential public exposure to 65dB of
noise. Wave and wind noise at that location would likely be the controlling noise source
along the shoreline.
The project would result in short-term construction noise in a predominantly unoccupied
industrial area, but construction noise is not anticipated to differ substantially from the
ongoing mining operations. There are no identified sensitive receptors (as identified by
the Citys General Plan) in the project vicinity that would be affected by project-related
noise. Therefore, noise impacts would be less than significant. Noise attenuation
identified to reduce impacts to sensitive wildlife species in the project area (see BIO/mm-
10) would further reduce potential short-term impacts to the limited number of
recreational users in the project vicinity.
Therefore, impacts associated with exposure or generation of excess noise levels would
Response to XII(b): Would the project result in exposure of persons to or
generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground
borne noise levels?
Groundborne vibration is measured in terms of the velocity of the vibration oscillations.
As with noise, a weighted decibel scale (VdB) is used to quantify vibration intensity.
Excessive vibration is typically associated with blasting activities or high impact actions
(i.e., percussive pile driving).
Construction of the project may generate ground borne vibration or noise associated with
earthmoving and drilling activities. However, no high impact or percussive construction
activity would occur and construction-related vibration would be minimal. Although
recreational uses along the beach would be considered sensitive, the proposed
construction activities would be limited in duration and would not be excessive or
substantially different than mining activities in currently occurring at the CEMEX site.
Therefore, impacts associated with ground borne vibration and noise would be less than
significant.
Response to XII(c): Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
The project would not result in the development of any permanent noise sources, as the
project life is limited in duration (2 to 3 years). Semi-permanent noise impacts during the
operational phase of the project would also be negligible, as the slant test well pump (the
largest noise-generating source) and associated components would be located within the
sub-surface wellhead vault.
Therefore, impacts associated with a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels would be less than significant.
Response to XII(d): Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
It is possible that the proposed construction and drilling activities, although temporary
and generally limited to daytime hours, would result in a noticeable increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity. The proposed drilling and construction activities
would not be substantially different from ongoing mining and sand processing operations
at the CEMEX site during the day. Any affected individuals on the beach could move to
substantial adjacent beach areas. Nighttime construction activities would be minimal and
is not expected to disrupt sensitive recreational user, who are not likely to be within the
remote beach area at night.
There are very few sensitive receptors in the project vicinity that would be impacted by
any temporary increase in noise levels and project-generated noise levels are expected to
be negligible (if not rendered entirely inaudible) in comparison to tide/surf and wind-
related noise along the shoreline. Therefore, impacts associated with a temporary increase
in noise levels would be less than significant.
Response to XII(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?
The Marina Municipal Airport is located approximately 2.7 miles southeast of the project
site. Uses in proximity of the airport are regulated by the 2006 Draft ACLUP. The
ACLUP identifies areas within proximity to the airport that may be impacted by noise,
safety, flight hazards, and overflight impacts as a result of airport operations.
The project site is not within the ACLUP review boundary or within 2 miles of the
airport. The 2006 Draft ACLUP analyzed potential noise impacts associated with airport
use through the year 2025 and found that there would be no noise impacts outside of the
review boundary.
Therefore, no impact associated with exposure to airport noise would occur.
Response to XII(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?
There are no private airstrips within the Marina Planning Area or other surrounding areas
within the jurisdiction of Monterey County.
Therefore, no impacts associated with private airstrip noise would occur.
No significant impacts related to noise or vibration were identified; therefore no
mitigation measures are necessary.
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIII. POPULATION AND
HOUSING
Would the project:

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

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

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

Setting
The population of the City of Marina is 19,718, which reflects a 5,383 decrease from the
2000 population of 25,101, potentially caused by closure of the former Fort Ord Military
Reservation in 1994 (U.S. Census 2000 and 2010). Based on the Citys current Housing
Element (2008-2014), jobs and housing available at U.S. Army Fort Ord caused Marinas
population to swell 28 percent from 1980 to 1990, and then drop 27 percent from 1990 to
2000 when the base closed in 1994. Housing growth since 2000 has been minimal, as
confirmed by building permit statistics and the CDF annual updates (City of Marina
2009).
Due to the redevelopment of former Fort Ord properties, the population is projected to
increase in the near term. The Citys ratio of jobs to housing in 2003 was 0.63:1 (4,407
jobs and 7,017 housing units) compared to 1.26:1 in the Monterey Bay area. Build out of
proposed and planned projects added to existing development was projected to result in a
ratio of 1.3:1 (City of Marina 2009).
Impact Discussion
Response to XIII(a): Would the project induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
The project proposes temporary hydrogeologic testing to analyze potential hydrogeologic
impacts of the MPWSP. It does not include any permanent residential, commercial, or
other use that may provide job growth opportunities. Unlike the MPWSP, the slant test
well would not provide an extension of existing infrastructure or new water source that
would accommodate additional growth in the area.
The project would potentially generate a short-term population increase of up to 15
individuals and their families during project construction and decommissioning phases.
This increase would likely be comprised of workers from the local work force who would
not affect existing population and housing characteristics, or temporary workers who
would not make a permanent move to the city of Marina or surrounding area as a result of
the limited construction and decommissioning activities associated with the project.
Therefore, impacts associated with an increased demand or need for additional housing
Response to XIII(b): Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
The CEMEX site does not support any occupied housing units and the project would not
displace any housing or result in the need for construction of replacement housing
elsewhere. The site contains the vacant former living quarters of previous mine operators
in the eastern portion of the project area. However, the project would not displace these
structures, and their habitability is uncertain due to their age and condition.
Therefore, no impact associated with the displacement of housing would occur.
Response to XIII(c): Would the project displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
The CEMEX site does not support any residential uses and no people would be displaced
as a result of the project. No project component or effect would necessitate the
construction of replacement housing to accommodate displaced housing or people.
Therefore, no impact associated with the displacement of people would occur.
No significant impacts related to population or housing were identified; therefore no
mitigation measures are necessary.
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XIV. 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?
(b) Police protection?
(c) Schools?
(d) Parks?
(e) Other public facilities?

Setting
The Marina Fire Department provides all-risk emergency response to the Citys residents,
which includes structural and wildfire response, medical emergency response, hazardous
materials mitigation, rescue, airport emergency response, public education, training,
prevention, and investigation. The Fire Department also provides out-of-county response
to other areas. Rescue and emergency medical service incidents continue to make up
approximately half of the Fire Departments calls for service.
The Marina Police Department provides public safety response and services for Marina
with 29 sworn officers and eight non-sworn personnel. The Department also includes
animal services, crime prevention, and education services for the community.
Police and fire services to all parts of the city are provided from the Citys Public Safety
Building on Palm Street. The City of Marina General Plan establishes a 3- to 4-minute
response time for the Fire Department.
Incorporated areas within the city of Marina are within the service area of the Monterey
Peninsula Unified School District (MPUSD). The MPUSD serves kindergarten and
grades one through twelve in the communities of Marina, former Fort Ord, Sand City,
Seaside, Del Rey Oaks, and Monterey. The district currently operates 12 elementary
schools, three middle schools, and four high schools, including a former elementary
school in former Fort Ord now used as a continuation/alternative high school (Central
Coast High School).
According to the General Plan, the City of Marina has a total of 96.7 acres devoted to
local and community-serving parks and recreational uses, including a sports center, teen
center, equestrian center, and school playfields. The present ratio of City park and
recreation land to population is consistent with the Citys standard of 5.3 acres per 1,000
residents. Outdoor recreational assets within Marina provide further recreational
opportunities, including over 650 acres of state and regional coastal parkland.
Impact Discussion
Response to XIV(a): 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
fire protection?
The proposed project would not be located in an area of high wildfire potential, and does
not propose activities that present a substantial risk of fire or other emergency medical,
rescue, or upset conditions. The proposed slant test well and related infrastructure would
not require substantial human maintenance or attention during project operations, and
would not significantly increase demands on the Fire Department resulting in the need for
additional facilities. Access to the project site from the Citys Public Safety Building
would be easily accommodated via Del Monte Boulevard and Lapis Road and is expected
to be within the acceptable response time.
Therefore, impacts associated with fire protection would be less than significant.
Response to XIV(b): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
police protection?
As discussed in relation to Fire Department services above, the project would not
significantly increase demand on local police protection services resulting in the need for
additional facilities. Proposed activities are similar to existing uses at the CEMEX site
and would not result in substantially increased risk of public safety or criminal activity at
the site. The site is expected to be within accepted service ratios and response times.
Therefore, impacts associated with police protection would be less than significant.
Response to XIV(c): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
schools?
not generate increased demand on school facilities, or temporary workers who would not
make a permanent move to the city of Marina or surrounding area as a result of the
limited construction and decommissioning activities proposed by the project. The
potential for increased demand and/or use of school facilities as a result of the project is
minimal.
Therefore, impacts to schools would be less than significant.
Response to XIV(d): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
parks?
not generate increased demand on recreational facilities, or temporary workers who
would not make a permanent move to the city of Marina or surrounding area as a result of
the limited construction activities proposed by the project. Therefore, the potential for
increased demand and/or use of existing recreational facilities as a result of the project is
minimal. There are sufficient recreational opportunities within the city to accommodate
any marginal increase that may occur. Impacts to recreational uses along the public beach
areas are discussed in Section 3.3 XV, below.
Therefore, impacts to parks would be less than significant.
Response to XIV(e): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
other public facilities?
As discussed above, the project would not result in a substantial or permanent population
increase within the City. Therefore, no increase in the demand for public services is
expected. The project would not result in the provision of new governmental facilities
and does not include physical alteration of any public facilities.
Therefore, impacts to other public facilities would be less than significant.
No significant impacts to public services were identified; therefore no mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XV. RECREATION
Would the project:

(a) 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?

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

Setting
As discussed above, the City of Marina has significant recreational resources, including
96.7 acres devoted to local and community-serving parks and recreational uses, a sports
center, teen center, equestrian center, and school playfields. Outdoor recreational assets
within Marina provide further recreational opportunities, including over 650 acres of state
and regional coastal parkland.
Recreational uses in the vicinity of the project area are limited to lateral public beach
access seaward of mean high tide. The sandy beach and dune areas are privately owned
by CEMEX.
Impact Discussion
Response to XV(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?
Refer to the Response to XIV(d), above. The project is not expected to generate a
substantial increase in demand on parks or recreational facilities in the area that would
pose a significant risk of deterioration of the recreational facility.
Therefore, impacts associated with the deterioration of recreational facilities would be
Response to XV(b): Would the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The project does not include the development of any recreational facilities and would not
result in the need for construction or expansion of recreational facilities. As discussed in
other sections, no significant impacts to adjacent recreational uses along the public beach
are anticipated.
Therefore, impacts associated with development of recreational facilities would be less
than significant.
No significant impacts to recreational facilities were identified; therefore no mitigation
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND
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)?

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

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVI. TRANSPORTATION AND
TRAFFIC
Would the project:

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

(e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
(f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
(g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?

Setting
Regional access to the City of Marina is provided by SR 1, Reservation Road, and Blanco
Road. Other roadways providing circulation within the City include Del Monte
Boulevard, Imjin Parkway, Beach Road, Carmel Avenue, Palm Avenue, Reindollar
Avenue, Crescent Avenue, and California Avenue. Key roads located on the former Fort
Ord property (now within the Citys jurisdiction) include 12th Street, 8th Street, and 2nd
Avenue. Intergarrison Road and Light Fighter Drive are outside the City of Marina, but
are also important to the local circulation system (Lamphier & Associates 2000).
The project site would be accessed via SR 1, Lapis Road, and the existing internal
CEMEX access road. SR 1 provides regional as well as state-wide access for the
Monterey Peninsula. It is a four- and six-lane freeway through Marina with interchanges
provided at Imjin Parkway, South Del Monte Boulevard, Reservation Road, and North
Del Monte Boulevard. Del Monte Boulevard is a four-lane arterial that extends between
grade-separated interchanges with SR 1 south of Reindollar Avenue and at Beach Road.
Lapis Road is a two-lane road that provides access from Del Monte Boulevard to the
entrance to the CEMEX facility.
The Citys General Plan has established a minimum Level of Service (LOS) standard of
LOS D for all major roadways.
The Marina Municipal Airport is located approximately 2.7 miles southeast of the project
site. The airport accommodates business, personal, and recreational flying; flight training;
skydiving; and local emergency operations, and provides air access to other nearby areas.
The Marina Municipal Airport is currently classified as a Limited Use Airport in the
California Aviation System Plan; however, it is expected to be reclassified as a
Community General Aviation Airport in the next update of the plan (Aries Consultants
2008). Additional proximate airports include the Monterey Peninsula Airport, located
approximately 9 miles south of the project site, and the Salinas Airport, located
approximately 11 miles east of the proposed project site.
Impact Discussion
Response to XVI(a): Would the project 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)?
The traffic generated by the proposed project would be very limited, consisting of up to
15 additional daily construction worker trips during construction and decommissioning
phases, and one to two additional well operator trips per week during the operational
phase. This additional level of traffic, over the projects temporary 2 to 3-year lifespan,
would not result in a significant increase in traffic in the project area. All roadways and
intersections in the project vicinity are expected to operate at levels consistent with
existing use.
Therefore, impacts associated with an increase in traffic would be less than significant.
Response to XVI(b): Would the project exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads
or highways?
The project would result in up to 15 additional vehicles on roads in the project vicinity
during short-term construction and decommissioning periods. This level of traffic is not
expected to cause exceedances of any LOS thresholds on roads in the project vicinity.
Operation of the slant test well would not result in a significant impact on transportation
or traffic due to the limited number of trips associated with this phase. Due to the
proposed projects minimal and temporary effects on traffic in the project area, impacts to
existing LOS would be minimal.
Therefore, impacts to levels of service standards would be less than significant.
Response to XVI(c): Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in
location that results in substantial safety risks?
The project site is not within the 2006 Draft ACLUP review boundary. The proposed
slant test well would not result in a change in air traffic patterns at the Marina Municipal
Airport or other proximate airports or change the level of air traffic from these airports.
The project is not expected to impact any air traffic in the project vicinity in a way that
would create safety risks.
Therefore, impacts to air traffic would be less than significant.
Response to XVI(d): Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The proposed project would not alter any existing roadways or otherwise create or
exacerbate a dangerous design feature. The proposed use of the existing CEMEX access
road by the drill rigs and heavy equipment that would be necessary for construction of the
project is not inconsistent with the existing mining equipment that utilizes the road and
the mitigation is identified to ensure coordination with the property owner prior to
construction and decommissioning activities (see HAZ/mm-2).
Therefore, impacts associated with increased traffic hazards would be less than
significant.
Response to XVI(e): Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
The CEMEX facility is only accessible by vehicle via the main entrance off of Lapis
Road. The project would not alter, obstruct, or otherwise affect any existing access to the
site or routes to the CEMEX site. The applicant would coordinate with CEMEX to ensure
that any project-related vehicles would be located so that the entrance of the CEMEX site
remains clear in the event access is necessary for emergency purposes.
Therefore, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant.
Response to XVI(f): Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity?
Parking capacity at the CEMEX site is somewhat limited. The project would not generate
any long-term parking demand at the CEMEX site or surrounding areas, and the existing
parking would likely be able to accommodate any parking needs during the operational
phase. As many as 15 construction crewmembers could be accessing the site during
construction and decommissioning activities, and would likely park within the existing
CEMEX parking area. Impacts to the general public as a result of parking would not
occur; however, there may be conflicts with the existing CEMEX operation due to
available capacity for CEMEX staff.
Mitigation is identified to reduce potential conflicts with CEMEX mining activities and
parking, including pre-construction coordination and development of a parking plan and
agreement with the property owner. In the event parking capacity within the CEMEX
parking area is insufficient to accommodate project crewmembers, the applicant would be
required to implement carpooling, off-site parking, and shuttle service to the site, or other
similar measures to reduce the number of vehicles at the site consistent with property
owner approval. There is adequate parking available in other locations near the project
site (such as public parking areas within the city) that could be utilized to reduce parking
at the CEMEX site, and multiple options for avoiding potential short-term parking
impacts, if necessary.
Therefore, impacts to parking would be less than significant with mitigation described
in HAZ/mm-2.
Response to XVI(g): Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus
turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The project does not alter alternative transportation plans or modes, and is not expected
to result in any measurable or long-term increase in the use or demand for these systems.
Therefore, impacts to alternative transportation would be less than significant.
To minimize the potential for parking-related impacts, the following measures would be
implemented.
Implement HAZ/mm-2.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts to traffic, transportation and
parking would be less than significant.
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS
Would the project:

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

(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?

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

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

Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE
SYSTEMS
Would the project:

(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
projects projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments?

(f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
projects solid waste disposal needs?

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

Setting
Wastewater treatment in the city of Marina is provided by the MRWPCA. The existing
MRWPCA outfall consists of four miles of 60-inch-diameter reinforced concrete pipeline
and appurtenances that convey treated wastewater from the Regional Treatment Plant
located 2 miles north of the City of Marina for ocean disposal. The land portion of the
pipeline is buried, while the balance (about half) lies on or below the ocean floor in
Monterey Bay. The outfall currently conveys secondary effluent during a majority of the
year, but flow decreases to near zero during the agricultural growing season when the
treatment facilities are used to produce recycled water for irrigation. MRWPCA produces
recycled water sometime during February through December. Typically all wastewater is
recycled during the five months of April through August.
Specifically, the outfall consists of 12,745 feet of 60-inch-diameter pipe on land before
transitioning underwater. The portion of the outfall that is underwater is approximately
10,392 feet in length and is 5 feet (60 inches) in diameter, except the last 907 feet of the
diffuser at the end of the outfall. The diffuser consists of 500 feet of 60-inch-diameter
diffuser and 907 feet of 48-inch-diameter diffuser. The end of the outfall diffuser is at a
depth of 106.9 feet below mean sea level (msl). The 48-inch-diameter diffuser section
contains 106 2-inch outlet ports fitted with 4-inch duckbill valves. The 60-inch-diameter
diffuser section contains 65 2-inch ports fitted with 4-inch duckbill valves.
The upstream end of the 60-inch ocean outfall pipeline is fitted with a pressurized
junction box on the beach, which connects to the 12,745-foot-long, 60-inch-diameter land
outfall pipeline.
The City of Marinas solid waste is currently collected by Waste Management, Inc. and
disposed of at the Monterey Regional Waste Management Districts Monterey Peninsula
Landfill, located north of the city, approximately 1.5 miles east of the CEMEX parcel.
The Citys General Plan indicates that the 475-acre landfill has adequate capacity to
accommodate waste management needs in the service area for approximately 90 years
(City of Marina 2000).
Impact Discussion
Response to XVII(a): Would the project exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
The project does not propose the discharge of any wastewater that would exceed
applicable treatment requirements of the RWQCB. The construction activities would
include use of a portable restroom facility and hand-washing station, which would be
provided by a licensed provider of these facilities and would be maintained and operated
in compliance with applicable regulations. Pumped test water would consist of untreated
tidally-influenced saltwater subject to an NPDES permit, and water quality samples at the
CEMEX site indicate that the discharge would not contain any pollutants that would
implicate an exceedance of wastewater treatment requirements.
Therefore, impacts associated with the potential exceedance of wastewater treatment
requirements would be less than significant with mitigation described in BIO/mm-17.
Response to XVII(b): Would the project 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?
The project would not require service through any new or expanded water or wastewater
treatment facilities. Temporary construction demands would be met by portable restroom
facilities, hand-washing stations, and bottled water (as necessary) for construction
workers. However, the project proposes connection to existing MRWPCA wastewater
infrastructure, which could interfere with or cause damage to existing wastewater
infrastructure. Damage could lead to adverse environmental effects, such as a spill of
treated wastewater on the beach, or could create the need for structural repairs that would
cause adverse environmental impacts, such as additional disturbance in the sandy beach
or Pacific Ocean.
MRWPCA was consulted regarding the project through agency referral packages
delivered on August 1, 2013, and February 28, 2014. MRWPCA indicated through their
responses (September 13, 2013, and March 21, 2014) that they were supportive of the
project. The following list summarizes MRWPCAs comments and concerns associated
with connection and use of the outfall.
Abandoned Ocean Outfall Construction Trestle the first 2,000 feet of the ocean-
portion of the outfall were built from a temporary trestle, by driving steel pipe
into the sand and building a tracked roadway above for a mobile crane. The slant
test well should be drilled outside the extent of the construction trestle to avoid
contact with any original pipe that was not removed.
Positive Location of Outfall MRWPCA requested that the applicant positively
locate the outfall prior to any drilling or trenching. Positive identification could
occur through utilization of Underground Service Alert of Northern/Central
California and Nevada (USA North 811), or if there is any uncertainty, the outfall
should be pot-holed to determine its location. The connection pipeline that would
be installed between the well and the junction structure is shown to cross the
outfall twice. MRWPCA is concerned about the protection of the outfall and
junction structure. Caution should be taken when digging close to MRWPCA
facilities.
Connection to Junction Structure They are also concerned about connection to
the 42-inch by 84-inch pressure lid. The design should allow for access to the
junction structure in the event of an emergency. In addition, because the junction
structure can be under pressure, connection may need to be performed during low
flow (night) conditions. The connection may require a significant number of
MRWPCA personnel to attend various pump stations within the system.
MRWPCA would need to conduct engineering review of the connection to the
junction structure. It is preferred that the connection pipeline not be metallic.
Connection to the existing cover would be acceptable only if a new cover is
provided at the end of the project. The pipeline should be connected to and bolted
to the structure directly.
Although currently sub-surface, the manhole structure and cover were designed
and built to be at surface grade. The connection should be designed to potentially
be at or above grade. The manhole needs to be accessible for repair or
maintenance throughout the test period.
Staging and Heavy Equipment staging areas and heavy equipment should be
kept at a safe distance from MRWPCAs facilities, including the outfall pipeline,
junction structure, and the buried concrete emergency by-pass channel that
extends 196.5 feet seaward of the junction structure.
Well Abandonment MRWPCA assumes that the test well would be abandoned
in place, as removal of the well could adversely affect the outfall more than
construction.
Discharge of Seawater MRWPCA is not currently permitted for receiving
seawater at the junction structure and would only accept seawater if necessary
approvals have been granted by the RWQCB. MRWPCAs previous
conversations with RWQCB staff have indicated that discharging pumped
seawater back into the ocean should not be difficult to accomplish; however, there
may be some delay in getting proper permits in place.
Corrosion of MRWPCA Facilities the currently discharged secondary effluent is
not very corrosive to the concrete pipes or metal appurtenances of the outfall.
Seawater could be much more corrosive. MRWPCA wishes to confirm the
existing extent of corrosion of the junction structure and outfall prior to accepting
seawater. A baseline corrosion study would be required.
Sand MRWPCA does not want sand entering the junction structure or outfall.
Temporary sedimentation tanks are proposed for slant test well development;
however, during operation the only sand removal would be via the well screening.
They request mechanical screening to prevent sand from entering MRWPCA
facilities.
Access to Flow Meter Data MRWPCA would want the slant test well flow
meter data telemetered to MRWPCAs Control Room. If a cell phone based
system is used by Cal Am (similar to what MRWPCA uses in several locations),
then access to instantaneous data may be adequate.
Alarm System the project includes an alarm system, whereby high back
pressure (among other events) would shut down the slant test well pump and alert
Cal Am. MRWPCA would like to be involved in determining what the alarm set
point would be and to have the high pressure alert sent to MRWPCAs control
room as well. The pressure shutdown should be connected to the telemetry
system. Cal Am may need to design and integrate a backflow prevention device
on the well to meet California Department of Public Health, Monterey County
Environmental Health, or RWQCB requirements.
Maintenance of Outfall MRWPCA may need to access the outfall for future
repair and maintenance. The proposed electrical conduit would cross the outfall
pipeline. MRWPCA would not be responsible for repair or replacement of
electrical conduit or wiring should it need to be removed to access the outfall.
MRWPCA and Cal Am Agreement MRWPCA and Cal Am need to enter into
an agreement for accepting the test water. The agreement should address
MRWPCAs concerns through engineering design and the terms of the
agreement.
Disturbance of the abandoned outfall construction trestle could result in the need for
additional excavation and pipe removal, thereby increasing disturbance and construction
activities. If encountered or exposed, the pipe could also contain hazardous substances
(such as asbestos-containing materials or lead), which could require special handling,
worker safety and/or disposal measures. Disturbance or damage to the outfall pipe would
require repairs, causing an increase in disturbance within the project area and associated
environmental effects. It could also cause an interruption in MRWPCA disposal activities
or result in a spill of treated wastewater.
The project is not expected to result in substantial corrosion of the outfall due to the
limited duration of the discharge and absence of brine (concentrated seawater) in the
discharge (as would be proposed after desalination under the full-scale MPWSP). The
project applicant will test the extent of existing corrosive intrusion on exterior portions of
the pipe, which have been in place and exposed to seawater for over 30 years, to monitor
the extent of corrosion that would be expected during proposed long-term operations of
the full-scale MPWSP.
MRWPCA indicated through project consultation efforts that they believed all concerns
could be addressed through engineering design and additional coordination with Cal Am,
and implemented through the terms of an agreement or memorandum of understanding
between Cal Am and MRWPCA. Mitigation is identified that would ensure the potential
adverse environmental effects associated with connection to the MRWPCA outfall are
addressed and minimized prior to development of the project, including requirements for
engineering design review, positive location of the outfall prior to construction, and
development of a back pressure alarm system.
Therefore, impacts associated with new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities
would be less than significant with mitigation described in UTIL/mm-1.
Response to XVII(c): Would the project require or result in the construction of
new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
The project would not involve the construction or expansion of stormwater drainage
facilities. The vast majority of proposed project components would be located sub-
surface and surface conditions would be restored to pre-existing conditions to the extent
feasible. Therefore, no permanent alterations to stormwater runoff or drainage would
result.
Therefore, impacts associated with new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities would
Response to XVII(d): Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or
are new or expanded entitlements needed?
The proposed project is not expected to generate any substantial or permanent increase in
potable water demand. Water usage would be limited to use of a water truck for drilling
activities, standard dust control during project construction and decommissioning and
other minimal potable water demands for construction crew during construction
activities. The Citys domestic water supply is sufficient to meet this demand. Pumping
of saline groundwater would not implicate City utilities or service systems and the
SWRCB has indicated that Cal Am has the right to pump from within the aquifers at the
CEMEX site (SWRCB 2013).
Therefore, impacts associated with water supply availability would be less than
significant.
Response to XVII(e): Would the project result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
projects projected demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments?
The proposed project would not require service from any wastewater treatment provider
for wastewater treatment purposes. However, the water pumped from the slant test well
would be discharged through the existing wastewater outfall operated by MRWPCA that
discharges treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean approximately 2 miles offshore.
The MRWPCA has confirmed that there is adequate capacity in the outfall to
accommodate the maximum amount of water proposed for discharge into the outfall (Bob
Holden, MRWPCA, personal communication with Emily Creel, SWCA, April 17, 2014).
Therefore, impacts associated with adequate capacity of relevant wastewater treatment
facilities would be less than significant.
Response to XVII(f): Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste
disposal needs?
The proposed project is expected to generate 225 cubic yards of drill cuttings and
excavated material that would need to be disposed of after project construction and
minimal amounts of additional construction-related solid waste. Pursuant to the Monterey
Regional Waste Management Districts website, the Monterey Peninsula Landfill is not
expected to reach its full capacity until the year 2161. Existing permitted capacity would
be adequate to serve the proposed projects waste disposal needs.
Therefore, impacts associated with landfill capacity would be less than significant.
Response to XVII(g): Would the project comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The project applicant has indicated that all drill cuttings and excavated materials not used
to backfill previously excavated areas would be disposed of at an approved landfill site,
likely the Monterey Peninsula Landfill. The Monterey Regional Waste Management
District is responsible for implementing environmental controls and monitoring activities
at the landfill, and conducts regular hazardous waste load checks to ensure disposal
pursuant to applicable California laws and regulations. There are no proposed project
activities that would indicate a potential for non-compliance with applicable regulations
related to solid waste.
Therefore, impacts related to compliance with applicable solid waste regulations would
To minimize the potential for impacts on utilities and service systems, the following
measures would be implemented.
UTIL/mm-1 Prior to issuance of a coastal development permit, the applicant shall
provide the City with a copy of a negotiated agreement or
memorandum of understanding between the applicant and the
Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency regarding
connection and use of the ocean outfall. At minimum, the agreement
shall include MRWPCA engineering design review, USA North 811
positive location of the outfall, construction trestle, and any related
infrastructure, RWQCB approval or permits for discharge of seawater
through the MRWPCA outfall, and access to flow meter data and
alarm system triggers and signals.
With the incorporation of these measures, residual impacts to utilities and service systems
3.4 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS
OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project:

(a) Have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce
habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause
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 rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?

(b) 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)?

Potentially
Significant
Impact, even
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS
OF SIGNIFICANCE
Does the project:

(c) Have environmental effects, which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?

Response to XVIII(a): Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce habitat of fish or
wildlife species, cause 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 rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
Despite its location in the actively mined portion of the CEMEX property, the project
area supports substantial biological resources and significant historic resources. The
current project location was selected after lengthy discussion and consideration of
alternative sites and the applicant has designed the project to avoid sensitive resources to
the greatest extent feasible. Mitigation and avoidance measures described above would be
implemented to further minimize the potential for any significant impacts. As proposed,
the project is not expected to substantially reduce habitat for fish or wildlife species,
cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or
endangered plant or animal species, or eliminate important cultural resources.
Therefore, the risk of substantial degradation of the quality of the environment would be
less than significant with mitigation described above.
Response to XVIII(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)?
The proposed project is temporary in nature, with a total projected lifespan of
approximately 2 to 3 years. Project-related impacts would be short-term, and
predominantly limited to the area of disturbance and immediate vicinity (i.e., no
significant impacts to areawide air quality or regional transportation facilities have been
identified).
Past, present, or planned future projects that could potentially compound impacts include
the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park
District Marina Dunes Preserve Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Access and
Rehabilitation Project, the Marina Dunes RV Expansion Project, and potential future
expansion of the Sanctuary Resort.
These projects are likely to entail similar impacts associated with development in
Marinas sensitive coastal dune areas. Impacts to sensitive species and habitat areas
associated with the slant test well would be fully mitigated and would therefore not
compound or increase cumulative impacts. The MPWSP has the potential to result in
hydrogeologic impacts such as water drawdown and/or changes in water quality. The
purpose of the slant test well is to determine the potential for the MPWSP to cause
seawater intrusion, drawdown of nearby groundwater wells or other adverse
environmental effects and would allow interested stakeholders to more accurately
identify and avoid any potential impacts. The slant test wells hydrogeologic impacts
would be minimal and would not be cumulatively considerable when considered in
conjunction with the MPWSP. Based on the analysis presented in this Initial Study, the
project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact, particularly due its short
time frame, area of effect, project design, and incorporation of identified mitigation
measures.
Therefore, any measureable effects associated with the slant test well project would be
cumulatively less than significant.
Response to XVIII(c): Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly?
The project is situated in the center of a large, 400-acre CEMEX parcel within an area
that has been actively mined for over 100 years. Direct and indirect impacts on human
beings would be less than significant, and could be beneficial if the project is successful
in helping groundwater stakeholders identify a feasible means of procuring a safe future
water supply. The project has been through a lengthy planning process up to this point in
an attempt to avoid environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible. The short-term
nature of the project also greatly reduces the significance of potential effects.
Therefore, the risk of substantial adverse impacts on human beings would be less than
significant.

SECTION 4. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION
On the basis of this Initial Study and Analysis:
0 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
1ZJ I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in
the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the
environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least
one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately man earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to
applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

ncvzrS
S1gnatur.

City of Marina
Cal Am Slant Test Well Project
Date
May 2014
Page 150
SECTION 5. REFERENCES
Aries Consultants LTD. 2008. Marina Municipal Airport Master Plan Update. Prepared for City
of Marina. February 2008. Morgan Hill, CA: Aries Consultants LTD.
BCR Consulting LLC. 2013. Cultural Resources Assessment Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Slant Test Well Project. Prepared for RBF Consulting. October 1, 2013. Napa, CA: BCR
Consulting LLC.
Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington. (Eds.) 2000. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.
Manomet, MA: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences.
California Department of Conservation. 1992. RMC Lonestar Lapis Sand Plant Reclamation Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report. January 1992. Sacramento, CA: California
Department of Conservation, State Mining and Geology Board.
. 2011. Monterey County Important Farmland 2010. Map. August 2011. Sacramento, CA:
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection.
California Department of Finance. May 1, 2013. Report E-1, Population Estimates for Cities,
Counties, and the State, January 1, 2012 and 2013. Demographic Research Unit.
California Department of Transportation. 2012. 2012 Traffic Volumes on the California State
Highway System. Sacramento, CA: Division of Traffic Operations. Prepared in
cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1981. Bulletin 74-81 Water Well
Standards: State of California. December 1981. Sacramento, CA: California Department
of Water Resources.
. 1991. Bulletin 74-90 (supplement to Bulletin 74-81) California Well Standards. June
1991. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Water Resources.
California Geological Survey. July 1, 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning,
State of California, County of Monterey, Marina Quadrangle. Prepared in coordination
with the California Emergency Management Agency and Tsunami Research Center at the
University of Southern California.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region. March 20, 2008. Waste
Discharge Requirements for the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
Regional Treatment Plant, Order No. R3-2008-0008, NPDES No. CA0048551.
City of Marina. 2000. City of Marina 2000 General Plan. Adopted October 31, 2000, Amended
through December 2006. Marina, CA: City of Marina.
. 2009. City of Marina Final Housing Element (2008-2014). Adopted by City Council
September 1, 2009. Certified by HCD December 16, 2009.
. 2006. Implementation Policies and Procedures for the California Environmental Quality
Act. Adopted May 2, 2006. Marina, CA: City of Marina.
. 1982. City of Marina Local Coastal Program. Reformatted to Include Post-Certification
Amendments, November 2013. Marina, CA: City of Marina.
. 2009. Zoning Ordinance. Marina, CA: City of Marina.
City of Marina, Marina Coast Water District, Monterey County Water Resources Agency. 1996.
Annexation Agreement and Groundwater Mitigation Framework for Marina Area Lands.
March 1996. Marina, CA: City of Marina. Marina, CA: Marina Coast Water District.
Salinas, CA: Monterey County Water Resources Agency.
ESA. October 2009. California American Water Company Coastal Water Project, Final
Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the CPUC.
ESA-PWA. 2014. Memorandum: Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea Level
Rise. ESA-PWA. March 19, 2014. San Francisco, California.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map Monterey
County, California and Incorporated Areas. Map. Panel 185 of 2050, Map Number
06053C0185G. April 2, 2009. Oakland, CA: Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Region IX.
Geoscience. December 18, 2013. Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, Hydrogeologic
Investigation Work Plan. Prepared for California American Water and RBF Consulting.
GeoSoils, Inc. April 3, 2014. Geotechnical Investigation, California American Water Temporary
Slant Test Well Project, Marina, Monterey County, California. Prepared for SWCA
Environmental Consultants.
Hastings, M.C., A.N. Popper. 2005. Effects of Sound on Fish. California Department of
Transportation. January 28, 2005. Sacramento, CA: Jones & Stokes.
ICF International. March 2010. Monterey County General Plan, Final Environmental Impact
Report. Prepared for: Monterey County Resource Management Agency Planning
Department.
ICF Jones & Stokes. September 2008. Monterey County General Plan, Draft Environmental
Impact Report. Prepared for: Monterey County Resource Management Agency Planning
Department.
Lamphier & Associates. August 2000. Final Environmental Impact Report on the Draft Marina
General Plan. Prepared for the City of Marina.
Layne Christensen Safety and Environmental Health Sciences Department. 2000. Noise
Evaluation, Foremost DR40 Barber Dual Wall Air Rotary Drill Rig. Layne Christensen.
Kansas City, Kansas.
. 2010. Draft Noise Evaluation, Rotosonic 550K Drilling Rig. Layne Christensen. Kansas
City, Kansas.
LexisNexis Municipal Codes. 2007. Marina Municipal Code. Updated 2007. Charlottesville, VA:
LexisNexis Municipal Codes, Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.
LSA Associates, Inc. April 19, 1990. Lapis Vegetation Plan. Prepared for RMC Lonestar, Inc.
Marine Mammal Commission. March 2007. Marine Mammals and Noise, A Sound Approach to
Research and Management. A Report to Congress from the Marine Mammal
Commission.
Michael Brandman Associates. January 25, 2013. Noise Impact Analysis Report, Sunset Gap
Monitoring Wells Project, Orange County, California. Prepared for the Orange County
Water District. Fountain Valley, California.
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). October 2008. Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan. Prepared as part of the Joint Management
Plan Review. U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA. National Ocean Service. Office of
National Marine Sanctuaries.
. 2014. Quick Facts: The Sanctuary at a Glance. Available at:
http://montereybay.noaa.gov/intro/mbnms_quickfacts.html. Accessed on April 11, 2014.
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD). 2008. 2008 Air Quality
Management Plan for the Monterey Bay Region. Revised August 2008. Monterey, CA:
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.
. 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Revised February 2008. Monterey, CA: Monterey
Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.
. 2013. Triennial Plan Revision 2009 2011. Adopted on April 17, 2013. Monterey, CA:
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.
Monterey County. October 26, 2010. 2010 Monterey County General Plan. Monterey County,
CA: Monterey County.
NOAA. December 23, 2013. Draft Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on
Marine Mammals. Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/draft_acoustic_guidance_2013.pdf. Accessed on
March 28, 2014.
Point Blue Conservation Science. January 2014. Nesting of the Snowy Plover in the Monterey Bay
Area, California in 2013. Point Blue Conservation Science Publication #1976.
RBF Consulting. 2013. Application Package for the Temporary Slant Test Well Project, Marina,
CA. Prepared on behalf of California American Water. July 2, 2013. Temecula, CA: RBF
Consulting.
RMC Lonestar. August 1989. Reclamation Plan, Lapis Plant, City of Marina, County of
Monterey. Revised October 11, 1989.
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District. April 2012. CEQA Air Quality
Handbook, A Guide for Assessing the Air Quality Impacts for Projects Subject to CEQA
Review. San Luis Obispo, California.
. March 28, 2012. Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Supporting Evidence. San Luis
Obispo, California.
Sea Engineering, Inc. (SEI). 2014. Technical Memorandum: Review of Coastal Erosion Analysis
by ESA PWA (2014) for the California American Water Temporary Slant Test Well
Environmental Impact Evaluation. SEI. April 18, 2014.
SWCA Environmental Consultants. May 2014. Cultural Resources Survey Report for the
California American Water Slant Test Well Project, City of Marina, Monterey County,
California. Prepared for the City of Marina.
. October 2013. Initial Study for the California American Water Temporary Slant Test
Well Project. Prepared for the City of Marina.
. May 2014. Rare and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment for the California
American Slant Test Well Project. Prepared for the City of Marina.
SWRCB. April 3, 2013. Draft Review of California American Water Companys Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service. April 1978. Soil
Survey of Monterey County, California. Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Forest
Service and University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wastewater Management. 2014.
NPDES Permit Program Basics, Water Permitting 101. Available at:
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=45. Accessed on April 13, 2014.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. Geologic Map of the Marina and Salinas Quadrangles
(DF-353), Monterey County, California. Map. Available at:
http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_83294.htm. Accessed October 20, 2013.
USGS, in cooperation with the Monterey County Water Resources Agency. 2002. Geohydrology
of a Deep-Aquifer System Monitoring-Well Site at Marina, Monterey County, California.
Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri024003/pdf/wrir024003.pdf. Accessed October
20, 2013.
Wadell Engineering Corporation. 2006. Draft Marina Municipal Airport. Comprehensive Land
Use Plan. Prepared for the City of Marina. April 2006. Burlingame, CA: Waddell
Engineering Corporation.
Willis, M.R., M. Broudic, M. Bhurosah, and I. Masters. October 6, 2010. Noise Associated with
Small Scale Drilling Operations. Third International Conference on Ocean Energy,
Bilbao.
Zander Associates. 2013. Technical Memorandum: Biological Resources Assessment MPWSP
Temporary Slant Test Well Project. Prepared for RBF Consulting. October 2013. San
Rafael, CA: Zander Associates.

SECTION 6. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Table 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Mitigation
Measure
Requirements of Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
Aesthetic Resources
AES/mm-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a lighting plan shall be submitted to the City
of Marina Planning Services Division for review and approval. The lighting plan
shall be prepared by a qualified engineer who is an active member of the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America and shall address any lighting
proposed for the slant test well project. The lighting plan shall be prepared using
guidance and best practices endorsed by the International Dark Sky Association.
The lighting plan shall address all aspects of any new sources of lighting associated
with the slant test well project, including but not limited to light towers, parking
lots and pathway lighting, construction equipment, and safety lighting. The lighting
plan shall also consider effects on wildlife in the surrounding area. The lighting
plan shall include the following in conjunction with other measures as determined
by the illumination engineer:
a. The point source of all exterior lighting shall be shielded from off-site
views.
b. Light trespass from exterior lights shall be minimized by directing light
downward and utilizing cut-off fixtures or shields.
c. Lumination from exterior lights shall be the lowest level allowed by public
safety standards.
d. Any required lighting poles shall be colored dark to reduce reflectivity.
The requirements of the lighting plan are not applicable to existing light sources at
the project site associated with ongoing CEMEX mining activities and facilities.
Approval of
Plan

Periodic Site
Inspections
Prior to Issuance
of Permits

Throughout
Construction and
Decommissioning
Activities
City

City
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
Air Quality
AQ/mm-1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following Best Management Practices and
standard mitigation measures for reducing fugitive dust emissions shall be noted on
project grading plans. All measures shall be adhered to during all project
construction and decommissioning activities.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Water all sand/dirt stockpiles at least twice daily. Increased watering
frequency may be required when wind speeds exceed 15 mph.
c. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site.
d. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered
or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance
between top of load and top of trailer).
e. Plant appropriate vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas that are
planned for habitat restoration as soon as possible.
f. Cover inactive storage piles with methods approved in advance by U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
g. Install wheel washers at the entrance to the construction site for all exiting
trucks.
h. Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction
site.
i. Post a publicly visible sign which 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 be visible
to ensure compliance with Rule 402 (Nuisance).
Review of
Project Plans

Periodic Site
Inspections
Prior to Issuance
of Permits

Throughout
Construction and
Decommissioning
Activities
City

City
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
AQ/mm-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the following Best Management Practices and
standard mitigation measures for reducing nitrogen oxides (NO
x
), reactive organic
gases (ROG) and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from construction
equipment shall be noted on project grading plans. All measures shall be adhered to
during all project construction and decommissioning activities.
a. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to
manufacturers specifications.
b. Diesel powered equipment shall be replaced by electric equipment
whenever feasible to reduce NO
x
emissions.
c. Diesel-powered equipment shall be replaced by gasoline-powered
equipment whenever feasible.
d. Diesel construction equipment meeting the California Air Resources
Board (CARB) Tier 1 emission standards for off-road heavy-duty diesel
engines shall be used. Equipment meeting CARB Tier 2 or higher
emission standards shall be used to the maximum extent feasible.
e. Catalytic converters shall be installed on gasoline-powered equipment, if
feasible.
f. All on- and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5
minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job
site to remind drivers and operators of the 5-minute idling limit.
g. Diesel equipment idling shall not be permitted within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors.
h. The engine size of construction equipment shall be the minimum practical
size.
i. The number of construction equipment operating simultaneously shall be
minimized through efficient management practices to ensure that the
smallest practical number is operating at any one time.
j. Construction worker trips shall be minimized by providing options for
carpooling and by providing for lunch onsite.
Review of
Project Plans

Periodic Site
Inspections
Prior to Issuance
of Permits

Throughout
Construction and
Decommissioning
Activities
City

City
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
Biological Resources
BIO/mm-1 Prior to construction, the applicant shall retain a qualified biological monitor(s),
approved by the City, to ensure compliance with all measures identified in the
project environmental documents and permits. Monitoring shall occur throughout
the duration of construction and decommissioning activities, or as directed by
relevant regulatory agencies. Monitoring may be reduced during project operation,
as determined through consultation with the City, USFWS, and CDFW.
Approval of
Biological
Monitor
Prior to
Construction
Activities
City
BIO/mm-2 A qualified biologist(s) shall conduct preconstruction surveys for special-status
species as described below.
a. Because of the dynamic nature of sand dunes and the tendency for
Monterey spineflower to establish in recently-disturbed areas, surveys for
Monterey spineflower and buckwheat (host plant for Smiths blue
butterfly) shall be conducted within all project disturbance areas and
within 20 feet of project boundaries during the blooming period for the
spineflower (April-June) in the year prior to construction to identify and
record the most current known locations of these species in the project
vicinity. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified botanist, and shall
include collection of Global Positioning System (GPS) data points for use
during flagging of sensitive plant species locations and avoidance buffers
prior to construction.
b. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted for special-status species no
more than 14 days prior to construction. If project construction takes place
during the avian nesting season (February 15
th
through September 1
st
), the
survey shall encompass all suitable nesting habitat within 500 feet of the
project. Should active nests be identified, avoidance buffers shall be
established (250 feet for passerines and up to 500 feet for raptors) until a
qualified biologist can confirm that nesting activities are complete.
Variance from the no disturbance buffers may be implemented when there
is compelling biological or ecological reason to do so. Any variance
requested by the applicant shall be supported with a written statement by a
qualified biologist and subject to City and CDFW approval.
Documentation
by Biological
Monitor
Prior to
Construction and
Decommissioning
Activities
Biological
Monitor
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
c. One to two weeks prior to initiation of construction and decommissioning
activities, a qualified biologist, in consultation with Point Blue, shall field
evaluate the nature and extent of wintering snowy plover activity in the
project area and shall make avoidance recommendations regarding
construction activities to minimize disturbance to plovers. The applicant
shall comply with all Point Blue avoidance recommendations.
d. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist(s) for
California legless lizard and coast horned lizard prior to disturbance of any
suitable habitat. Surveys shall utilize hand search methods in areas of
disturbance where these species are expected to be found (i.e., under
shrubs, other vegetation, or debris on sandy soils). Any individuals located
during the survey shall be safely removed and relocated in suitable habitat
outside of the proposed disturbance area.
BIO/mm-3 Prior to construction and decommissioning activities, a qualified biologist shall
conduct an environmental awareness training for all construction personnel, which
at a minimum shall include: descriptions of the special-status species that have
potential to occur in the project area; their habitat requirements and life histories as
they relate to the project; the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures
that will be implemented to avoid impacts to the species and their habitats; the
regulatory agencies and regulations that manage their protection; and,
consequences that may result from unauthorized impacts or take of special-status
species and their habitats. The training shall include distribution of an
environmental training brochure, and collection of signatures from all attendees
acknowledging their participation in the training. Subsequent trainings shall be
provided by the qualified biologist as needed for additional construction or
operations workers through the life of the project.
Documentation
by Biological
Monitor
Prior to
Construction and
Decommissioning
Activities
Biological
Monitor
BIO/mm-4 Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall coordinate with construction crews
to identify and mark the boundaries of project disturbance, locations of special-
status species and suitable habitat, avoidance areas, and access routes. GPS data
collected during preconstruction surveys completed in 2012, 2013, and 2014 shall
be used to flag the known locations of Monterey spineflower and buckwheat for
avoidance during construction. Avoidance buffers shall be established and flagged
Field
Verification
Prior to
Construction and
Decommissioning
Activities
Biological
Monitor
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
or fenced as necessary to avoid surface disturbance or vegetation removal. The
monitoring biologist shall fit the placement of flags and fencing to minimize
impacts to any sensitive resources. At a minimum, the biologist shall direct the
placement of highly visible exclusion fencing (snow fence or similar) at the
following locations:
a. Around sensitive snowy plover habitat areas that do not require regular
access;
b. Areas along the northern edge of the CEMEX access road in the vicinity
of the settling ponds; and
c. In between the work area and any identified occurrence of Monterey
spineflower or buckwheat within 10 feet of the existing access road or
work area.
All delineated areas of temporary fencing shall be shown on grading plans and shall
remain in place and functional throughout the duration of construction and
decommissioning activities.
BIO/mm-5 A qualified biologist(s) shall be present during all project construction and
decommissioning activities, and as needed during operational activities as
determined in accordance with BIO/mm-1, to monitor for special-status species and
to limit potential impacts to suitable habitat. The biologist(s) shall monitor
construction equipment access and shall have authority to halt work activities, if the
potential for impacts to special-status species or habitat is identified, until the issue
can be resolved. The qualified biologist(s) shall immediately report any
observations of special-status species to the project applicant, the City and any
additional relevant regulatory agencies (CDFW, USFWS), as necessary.
Documentation
by Biological
Monitor
Throughout the
Duration of the
Project
Biological
Monitor
BIO/mm-6 During the operational phase, a qualified biologist shall consult with Point Blue
monitors on a weekly basis during the plover nesting season to stay current with
nesting activity in the vicinity of the slant test well. If active plover nests are
located within 250 feet of the project or access routes, avoidance buffers shall be
established to minimize potential disturbance of nesting activity, and the biologist
shall coordinate with and accompany Cal Am operational staff as necessary during
the nesting season to guide access and activities to avoid impacts to nesting
plovers. The biologist shall contact the City and USFWS immediately if a nest is
Documentation
by Biological
Monitor
Throughout
Operational
Testing Phase
Biological
Monitor
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
found in areas near the wellhead that could be affected by project operations.
Operations shall be immediately suspended until written authorization to proceed is
provided by USFWS.
BIO/mm-7 To ensure Point Blue has adequate staff and funding to complete necessary
monitoring and coordination throughout development and operation of the slant test
well project, Cal Am shall provide any necessary funding to Point Blue in an
amount agreed upon by Point Blue and the applicant.
Documentation
by Point Blue
Prior to
Construction
City
BIO/mm-8 All construction and decommissioning activities shall be conducted between
October 1
st
and February 28
th
, outside of the blooming period for Monterey
spineflower, the active flight season for adult Smiths blue butterflies and active
larval stage of the species, and the nesting season for western snowy plover and
other avian species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Construction
activities shall be restricted to the designated construction areas and CEMEX
access road. No construction equipment, materials, or activity shall occur outside of
the specified areas. This measure shall be included on all construction and grading
plan sets.
Field
Verification
Throughout
Construction and
Decommissioning
Activities
Biological
Monitor
BIO/mm-9 In order to minimize potential for vehicular collision with special-status species, all
construction, decommissioning, and operational traffic shall maintain speeds of 10
miles per hour or less on access roads within the CEMEX parcel. All personnel
shall conduct a visual inspection for special-status species around and under all
vehicles prior to moving them. This measure shall be included on all construction
and grading plan sets.
Field
Verification
Throughout
Construction and
Decommissioning
Activities
Biological
Monitor
BIO/mm-10 Noise blankets shall be installed to provide visual and sound attenuation during all
drilling operations to minimize potential disturbance of wintering western snowy
plover. This measure shall be included on all construction and grading plan sets.
Field
Verification
Prior to
Construction
Biological
Monitor
BIO/mm-11 Wire excluders or similar anti-perching devices shall be incorporated into the top of
all aboveground structures (e.g., electrical panel) to deter perching by avian
predators. This measure shall be included on all construction and grading plan sets.
Field
Verification
Prior to
Construction
Biological
Monitor
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
BIO/mm-12 Construction personnel shall be required to keep all food-related trash items in
sealed containers and remove them daily to discourage the concentration of
potential predators in snowy plover habitat. Following construction, all trash and
construction debris shall be removed from work areas and properly disposed of at a
certified landfill. All vegetation removed from the construction site shall be taken
to a certified landfill to prevent the spread of invasive species. This measure shall
be included on all construction and grading plan sets.
Field
Verification
Throughout
Construction and
Decommissioning
Activities
Biological
Monitor
BIO/mm-13 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall develop a Restoration
Management Plan (Plan) consistent with the requirements of the City of Marina
LCP. At a minimum, the Plan shall include a description of the following methods
and metrics: ratios of plants to be replaced based on a minimum replacement of 3:1,
or as otherwise directed by regulatory agencies; areas of habitat to be restored,
which shall at minimum include all areas of temporary disturbance in identified
Primary or Secondary Habitat, except for areas actively used by CEMEX for
mining purposes; timing of restoration activities; monitoring of restoration success;
and any required reporting to relevant agencies. The Plan shall also include all
relevant conditions of approval or requirements related to site restoration from
permits issued by regulatory agencies for the project. The applicant shall seek input
and/or review of the Plan from relevant regulatory agencies prior to finalization,
including at a minimum the City, USFWS, CDFW, and CCC. The Plan shall be
implemented: 1) during and immediately following construction and prior to
operation of the test well, and 2) during and immediately following
decommissioning activities.
Approval of
Plan
Prior to Issuance
of Permits
City and
Biological
Monitor
BIO/mm-14 After construction, all disturbed areas shall be restored and revegetated to
preconstruction contours and conditions to the extent feasible, in accordance with
the Restoration Management Plan. Following decommissioning of the test well, all
disturbed areas shall be re-contoured and revegetated as determined necessary and
in coordination with applicable agencies and representatives of Point Blue to ensure
that the optimum ground configuration is obtained for potential nesting plovers and
other special-status species that may occur in the area.
Field
Verification
and
Documentation
by Biological
Monitor
After
Construction and
Decommissioning
Activities
Biological
Monitor
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
BIO/mm-15 To ensure that restoration efforts are successful and unanticipated events are
expeditiously managed, restored areas shall be monitored following planting and
during operation of the test well and for 5 years following planting and
decommissioning of the test well. Success criteria will include plant cover and
species composition/diversity, which shall meet or exceed adjacent undisturbed
dune habitat on the CEMEX parcel as determined by the biological monitor.
Success criteria shall, at a minimum, be consistent with the requirements of the
existing Lapis Revegetation Plan prepared for the RMC Lonestar Lapis Sand Plant
(25 percent average vegetative cover and species diversity of all species listed in
Group A of the Plan present and providing at least 1 percent cover).
Field
Verification
and
Documentation
by Biological
Monitor
After
Decommissioning
Activities
Biological
Monitor
BIO/mm-16 During construction and decommissioning activities, the biological monitor(s) shall
ensure that the spread or introduction of invasive plant species is avoided to the
maximum extent possible through the following measures, which shall be included
in all construction and grading plan sets:
a. When practicable, invasive exotic plants in the project area shall be
removed and properly disposed of at a certified landfill.
b. The use of imported soils for fill shall be limited to the greatest extent
feasible. Soils currently existing on-site shall be used for fill material to
the extent feasible. If the use of imported fill material is necessary, the
imported material must be obtained from a source that is known to be free
of invasive plant species, or the material must consist of purchased clean
material.
c. The Restoration Management Plan shall include an invasive species
control program to be implemented throughout the duration of the project
and shall emphasize the use of native species expected to occur in the
area.
Field
Verification
Throughout
Duration of the
Project
Biological
Monitor
BIO/mm-17 Prior to operation of the test well and any discharge of pumped test water into the
Pacific Ocean, the project applicant shall provide the City with a valid NPDES
permit or other RWQCB approval for the proposed slant test well discharge. The
NPDES permit or approval shall incorporate all relevant standards of the California
Ocean Plan.
Review of
RWQCB
Permit or
Approval
Prior to Operation
of Project
City
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
BIO/mm-18 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit a grading plan
identifying all stockpile and staging areas. Stockpiles and staging areas shall not be
placed in areas that have potential to experience significant runoff during the rainy
season. All project-related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to
project sites shall be cleaned up immediately. Spill prevention and cleanup
materials shall be on-site at all times during construction. Cleaning and refueling of
equipment and vehicles shall occur only within designated staging areas. The
staging areas shall conform to standard Best Management Practices (BMPs)
applicable to attaining zero discharge of storm water runoff. No maintenance,
cleaning or fueling of equipment shall occur within Primary or Secondary Habitat
areas, or within 50 feet of such areas. At a minimum, all equipment and vehicles
shall be checked and maintained on a daily basis to ensure proper operation and to
avoid potential leaks or spills. The grading plan shall be subject to review and
approval by the City of Marina.
Approval of
Plan
Prior to Issuance
of Permits
City
Cultural Resources
CR/mm-1 The project shall be redesigned to avoid significant adverse effects to historic
resources; in particular, direct impacts to the Lapis Siding that is identified as a
contributor to the Lapis Sand Mining Plant Historic District shall be avoided.
Because the Siding extends through the eastern portion of the construction
footprint, the construction plans shall be redesigned to locate all project
components and construction activities in adjacent areas that do not contain
structures associated with the Lapis Sand Mining Plant historic district. Avoidance
of impacts to historic district contributors in close proximity to construction
activities shall be accomplished by installing flagging or safety fencing around, or
covering with plywood, any adjacent buildings or structures that are within 5 feet
of mechanized equipment.
Review of
Revised
Development
Plans
Prior to Issuance
of Permits
City and
Qualified
Archaeologist
CR/mm-2 A qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interiors professional
qualifications standards in archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be
retained to provide archaeological services for the project. Archaeological services
for the project shall at minimum include the following:
a. Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, an archaeological
Approval of
Qualified
Archaeologist
and
Documentation
Prior to and
Throughout
Construction and
Decommissioning
Activities
City and
Qualified
Archaeologist
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
monitor working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist shall
conduct a brief awareness training session for all construction workers and
supervisory personnel. The training shall explain the importance of and
legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. Each
worker should learn the proper procedures to follow in the event that
cultural resources or human remains/burials are uncovered during ground-
disturbing activities, including those that occur when an archaeological
monitor is not present. These procedures include work curtailment or
redirection and the immediate contact of the site supervisor and the
archaeological monitor. It is recommended that this worker education
session include visual images or samples of artifacts that might be found
in the project vicinity, and that the session take place on-site immediately
prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities.
b. An archaeological monitor working under the direction of the qualified
archaeologist shall monitor all ground disturbance in areas within 100 feet
of the historic buildings within the eastern portion of the project area.
These include the Superintendents Residence, Bunkhouse, Garage/Office,
Maintenance Shop, and Scale House. The timing and duration of the
monitoring may be adjusted during project implementation by the
qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the City, whose decision shall
be informed by the apparent sensitivity of the sediments in the project area
once they are exposed.
by Qualified
Archaeologist
CR/mm-3 In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during
ground-disturbing activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity (25
feet) of the discovery shall be halted while the resources are evaluated for
significance by the qualified archaeologist. Construction activities could continue
in other areas. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional work, such as
archaeological data recovery or project redesign, may be warranted and would be
discussed in consultation with the City.
Documentation
by Qualified
Archaeologist
Throughout
Construction and
Decommissioning
Activities
Qualified
Archaeologist
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
CR-mm-4 In the event of inadvertent discovery of human remains, no further disturbance
shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and
disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County
Coroner shall be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are
determined to be prehistoric, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage
Commission, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD).
The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification,
and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human
remains and items associated with Native American burials. The California Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 process shall be noted on project grading and
construction plans and reviewed during the construction worker awareness training
session.
Documentation
by Qualified
Archaeologist
Throughout
Construction and
Decommissioning
Activities
Qualified
Archaeologist
Geology and Soils
GEO/mm-1 The project shall be designed to meet or exceed all applicable requirements of the
CBC. Design and construction of the project shall meet or exceed all conclusions
and recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation for the California
American Water Temporary Slant Test Well Project, Marina, Monterey County,
California, dated April 3, 2014 (GeoSoils 2014), including the following:
a. Concrete mixes for structural members shall conform to Exposure Class
C2 in Table 4.3.1 of ACI 318.
b. An allowable vertical bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf)
shall be used in the design of a wellhead vault, which shall be supported
on engineered fill materials prepared and compacted in accordance with
the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation. The bearing value
shall be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in wellhead
vault depth to a maximum vertical allowable bearing capacity of 2,500
psf.
c. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.25 coefficient of friction shall be utilized
for a concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load.
d. Passive earth pressure shall be computed as an equivalent fluid having a
density of 150 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with a maximum earth pressure
Review of
Grading and
Engineering
Documents
and
Construction
Inspections
and Testing As
Required
Prior to and
Throughout
Construction
City
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
of 1,500 psf.
e. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive
pressure component shall be reduced by one-third.
f. The upper 6 inches of passive pressure shall not be utilized in the
foundation design if footings are not confined by slabs or pavement.
g. Structures shall be engineered to withstand preliminary settlements under
the design-level earthquake of 1.5 to 3 inches with a potential differential
settlement of 0.75 inch to 2 inches over a 50-foot horizontal span (i.e.,
angular distortions of approximately 1/800 to 1/300).
h. Lateral earth pressures shall be consistent with the following.

If wellhead vault walls are designed for select backfill conditions, native
soils shall be kept below a 1:1 (h:v) projection up from the heel of the wall
footing.
i. Subdrains for wellhead vault walls shall minimally consist of a 4-inch
perforated, Schedule 40 or SDR 35 drain pipe (with perforations oriented
down), encased in 1 cubic foot of clean, crushed 0.75-inch to 1.5-inch
gravel and wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent).
The subdrain shall flow via gravity (minimum 1 percent fall) to an
approved drainage facility as evaluated by the project civil engineer.
j. Should wellhead vault walls retain more than 6 feet of earth materials, as
measured vertically from the bottom of the wall footing at the heel to
daylight , the walls shall be evaluated for a seismic surcharge (in general
accordance with 2013 CBC requirements). Walls in this category shall
maintain an overturning Factor-of-Safety (FOS) of approximately 1.25
when the seismic surcharge (increment) is applied. For restrained walls,
the seismic surcharge shall be applied as a rectangular load distribution
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
from the bottom of the footing (excluding shear keys) to the top of the
backfill at the heel of the wall footing. For cantilevered walls, the pressure
shall be applied as an inverted triangular distribution. This seismic
surcharge pressure (seismic increment) may be taken as 12H where "H"
for walls is the dimension previously noted as the height of the backfill to
the bottom of the footing. The resultant force shall be applied at a distance
0.6 H up from the bottom of the footing. For the evaluation of the seismic
surcharge, the bearing pressure may exceed the static value by one-third,
considering the transient nature of this surcharge.
k. Actual slab thickness and steel reinforcement shall be provided by the
project structural engineering based on use and project loading
requirements. From a geotechnical standpoint, the concrete slab-on-grade
floor for the wellhead vault shall be a minimum of 4.5 inches thick and be
minimally reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcement bars placed at 18
inches on center in two perpendicular directions. The steel reinforcement
shall be placed in the middle of the slab and supported on chairs. Hooking
of steel reinforcement shall not be permitted. Concrete slab-on-grade
floors shall be constructed on very low expansive (E.I. < 21 and PI < 15)
subgrade materials that have been prepared in accordance with the
recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation.
l. All grading shall conform to the guidelines presented in the 2013 CBC
(CBSC 2013) and the City of Marina, except where specifically
superseded herein. When code references are not equivalent, the more
stringent code shall be followed.
m. During earthwork construction, all site preparation and the general grading
procedures of the contractor shall be observed and the fill selectively
tested by the geotechnical consultant. If unusual or unexpected conditions
are exposed in the field, they shall be reviewed by the geotechnical
consultant. All applicable requirements of local and national construction
and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act
(OSHA), and the Construction Safety Act shall be met.
n. Prior to grading, a meeting shall be held between the applicant, the project
civil and geotechnical consultants, and the grading contractor so that
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
clarifications or amendments to earthwork recommendations can be
provided (if necessary) and to review the earthwork schedule.
o. The contractor shall take precautionary measures to protect work,
especially during the rainy season. Failure to do so may result in
additional remedial earthwork.
p. Organic material and/or miscellaneous debris shall be removed from the
areas of proposed grading prior to the start of work.
q. Any previous foundations, existing underground utilities, or other
subsurface structures uncovered during the recommended remedial
excavations shall be observed by the applicants geotechnical consultant
so that appropriate recommendations can be provided (if necessary).
r. Cavities or loose soils remaining after demolition and site clearance shall
be cleaned out and observed by the geotechnical consultant. The cavities
shall be replaced with fill materials that have been moisture conditioned to
at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of
the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557).
s. Due to the susceptibility of the site to undergo seismic (dynamic)
settlement during the design earthquake and to mitigate compression of
low-density, near-surface dune deposits, the upper 10 feet of the surficial
earth materials shall be removed where settlement-sensitive improvements
are proposed. The removed soils may be reused as engineered fill
provided the major concentrations of organic and deleterious material
have been removed prior to placement. Remedial grading excavations
shall be completed below a 1:1 (h:v) projection down from the bottom,
outboard edge of the wellhead vault and the spring line of any
underground utilities. Remedial grading excavations shall be evaluated by
the geotechnical consultant. If significantly loose/compressible soils are
exposed at the bottom of remedial grading excavations, deeper removals
may be necessary. Once approved by the geotechnical consultant, the
bottom of the remedial grading excavations shall be scarified, thoroughly
wetted, and recompacted with vibratory compaction equipment.
t. Fill materials shall be cleansed of major vegetation and debris prior to
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
placement.
u. At a minimum, fill materials located below a 1:1 (h:v) projection down
from the bottom, outboard edge of the wellhead vault or spring line of
underground utilities that intersects with the bottom of the remedial
grading excavation shall be moisture conditioned and mixed to achieve the
soils optimum moisture content, placed in relatively thin (i.e., 6- to 8-
inch) lifts, and then recompacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory
standard (ASTM D 1557). Wellhead vault wall and underground utility
trench backfills shall be placed under similar methods. In order to enhance
performance under the design-level earthquake, the compaction of the fill
materials supporting the wellhead vault and underground utilities, as well
as wellhead vault wall backfill may be increased to 95 percent of the
laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Additional increased performance of
the wellhead vault, underground utilities, and wellhead vault walls under
the design earthquake may include the use of soil cement. This would
involve mixing fill soils supporting the wellhead vault and underground
utilities as well as wellhead vault wall backfill with cement introduced at 6
percent by weight.
v. The maximum to minimum fill thickness beneath the wellhead vault shall
not exceed a ratio of 3:1 (maximum:minimum). Based on the conditions
exposed during construction, this may require some over-excavation of the
underlying earth materials.
w. Any oversized rock materials or concrete debris greater than 4 inches in
any dimension shall not be placed in engineered fills. Oversize
constituents shall be removed and replaced with acceptable-sized
materials or be reduced to acceptable size and re-used in the fill.
x. If necessary, any import materials shall be observed and evaluated for
suitability by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement on the site. At
least 3 business days of lead time shall be allowed by builders or
contractors for proposed import submittals. This lead time will allow for
particle size analysis, specific gravity, relative compaction, expansion
testing, and blended import/native characteristics as deemed necessary.
Import soils for a fill cap shall be very low expansive (E.I. < 21 and PI <
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
15).
y. Temporary slopes for excavations greater than 4 feet, but less than 20 feet
in overall height shall conform to CAL-OSHA and/or OSHA requirements
for Type C soils. Temporary slopes, up to a maximum height of 20
feet, may be excavated at a 1.5:1 (h:v) gradient, or flatter, provided
groundwater and/or running sands are not exposed. Building materials,
soil stockpiles, and/or heavy equipment shall not be stored/operated within
1.5(H) of the tops of any temporary slope where H equals the height of
the temporary slope. All temporary slopes shall be observed by a licensed
engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer prior to worker entry
into the excavation.
z. Debris impact structures may be used to protect critical project
infrastructure where located within a horizontal distance of H/2 from the
base (toe) of any ascending dune slope (where H equals the height of the
ascending slope). The debris impact structure shall be at least 4 feet high
and capable of retaining a single-event active pressure of 125 pcf. Debris
impact structures shall be periodically maintained. Any accumulated
materials shall be removed as quickly as possible.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ/mm-1 Prior to construction, the applicant shall prepare a Hazardous Material Spill
Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan to minimize the potential for, and
effects of, spills of hazardous or toxic substances or the inadvertent discovery of
buried hazardous materials during construction or decommissioning of the project.
The plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City, and shall include,
at minimum, the following:
a. A description of hazardous materials to be used, storage procedures and
construction and decommissioning site maintenance and upkeep practices;
b. Identification of a person or persons responsible for monitoring
implementation of the plan and spill response;
c. Identification of BMPs to be implemented to ensure minimal impacts to
the environment occur, including but not limited to the use of containment
Approval of
Plan
Prior to
Construction
City
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
devices for hazardous materials, training of construction staff regarding
safety practices to reduce the chance for spills or accidents, and use of
non-toxic substances where feasible;
d. A description of proper procedures for containing, diverting, isolating, and
cleaning up spills, hazardous substances and/or soils, in a manner that
minimizes impacts on sensitive biological resources;
e. A description of the actions required if a spill or inadvertent discovery
occurs, including which authorities to contact and proper clean-up
procedures; and
f. A requirement that all construction personnel participate in an awareness
training program conducted by qualified personnel approved by the City.
The training must include a description of the Hazardous Materials Spill
Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan, the plans requirements for
spill prevention, information regarding the importance of preventing
spills, the appropriate measures to take should a spill or inadvertent
discovery occur, and identification of the location of all clean-up materials
and equipment.
HAZ/mm-2 Prior to commencement of construction or decommissioning activities, the
applicant shall consult with the property owner (CEMEX) regarding construction/
decommissioning operations and schedule. The project applicant shall provide
advance notice of construction activities and construction shall be scheduled during
non-peak hours to avoid disruption of existing mining activities to the extent
feasible. Coordination shall include construction and decommissioning phase
parking needs and the number of on-site construction crewmember vehicles shall
not be more than can be accommodated within the CEMEX parking area, as
determined by the property owner. If the on-site parking area is insufficient to
accommodate project crewmembers, the applicant shall implement carpooling, off-
site parking, shuttle service to the site, or other similar measures to reduce the
number of vehicles at the site consistent with property owner approval. If
construction activities within the CEMEX access road would conflict with CEMEX
operations, such construction shall be conducted during non-operational mining
periods (i.e., nighttime or weekends). Construction activities shall be conducted to
Documentation
by Applicant
Prior to
Construction and
Decommissioning
Activities
City
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
avoid any need for the grading of any new access roads for use by CEMEX.
Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD/mm-1 Prior to construction, the applicant shall prepare a groundwater monitoring plan for
City review and approval. The plan shall determine, through preliminary
monitoring and sampling prior to pumping activities, a baseline condition of
groundwater levels and quality, including the reasonable range of natural
fluctuations, in the Dune Sand, 180-FTE, and 400-Foot Aquifers. The effects of
pumping activities on groundwater levels and quality in the Dune Sand, 180-FTE,
and 400-Foot Aquifers shall be monitored throughout the duration of pumping
activities. Monitoring activities shall be conducted through regular assessment of
the proposed on-site monitoring wells, as well as through additional coordination
with surrounding well owners, including CEMEX and adjacent agricultural water
users, to identify changes in off-site water levels to the maximum extent feasible.
A drawdown of 1 foot above natural fluctuations on groundwater levels
shall be considered a significant adverse effect on water supply. If pumping
activities reflect a drawdown of 1 foot or greater on any adjacent well,
compensatory mitigation shall be required. Feasible mitigation shall include
consultation with the affected water user and implementation of compensatory
mitigation measures, including monetary compensation (i.e., for increased pumping
costs or for upgraded wells), or provision of replacement water from alternative
sources. If compensation or other remediation is found to be unfeasible, pumping
activities shall be adjusted so that no more than 1 foot of drawdown on usable
water sources would result.
The plan shall designate a person or persons to monitor implementation of
the monitoring plan and to order implementation of mitigation if necessary. The
name and telephone number of the person(s) shall be listed in the monitoring plan
and provided to the City prior to the start of construction. The plan shall include a
requirement for regular reporting (no less than annually) on the results of the
monitoring activities, and the reports shall be submitted to the City and other
relevant regulatory agencies.
Approval of
Plan
Prior to
Construction
City
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
HYD/mm-2 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit an erosion control
plan for approval by the City Public Works Director. The plan shall be prepared by
an appropriately certified professional and shall include a schedule for the
completion of erosion- and sediment-control structures, which ensures that all such
erosion-control structures are in place by mid-November of the year that
construction begins. The plan shall identify standard Best Management Practices to
be implemented to address both temporary and permanent measures to control
erosion and reduce sedimentation. Site monitoring by the applicants erosion-
control specialist shall be undertaken and a follow-up report shall be prepared that
documents the progress and/or completion of required erosion-control measures
both during and after construction and decommissioning activities. No synthetic
plastic mesh products shall be used in any erosion control materials. All plans shall
show that sedimentation and erosion control measures are installed prior to any
other ground disturbing work.
Approval of
Plan
Prior to
Construction
City
HYD/mm-3 The slant test well and wellhead vault shall be sited to avoid areas identified in the
coastal erosion memorandum prepared by ESA-PWA (March 2014) as subject to
coastal erosion during the duration of the project. The alternative slant test well
location shall avoid all identified sensitive plant species and shall be limited to the
graded area of the CEMEX access road to the maximum extent feasible. The slant
test well location shall not encroach north of the graded roadway in closer
proximity to the CEMEX settling ponds or Canal Flume. At project
decommissioning, the slant test well and all related infrastructure shall be removed
to a depth of no less than 40 feet below ground surface to eliminate the possibility
for future re-surfacing and exposure of submerged well casing or related project
components as a result of coastal erosion and shoreline retreat.
Review of
Revised
Development
Plans and Field
Verification
Prior to Issuance
of Permits and
After
Decommissioning
City
Mitigation
Measure
Compliance
Method
Verification
Timing
Responsible
Party
Utilities and Service Systems
UTIL/mm-1 Prior to issuance of a coastal development permit, the applicant shall provide the
City with a copy of a negotiated agreement or memorandum of understanding
between the applicant and the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency
regarding connection and use of the ocean outfall. At minimum, the agreement
shall include MRWPCA engineering design review, USA North 811 positive
location of the outfall, construction trestle, and any related infrastructure, RWQCB
approval or permits for discharge of seawater through the MRWPCA outfall, and
access to flow meter data and alarm system triggers and signals.
Review of
Agreement or
Memorandum
Prior to Issuance
of Permits
City



APPENDIX A:
SIERRA CLUB RESPONSE LETTER

-------------
10/31/2013 23:30 7078240176
WRAV W
PAGE 01
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL LAw PROJECT
A Non-Profit Legal Corporation
Laurens H. Sltvc:r:,
r.o. Sox 667
Mill Valley, CA 94942
Phone:
f!IC!Iimlle: 510-237-65913
rry I l [ n k. net
November 1, 2014
Via Facsimile 831-884-1289 and
Electronic Transmission.
Theresa Szymanis, AICP
Community Development Dept,
City of Marina
Re: Transmittal of Cal-Am Water Slant Welllnitial Study
Dear Ms. Szyman.is:
This is to advise, on behalfofthc Ventana Chapter of the Sierra Club, that the Sierra
Club has no objection to the City preparing a mitigated negative declaration in connection with
California-American's appl.ication. for a test well in connection with its proposed desal facility.
Thank you for transmitting the initial study to me.
cc: Rita Dalessio
Sincerely,
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROJECT
ul f 1/)

Laurens H. Silver
Attorney for Sierra Club, Ventana Chapter

APPENDIX B:
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Technical Memorandum, Biological Resources Assessment MPWSP Temporary Slant Test Well
Project (Zander Associates 2013);
Memorandum, Special Status Species within the Vicinity of the Proposed Test Well Sites,
Marina, CA (ESA Biological Resources 2012);
Biological Assessment for the MPWSP Temporary Slant Test Well Project, Marina, California
(Zander Associates 2013);
Informal Consultation Summary, March 4, 2014 Meeting with Jake Martin, USFWS (RBF
Consulting 2014); and,
Rare and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment for the California American Water Temporary
Slant Test Well Project, Marina, Monterey County, California (SWCA 2014).

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
MPWSP
TEMPORARY SLANT TEST WELL PROJECT

Prepared for:

RBF Consulting
40810 County Center Drive, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92591

Prepared by:

Zander Associates
4460 Redwood Hwy, Suite 16-240
San Rafael, California 94903

October, 2013

Zander Associates

MPWSP

Zander Associates is providing this evaluation of the Temporary Slant Test Well project,
proposed by California American Water (Cal Am) to identify and discuss potential project
effects on biological resources. The temporary test well facility is being proposed to gather
technical data related to feasibility of a subsurface intake system for a potential future
desalination project. The data will be used, in part, to facilitate design and intake siting for the
separately proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP).

Our evaluation is based on review of background materials including a current query of the
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2013) and relatively recent seasonal surveys of
existing biological resources in the project area completed by ESA Biological Services
(Memorandum dated J une 13, 2012); consultation with resource agency personnel and
acknowledged authorities in particular habitats and species known to occur in the project area;
and field reconnaissance of the project area conducted by Zander Associates on September 20,
2012 and March 5, and April 25, 2013.
1

LOCATION AND GENERAL SITE CHARACTERISTICS

The Temporary Slant Test Well project will be located entirely on the Cemex Lapis Sand Plant
property (APN 203-011-019-000) within the limits of the City of Marina (Figure 1). For
purposes of this assessment, the project area includes all areas that would be directly affected by
the project and extends approximately 100 feet out from those areas. The project area is
comprised of developed industrial facilities and disturbed, formerly mined coastal sand dunes.

The project site is designated Habitat Preserve and Open Space in the Citys General Plan and
has zoning designations of Coastal Conservation and Development District (C-D) and Coastal
Development Permit Combining District (C-P). It is within the coastal zone and is situated in
areas subject to both original and appellate jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2

The project proposes construction and temporary operation of a slant test well and related
appurtenances and infrastructure. The purpose of the project is to gather technical data related to
the feasibility of a subsurface intake system and to facilitate the design and intake siting of the
future Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. Once constructed, the proposed slant test well
project would operate for approximately 18 months and then be decommissioned. The
temporary slant test well and related facilities would be located in a disturbed portion of the
active Cemex mining area (APN 203-011-019-000), east of the beach, on and adjacent to the
unimproved roadway currently used by Cemex (Figure 2). The temporary slant well test
facilities would include the slant well, submersible well pump, and well-head vault; vertical

1
Zander Associates did not conduct species-specific surveys for all special-status plants and animals that could
potentially occur in the project area.
Biological Resources Assessment Temporary Slant Test Well
October 2013

2
2
The project description in this section is derived from the revised project description provided to Zander Associates
by RBF Consulting on September 30, 2013.
Zander Associates

monitoring wells; test water disposal facilities; test water disposal connection to an existing
outfall; electrical facilities; and temporary flow measurement/sampling equipment (Figures 3, 3a,
3b, 3c, 3d, and 3e). The project does not include any reverse osmosis (RO), treatment, brine
discharge, or conveyance infrastructure.

Access to the temporary well facility would be obtained by vehicles transporting personnel,
construction equipment and construction materials to and from the site by using the existing
established route through the Cemex operations area. All construction activities would be
restricted to a proposed construction area and access route. All construction activities would be
in non-native or disturbed areas on or adjacent to the active Cemex access road. No construction
equipment, materials, or activity would occur outside the specified areas.

Project Facilities

An overview of the layout of the proposed test well facilities is shown on Figure 3. More
detailed views of the project components are provided on Figures 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d. The exact
location of the test well facilities would be determined immediately prior to construction, based
on field conditions at that time.

Temporary Slant Test Well and Well-head Facilities
The temporary slant test well would be designed using similar materials, size and construction
methodology as the proposed intake wells for the MPWSP. The slant test well would be drilled
towards the ocean at 19-degrees from horizontal such that a 1,000 linear foot slant well would
proceed to the bottom of the 180-foot aquifer formation. The well will have well screen that is
continuous through both aquifers and it will be designed such that the Dunes Sand and 180-ft
aquifers can be separately pumped and analyzed. The terminus of the well (the subsurface
intake) would be located approximately 500 feet offshore at a depth of approximately 300 feet
below mean sea level (and an estimated 290 feet below the surface of the ocean floor). The slant
test well will be drilled by using a dual rotary closed system drilling method which does not
involve the use of any drilling additives.
The wellhead vault would be approximately 5 ft wide, 10 ft long, and 5ft deep with the cover
flush with grade. The wellhead vault will house flow-metering equipment, water quality
monitoring equipment and a sampling station. A 12-inch diameter discharge pipe constructed
approximately 3 ft below grade will extend 250 ft from the wellhead vault to an existing junction
structure located on the MRWPCA outfall. The discharge pipe would be connected below-grade
to the existing cover on the junction structure access manhole.
Monitoring Wells
Two vertical monitoring wells would be drilled prior to drilling the slant test well in order to
measure changes in groundwater levels during operation of the slant well. One of the monitoring
wells would be located in the immediate vicinity of the slant test well insertion point and well-
head vault, and the other would be located approximately 1,200 feet inland, adjacent to the
existing CEMEX service road. The monitoring wells would be 2 inches in diameter and drilled
to a depth of approximately 300 feet below mean sea level. If the project is not re-permitted as
part of the full scale project, the monitoring wells will be decommissioned upon project
completion. The monitoring wells will be drilled by using a sonic drilling method which does
not involve the use of any drilling additives.
October 2013

3
Zander Associates

Electrical Power Supply
Electrical power for pumping operations will be provided by a new pole-mounted transformer
connected to PG&E's existing service at the Cemex located approximately 2,000 ft east of the
slant test well facility. A 4-inch diameter underground electrical conduit at approximately 3-ft
depth will be installed to convey power to an above-ground electrical/control panel located at the
slant test well site. The electrical/control panel will be approximately 5ft high, 6 ft wide and 30
inches deep.
Test Water Disposal Facilities
Water pumped from the test well would be discharged from the well head into a 12-16 inch
diameter pipe that would be connected to a junction structure on an existing outfall pipeline
seaward of the test well. The discharge pipe would be approximately 180 linear feet. It would
follow the alignment generally shown on Figure 4 and is intended to be on disturbed ground as
much as possible. The pipe would be installed in a trench and buried 3 to 6 feet under the sand.
The top of the junction structure is approximately 6 feet under the existing ground elevation and
would need to be exposed in order to make the connection. Consequently, a cone shaped
excavation approximately 6 feet deep and 20 to 30 feet in diameter at the ground surface would
be needed to connect the pipe to the junction structure.

Project Phasing and Scheduling

The temporary slant test well program would be implemented in a Construction/Initial Testing
Phase, followed by a Monitoring Phase. The Construction/ Initial Testing Phase would consist
of drilling monitoring wells, drilling and developing the test slant well, connecting the discharge
pipe to the existing outfall, and performing short-term pumping tests. This phase is expected to
last four months. If required, construction and demobilization activities would occur in the fall
and winter months, outside of the active breeding and nesting season for the western snowy
plover, which is typically March through September. The intent is to avoid disruption of plover
breeding behavior and to eliminate all evidence of construction activities prior to the beginning
of the plover breeding season.

Once the well is developed, it would be operated continuously using a submersible well pump
for a period of up to 24 months if the well is re-permitted as a part of the full scale project, and
up to 19 months if the well is to be decommissioned. Operators would travel to the site using the
existing Cemex access road on a weekly basis for 30 to 60 minutes per visit to check that the
pump, meter, and water quality measurement equipment are operating properly, and to collect
water quality samples. Following construction, portions of the CEMEX access road may require
regrading to meet the property owners requirements. Regrading of the access road is routinely
done as part of mining operations and is covered by the owners mining permit.

One special operation is expected to occur during the monitoring phase that involves
repositioning the packer device used to isolate one aquifer for testing and pumping. This special
operation will involve removal of the submersible pump and pump column, removal of the initial
packer, insertion of a second packer, and replacement of the pump. This special operation will
take two or three days to accomplish. Equipment and operations required for this special
operation, including temporary laydown of the pump column, will occur within the original
construction footprint.

October 2013

4
Zander Associates

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Cemex Operations Area

The operations area at the Cemex Lapis Sand Plant includes administrative buildings, sand
processing facilities and areas of disturbed dune characterized by beach sands and Aeolian sand
dunes of the Flandrian complex overlying Pre-Flandrian dune deposits. The area covers about
104 acres and is the subject of an approved Reclamation Plan (CA Mine ID #91-27-0006).

The temporary slant test well project will use existing Cemex access roads from the eastern
Cemex site entrance all the way to the slant test well facility. Disturbed areas immediately
adjacent to the main east-west access road would be used for installation of the electrical conduit
and the test water discharge pipe. For the purposes of this assessment, the project area extends
approximately 100 feet on either side of the centerline of the roads and 100 feet out from the
outfall junction structure towards the beach.

The road from the site entrance to the vicinity of the Cemex facility is paved and passes through
operational areas on either side as described above. No dune habitat (or any native habitat,
disturbed or otherwise) occurs in this area based on observations during site reconnaissance
visits on September 20, 2012, March 5, 2013 and April 25, 2013. From the Cemex facility
westerly to the beach entrance, the road consists of unvegetated, compacted sand with disturbed
dunes on either side (Photo 1).
3
The redwood lined flume parallels the road on the north and
carries process water to settling ponds near the beach end of the road (Photo 2). The ponds
appear to be periodically maintained by removing accumulated sediment which is stockpiled
alongside the road. Other stockpiles of sandy material and previously scraped areas characterize
both sides of this section of road along its length (Photo 3).

During the March 5
th
and April 25
th
site visits, no undisturbed dune habitat was observed within
100 feet of either side of the unpaved road. In the few vegetated areas observed, iceplant
(Carpobrotus spp.), was dominant, but occasional occurrences of native plants such as beach
sagewort (Artemisia pycnocephala), mock heather (Ericameria ericoides), sand verbena
(Abronia sp.), beach knotweed (Polygonum paronychia), and beach evening primrose
(Cammissonia cheiranthifolia) were observed. During the April 25
th
plant surveys, Monterey
spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens) was found in bare sand areas within the action
area and in some cases extended up to the edge of the road, but was not found within the active
roadbed. Individuals of coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), a host plant for the Smiths
blue butterfly, were also encountered within the action area, especially on the northerly side of
the flume adjacent to the road (see below).

Slant Test Well

The temporary slant test well facilities would be located near where the existing Cemex access
road ends at the beach, approximately 450 feet from the shoreline (Figures 2, 3 & 3a; Photo 4).
The Cemex extraction pond is located just northerly of the termination of the road. The existing
buried outfall junction structure is at the westernmost end of the project area, within bare sand at
the top of the beach (Photo 5). Equipment associated with the Cemex operations appears to use
the area occasionally for access to dredge anchors around the perimeter of the extraction pond

October 2013

5
3
A railroad spur formerly ran along the south side of this road out to the beach, but has since been removed.
Zander Associates

Photo 1: Access road through Cemex facility looking west

Photo 2: Flume parallel to access road through Cemex facility looking east

October 2013

6
Zander Associates

Photo 3: Stockpiles along both sides of Cemex facility access road

The sand in this area also appears frequently contoured by the wind and is virtually devoid of
vegetation. However, successful nests and nesting attempts by western snowy plovers have been
recorded by Point Blue in this area (see below).

The test well would be located about 160 feet east (inland) of the outfall junction structure.
Again, all facilities would be constructed in previously disturbed areas. Although there are
historical records of western snowy plover nests in this area, no nesting attempts have been
observed here for several years.

Special Status Species & Critical Habitat

Several species of plants and animals that are listed as threatened or endangered under the
federal and/or state endangered species acts (ESA & CESA, respectively) are known from or
could potentially occur in the project area. Designated critical habitat for two of these species,
Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens) and western snowy plover
(Charadrius nivosus nivosus), includes portions of the project area. Some plant species known
to occur in the area are listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS), and some animals
are considered species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(formerly Fish and Game). In addition, the City of Marina Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP)
lists rare and endangered species for dune habitat areas within the plan area (LUP Exhibit A).
October 2013

7
Zander Associates

Photo 4: West end of Cemex access road in approximate vicinity of test well

Photo 5: Vehicle tracks in the sand near existing manhole at the end of the Cemex access road.

October 2013

8
Zander Associates

October 2013

9

Table 1 presents the results of a current search of CNDDB records within a three mile radius of
the temporary slant test well project area. It also includes those species listed in LUP Exhibit A
that are otherwise not found in current CNDDB records.
4
Listing status, habitat characteristics
and an assessment of potential presence or absence in the project area are provided for each
species.

Spring (April, May & J une 2012) survey work conducted in dune and strand areas on the Cemex
property by ESA Biological Services (Environmental Science Associates J une 13, 2012) found
special status plant species, including a sizeable population (6,000 to 8,000 plants) of the state
and federally endangered Yadons wallflower, the federally listed Monterey spineflower, the
CNPS listed (1B) coast wallflower (Erysimum ammophilum), and suitable habitat for others,
including the state threatened and federally endangered Monterey sand gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp.
arenaria). Coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), a host plant for the federally endangered
Smiths blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi) was also observed in high densities throughout
the study area for those surveys.

During field visits by a Zander Associates biologist on September 20, 2012 and March 5, 2013,
numerous individual coast buckwheat plants were observed along the east-west access road
through the Cemex facility. Emerging basal rosettes of several individuals of E. menziesii were
also observed on March 5
th
, approximately 400 feet south of the access road, where less
disturbed dune areas occurred. During the April 25, 2013 survey, Zander Associates biologists
again observed coast buckwheat plants, primarily on the north side of the road and no closer than
20 feet from the road's edge. During Zander Associates April 25, 2013 survey Monterey
spineflower was observed within the action area and was relatively abundant in some areas, often
growing in sandy substrates directly adjacent to the access road. No Monterey spineflower was
found within the active roadbed. No protocol-level, site specific surveys for special status
animals that could use habitat in the project study area (e.g. globose dune beetle [Coelus
globosus], legless lizards [Anniella pulchra], coast horned lizard [Phrynosoma coronatum]) were
conducted during any of these visits.

The beach adjacent to the project area has been identified as both important nesting and
wintering habitat for the western snowy plover as a result of nearly 30 years of monitoring by
PRBO. The most recent nesting data available (2012 nesting season) identified about 38 nesting
attempts with 23 successfully hatched along that stretch of beach (PRBO 2012). The nests are
typically located between the spring and summer wrack zone and the base of the foredunes.
However, some nests have been located around the Cemex pond and adjacent to the portion of
the Cemex access road that is within the project study area (Figure 3a).

4
Some of the species listed in Exhibit A (e.g. bush lupines, coast buckwheat) were included by association with
other special status species (e.g. legless lizards, Smiths blue butterfly) and have no formal legal status. Others were
once candidates for federal listing status (e.g. globose dune beetle) but were dropped from consideration due to
insufficient data to make any listing decision. Nonetheless, all of the species listed in LUP Exhibit A are included
and assessed in Table 1.

10
Table 1: Special Status Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur within the Temporary Slant Test Well Project Area*

PLANTS Status
1
Fed/CA/CNPS
Habitat and Blooming Period Assessment
2
Arctostaphylos pumila
(Sandmat manzanita)
--/--/1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal dines, and
cismontane woodland habitats; sandy soil with other chaparral
associates; blooms February through May (evergreen)
Possible occurrence in undisturbed dune
habitats in general vicinity but not expected
within project area.
Astragalus tener var. titi
(coastal dunes milk-vetch)
E/E/1B.1 Low ground, alkali flats, and flooded lands in coastal bluff
scrub or coastal dunes along the coast; blooms March through
J une
Only limited and localized records for this
plant in Monterey County. Habitats in project
area not appropriate; not expected to occur.
Castilleja latifolia #
(Seaside paintbrush)
--/--/4.3 Coastal strand, northern coastal scrub; perennial herb found on
dunes in Monterey Bay area; blooms March through August.
Probable occurrence in undisturbed dune
within project area..
Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens
(Monterey spineflower)

T/--/1B.2 Coastal dunes, chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal
scrub habitats in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties; blooms
April through June
Found in disturbed areas adjacent to Cemex
access road but not found or expected to
colonize active roadbed.
Ericameria fasciculata #
(Eastwoods golden bush)
--/--/1B Sandy openings of closed-cone coniferous forest, maritime
chaparral, coastal scrub or coastal dune habitats in Monterey
County; blooming period July through October
habitats in general vicinity but not found
within project area..
Eriogonum latifolium #
(Coast buckwheat)
na Common on dunes and coastal areas along the Monterey
County shoreline. Species is not protected but is host plant for
Smiths blue butterfly. Blooms May through Sept.
Found adjacent to project area but not
expected to colonize Cemex access road or
other project construction sites.
Eriogonum parvifolium #
(Seacliff buckwheat)
na Common on dunes and coastal areas, especially along the
southern Monterey County shoreline and extending inland.
Species is not protected but is host plant for Smiths blue
butterfly. Blooms May through Sept
habitats in general vicinity but not found or
expected within project area.
Erysimum ammophilum
(Coast wallflower)
--/--/1B.2 Chaparral (maritime), coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Sandy
openings; blooms February through J une.
Known occurrence in dune habitats in general
vicinity but not found or expected within
project area.
Erysimum menziesii ssp. yadonii
(Yadons wallflower)
E/E/1B.1 Very localized variety of species limited in range to Monterey
and two other counties; occurs on coastal dunes; blooms
March through J une.
project area.
Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria
(Sand gilia)

E/T/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, maritime chaparral, coastal scrub and
dune habitats in Monterey County, in particular bare, wind-
sheltered areas near dune summits or in hind dunes; blooms
April through May.
project area.
Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea
(Kelloggs horkelia)

--/--/1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, and coastal scrub
habitats, old dunes and coastal sand hills; blooms April
through September.
expected within project area.
Lupinus spp. #
(Bush lupines)
na Both purple and yellow bush lupines (L. chamissonis & L.
arboreus) are common along the Monterey County shoreline;
neither is protected. Blooms April through J uly
project area. Included in Marina LUP because
of association with legless lizards (see below).

11
Table 1 (Cont.): Special Status Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur within the Temporary Slant Test Well Project Area *

ANIMALS Status
1

Fed/CA
Habitat

Assessment
2

INVERTEBRATES
Coelus globosus #
(Globose dune beetle)
na Extensive geographic range along coastal California but
habitat is restricted to foredunes immediately bordering the
sea in open or sparsely vegetated loose sand above the mean
high tide line.
Possible occurrence at wrack line and in
strand and foredune areas. Potential habitat
near west end of project area.
Euphilotes enoptes smithi
(Smiths blue butterfly)
E/-- Most commonly found in coastal dunes and coastal sage scrub
plant communities in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties.
Found in association with host plant, Eriogonum latifolium
and Eriogonum parvifolium, which are utilized as both larval
and adult food plants.
Probable occurrence on coast buckwheat in
study area but all buckwheat will be avoided
by project.
FISH
Eucyclogobius newberryi
(tidewater goby)
E/CSC Brackish water habitats along the California coast from Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego County to the mouth of the
Smith River. Found in shallow lagoons and lower stream
reaches, they need fairly still but not stagnant water and high
oxygen levels
Nearest record is at mouth of Salinas River.
Very unlikely to occur in marine environment
along Cemex shoreline and will not be
affected by project.
AMPHIBIANS / REPTILES
Rana draytonii
(California red-legged frog)
T/CSC Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep
water within streams, marshes, and occasionally ponds with
dense, shrubby, or emergent riparian vegetation.
Nearest record is at Salinas River; no suitable
habitat in project area and will not be affected
by project.
Emys marmorata
(Western pond turtle)
--/CSC Requires aquatic habitats with permanent or persistent water
and protected areas for basking such as partially submerged
rocks or logs, floating vegetation mats or open mud banks.
by project.
Anniella pulchra
(California legless lizard)
--/CSC Sandy or loose loamy soils usually in dune substrates with
sparse vegetation, especially mock heather & bush lupine.
Soil moisture is essential. Black variant found in Monterey
and Morro Bay areas.
habitats in general vicinity but not expected in
disturbed areas along and in Cemex access
road or other project areas.
Phrynosoma coronatum (blainvillii)
(Coast horned lizard)

--/CSC Frequents a wide variety of habitats, mostly common in
lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low bushes. Open
areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for
burial, and abundant supply of ants and other insects.
BIRDS
Charadrius nivosuss nivosus
(Western snowy plover)
T/CSC Federal listing applies to nesting sites of pacific coastal
populations only. For nesting, require sandy, gravelly or
friable soils that are found on sandy beaches, salt pond levees
and shores of large alkali lakes. Winter roosting sites often
based on history of use
Known summer nesting and winter roosting
habitat within and around western portion of
project area.
Athene cunicularia
(Burrowing owl)
--/CSC Ground nester in open dry annual or perennial grasslands,
deserts and scrublands with low-growing vegetation, depends
on burrowing mammals (i.e. California ground squirrel).
Could occur in sand hills, grasslands and other
areas in general vicinity, but no suitable
habitat in project area.

12
Table 1 (Cont.): Special Status Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur within the Temporary Slant Test Well Project Area *

BIRDS (Cont.)
Agelaius tricolor
(Tricolored blackbird t)
--/CSC Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley and
vicinity, requires open water, protected nesting substrate and
foraging area with insect prey within a few km of the colony.

No suitable habitat in project area and will not
be affected by project.
Buteo regalis
(Ferruginous hawk)

--/-- Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills
and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. East mostly
lagomorphs, ground squirrels and mice. Population trends may
follow lagomorph population cycles.
Eremophila alpestris actia
(California horned lark)

--/-- Coastal regions, chiefly from Sonoma County to San Diego
County. Also main part of San Joaquin Valley and east to
foothills. Short grass prairie, Bald Hills, mountain meadows,
open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, alkali flats.
MAMMALS
Dipodomys heermanni goldmani #
(Salinas kangaroo rat)
na A variety of a common and widespread species known to
colonize grasslands, fallow agricultural lands and other upland
habitats. Not listed at either the state or federal level.
Reithrodontomys megalotis distichlis
(Salinas harvest mouse)
--/-- Known only from the Monterey Bay region. Occurs in fresh
and brackish water wetlands and probably in the adjacent
uplands around the mouth of the Salinas River.

1. Status Explanations
Federal (Fed)
E =listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act
T =listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act
D =delisted
-- =no designation

California State (CA)
R =listed as rare under the California Endangered Species Act
E =listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act
T =listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act
CE candidate for endangered under the California Endangered Species Act
CSC =California Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern
-- =no designation
California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
1B =plants considered rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere.
1B.1 =seriously endangered in CA
1B.2 =fairly endangered in CA
1B.3 =not very endangered in CA
4 =Plants of limited distribution; a watch list
4.3 =not very threatened in CA

2. Findings based on literature review, field surveys and assessment of habitat types present, and knowledge of species habitat requirements.

*Source: Search of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2013) occurrences and the California Native Plant Society's On-line Inventory
(CNPS 2013) for the Marina and Moss Landing 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles.

#Species listed in City of Marina LUP, Exhibit A, that are otherwise not found in current CNDDB records.

Zander Associates

The sparsely vegetated foredunes and sand hummocks immediately bordering the sea (typically
no more than approximately 50 meters inland from the mean high tide line) provide habitat for
the globose dune beetle. Potentially suitable habitat for globose dune beetle occurs in the most
western end of the project area.

The shoreline along the Cemex property lies within designated critical habitat for the Pacific
Coast distinct population segment (DPS) of the western snowy plover and is within Recovery
Unit 4 - Sonoma to Monterey Counties, California as described in the Western Snowy Plover
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2007). A small portion at the western end of the project area, where the
discharge pipeline would be connected to the existing outfall junction structure, is within the
limits of designated critical habitat. Each recovery unit includes specific locations and in some
cases subareas that are identified as important for the recovery of the plover. The Cemex
shoreline lies within the Moss Landing to Monterey specific location (CA-65) and the "Lonestar
Beach and interior areas" subarea (USFWS 2007). According to the Recovery Plan (Appendix
B), the management potential for plovers in CA-65 (162 breeding adults) is the highest in
Recovery Unit 4 and the Lonestar (now Cemex) Beach subarea management potential (32
breeding birds) is second only to the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) within CA-
65.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS

The project has been designed to avoid or minimize impacts on special status species; it has been
sited completely within previously disturbed areas and away from the coastal strand and
shoreline habitats and construction and demobilization activities would be scheduled as much as
possible to occur during the fall/winter months. However, activities associated with the work
could result in direct or indirect effects on some special status species. The potential effects of
the project on special status species known to occur in the area and designated critical habitat for
two of them are discussed in more detail below. Measures recommended to minimize and
mitigate these effects, including those incorporated into the project, are discussed in the
following section.

Potential Effects on Special Status Plants: The Temporary Slant Test Well Project is not
expected to adversely affect any special status plants. The only special status plant species
known to occur in the project study area is Monterey spineflower. All of the other plant species
listed in Table 1 are typically found in relatively undisturbed dune habitats and none were
observed or are expected to occur within the project area. Monterey spineflower was found
scattered throughout bare sand areas adjacent to the access road but not within the active roadbed
(Figures 3b, 3c, and 3d). In order to avoid direct effects on Monterey spineflower, the work
areas for each project component will need to be sited outside of occupied habitat. While there
may be some limited potential for seed bank disturbance for Monterey spineflower, this effect
would be minimal in the context of ongoing operational activities at the Cemex facility.
Minimization and mitigation measures identified in the following section are intended to reduce
the potential for any adverse effects on Monterey spineflower.

Potential Effects on Special Status Animals: Five of the special status animal species listed in
Table 1 potentially occur within the project area. These species include globose dune beetle,
Smiths blue butterfly, California legless lizard, coast horned lizard and western snowy plover.
Other special status animal species with occurrence records within a three mile radius can be
October 2013

13
Zander Associates

dismissed based on the habitat characteristics in the project area, location of project facilities,
operational procedures and other factors (see Table 1). Following is an assessment of potential
project impacts on each of the five animal species known, or with some potential, to occur in the
study area.

Globose dune beetle: Direct effects on globose dune beetle could occur through
disturbance of the short (about 100 feet) segment of upper beach between the end of the
existing Cemex facility access road and the existing outfall junction structure. Trenching
for a discharge pipeline and excavation of an area approximately 20 to 30 feet in diameter
at the junction structure location would occur within potential globose dune beetle
habitat. The extent of loss of potential habitat for globose dune beetle is expected to be
minimal and temporary. Minimization measures identified below are intended to reduce
potential effects on individual beetles.

Smiths blue butterfly: Direct (e.g. windshield hits) or indirect (e.g. dust on the nectaries
of buckwheat foodplants) impacts on adult Smith's blue butterflies are expected to be
minimal, particularly if construction activities are scheduled in the fall/winter, outside of
the flight season. However, project related effects on pupal stages of Smiths blue
butterfly could result from direct disturbance in close proximity to coast buckwheat
plants. Because all project-related activities would occur in previously disturbed areas,
the potential for disturbance in close proximity to any coast buckwheat plants would be
very low. Minimization measures identified below are intended to reduce the potential
for any effects on these plants.

California legless lizard: This fossorial (burrowing) species can be found in a number of
habitats in dunes and sandy areas, from immediately above high tide, the crest of sand
dunes, and the edge of the hind dunes to inland sandy areas associated with oak
woodlands, grasslands, maritime chaparral and other habitats. Legless lizards burrow in
sand and leaf litter beneath plants growing in these habitats and feed on insects and other
invertebrates; some plant cover is required to support insects that, in turn, serve as food
for the lizards. Because dune habitats with native vegetation will be avoided by the
project, no adverse impacts on legless lizards are expected. Minimization and mitigation
measures identified below are intended to reduce the potential for any effects on legless
lizards.

Coast horned lizard: Coast horned lizards inhabit open country, especially sandy areas,
washes, flood plains, and wind-blown deposits in a wide variety of habitats, including
coastal dunes, shrublands, woodlands, riparian habitats and annual grassland. Warm,
sunny, open areas with sparse vegetation are primary habitat requirements, along with
patches of loose soil where the lizard can bury itself. The disturbed, compacted and
unvegetated roadbed through the Cemex facility does not provide suitable habitat for the
coast horned lizard. Minimization and mitigation measures identified below are intended
to reduce the potential for any effects on coast horned lizards.

Western snowy plover: The potential for direct impacts to nesting western snowy plovers
will be minimized through project design and scheduling. However, there remains some
potential for direct effects on nesting habitat and indirect effects on wintering plovers'
roosting, foraging, and pre-nesting behavior. Direct effects on nesting habitat could
October 2013

14
Zander Associates

occur through disturbance of the short (about 100 feet) segment of upper beach between
the end of the existing Cemex facility access road and the existing outfall junction
structure. Trenching for a discharge pipeline and excavation of an area approximately 20
to 30 feet in diameter at the junction structure location would occur within plover nesting
habitat. Monitoring records (Page et al 2010, 2011 & 2012) indicate that at least three
nesting attempts have occurred in the immediate vicinity of this area during the last three
breeding seasons, with two successful hatches in 2011 and one in 2012 (Figure 3a).
Several more nesting records (undifferentiated by failure or success) exist for that area
over the course of Point Blues monitoring (Figure 3a). Sand disturbance resulting from
trenching for the pipeline, excavation at the junction structure, and heavy equipment
required for such excavation could create uneven, compacted terrain that would not be
removed by wave and storm action prior to the breeding season. The effects of human-
induced sand disturbance in long-established plover nesting habitat are not well
understood, but may affect localized breeding behavior and nesting success.

Potential indirect effects on the wintering population of plovers along the Cemex
shoreline and nesting habitat just west of the test well could result from increased activity
in the project area over the 24-month operation period and the special operation that is
expected to occur during that period. During the non-breeding season, some of the most
frequently used roosting sites along the Cemex shoreline are located on the beaches just
to the north and south of the Cemex pond, though flocks can occur anywhere (Point Blue
2013, unpubl. data). This area typically experiences little recreational use by humans
(and their pets), especially during the winter months, and is only subject to limited
activity associated with Cemex operations.
5
Consequently, roosting plovers in this area
are accustomed to a relatively low level of disturbance (activity that causes plovers to
move or fly) compared with the more accessible and public beaches to the south. An
increase in disturbance to wintering flocks by increased human activity in the area could
cause roosting birds to move, fly or otherwise alter their spatial distribution. However,
because of their site fidelity and narrow habitat requirements, snowy plovers typically
have few alternative roosting sites (Lafferty 2001). In addition, disturbance of wintering
plovers may reduce foraging efficiency and opportunities for rest, which in turn may
deplete energy reserves and result in lower reproductive success (Brown et al 2000,
Burger 1994). In some cases, increased human disturbance can cause birds to abandon
habitat altogether (Burger, 1986).

Weekly access to the test well site by crew trucks over a 24 month period would increase
regular activity in the vicinity of roosting and nesting habitat. Because that activity
would occur greater than 100 feet from potential roost sites in an area that is buffered by
topography and already used by Cemex for its operations, potential disturbance to
wintering plovers is expected to be minimal. Regular monitoring in the area by Point
Blue during the nesting season would inform crews about nesting attempts in the vicinity
so that maintenance visits could be scheduled and conducted to reduce disturbance to
nesting birds. Further details and additional minimization measures intended to reduce

5
The need to move the dredge anchors around the Cemex extraction pond requires periodic use of equipment
around the pond.
October 2013

15
Zander Associates

the potential for project-related effects on snowy plover nesting habitat and winter
roosting birds are identified below.

Potential Effects on Critical Habitat: The potential effects on designated critical habitat for
western snowy plover and Monterey spineflower are discussed below.

Western snowy plover: The adverse modification determination included with the
designation of critical habitat for the Pacific Coast distinct population unit of the western
snowy plover (77 FR 36727) lists five activities that may affect critical habitat: 1)
management actions in snowy plover habitat; 2) dredging and dredge spoil placement that
permanently removes the essential physical or biological features of the habitat; 3)
construction and maintenance of facilities that interfere with snowy plover nesting,
breeding, or foraging, or that result in increases in predation; 4) storm water and waste
water discharge that could impact invertebrate abundance; 5) flood control actions that
alter the essential biological or physical features of the habitat.

The proposed project would incorporate several measures to avoid or minimize impacts
on breeding and wintering snowy plovers and their habitat (see below). Construction and
demobilization activities would be scheduled as much as possible to occur during the
plovers non-nesting season (October 1st through February 28th). Project facilities would
be located within existing disturbed areas on or adjacent to the active Cemex access road.
However, a limited area of plover nesting habitat would be temporarily disturbed for the
trenching and excavation required to connect the discharge pipeline to the existing outfall
junction structure. Nevertheless, the project is not expected to alter essential physical and
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical
habitat for snowy plover.

Monterey spineflower: The Federal Register listing notice for Monterey spineflower
critical habitat (73 FR 1525) defines activities that may destroy or adversely modify
critical habitat as those that alter the essential physical and biological features to an extent
that appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for Monterey
spineflower. It identifies such activities as (1) actions that would degrade or destroy
native maritime chaparral, dune, and oak woodland communities, including, but not
limited to, livestock grazing, clearing, disking, introducing or encouraging the spread of
nonnative plants, and heavy recreational use; and (2) actions that would appreciably
diminish habitat value or quality through indirect effects (e.g., edge effects, invasion of
nonnative plants or animals, or fragmentation).

All project-related activities would occur in previously disturbed areas that are not
essential for Monterey spineflower. The project would not cause the degradation or
destruction of native dune communities in the vicinity because access through these areas
would follow an existing road currently used by Cemex.
6
The project is also not
expected to diminish the value of the dune habitat such that it would preclude

6
The Final Rule designating critical habitat for spineflower specifically excludes manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the land on which such structures are located.
October 2013

16
Zander Associates

maintenance or establishment of Monterey spineflower plants. Consequently, the project
would not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for Monterey spineflower.

MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES

The temporary slant test well project includes measures to avoid or minimize impacts on special
status species and sensitive habitat. This section lists those measures and includes additional
measures that are intended to avoid or further minimize and mitigate potential impacts to specific
species that may occur in the project area.

Monterey spineflower:

Pre-construction flagging/surveys: Assuming construction begins in the fall/winter of
2013, a qualified biologist will relocate (using available GPS coordinates) and flag the
occurrences of Monterey spineflower identified during the April, 2013 survey prior to
equipment mobilization. If construction does not commence before April 2014, then
prior to equipment mobilization, a qualified biologist should conduct new surveys of the
project area to flag occurrences of Monterey spineflower within 20 feet of the access road
and perimeters of the work areas.
Habitat avoidance: Occupied habitat areas, as identified and flagged by a qualified
biologist (see above), would be avoided by the project to the extent feasible. In the event
that any such areas occur within proposed trenching, excavation or drilling sites, the
biologist would establish appropriate buffers and access procedures, which would be
monitored during the term of the project, to minimize disturbance of the plants. Where
spineflower plants cannot be avoided, habitat restoration would be implemented
following completion of construction (see below).
Habitat restoration: Occupied Monterey spineflower habitat disturbed during project
construction should be restored once construction activities are complete. A specific
restoration plan should be developed by a qualified biologist based on the nature and
extent of the disturbance. A minimum 1:1 replacement ratio should be required.
Maintenance and monitoring measures and success criteria should be defined in the plan.
Biological resource education and monitoring: Prior to mobilization of equipment or
initiation of construction activities, a qualified biologist would be designated to conduct
an educational training session regarding Monterey spineflower with all construction
personnel. The training would include a description of the plant and its habitat
preferences with onsite identification and/or illustrations. The biologist would also
monitor equipment access in order to avoid disturbance to areas that support Monterey
spineflower.

Globose dune beetle:

Pre-construction surveys: A qualified biologist should conduct a survey with the
appropriate project team members prior to initiation of construction activities for the slant
test well and discharge pipeline to evaluate habitat conditions for globose dune beetle and
determine if salvage of individual beetles in the construction zone is warranted. The
biologist should also determine the quality of habitat nearby the construction area and
October 2013

17
Zander Associates

recommend avoidance and/or establish appropriate construction buffers to protect the
habitat as necessary.
Construction limits: Construction activities would be restricted to the proposed
construction area and access route. No construction equipment, materials, or activity
would occur outside the specified work areas. No construction equipment or materials
would be placed, nor would any activity occur on the sandy upper beach area outside of
the immediate construction zone.
Biological resource education and monitoring: Prior to initiation of access or
construction activities, a qualified biologist would be designated to conduct an
educational training session regarding the globose dune beetle with all construction
personnel. The training would include a description of the beetles life cycle and habitat
preferences, illustrations of the species and identification of potentially suitable habitat.
The biologist would also monitor construction activities in order to avoid disturbance to
potentially suitable habitats or encroachment into areas potentially supporting the globose
dune beetle.

Smiths blue butterfly:

Timing of construction and operation: Project construction should occur during the
fall/winter months; outside of the active flight season for adult Smith's blue butterflies
and outside of the active larval stage of the species. If construction is schedule during the
flight season (typically J une-August) then a qualified biologist should survey the
buckwheat occurrences near the project area and determine if additional measures are
warranted to reduce potential effects on adult butterflies. Avoidance of and setbacks
from any buckwheat plants would avoid potential impacts to pupae of the butterfly (see
below).
Pre-construction surveys: A qualified biologist would conduct a survey with the
appropriate project team members prior to initiation of access or construction activities to
identify and mark the electrical conduit trench alignment to assure that no buckwheat
plants would be disturbed. Buckwheat occurrences within 20 feet of the access road and
work areas would also be identified and marked as necessary.
Avoidance of buckwheat: Buckwheat plants or clusters of plants, as identified and
flagged by a qualified biologist (see above), would be avoided by the project. The
biologist would establish appropriate buffers and access procedures for any buckwheat
plants occurring within 20 feet of the existing access road, which would be monitored
during the term of the project (see below)
educational training session regarding Smiths blue butterfly with all construction
personnel. The training would include a description of the butterflys life cycle and
habitat preferences and identification of buckwheat along the access road. The biologist
would also monitor equipment access in order to avoid disturbance to buckwheat plants
or encroachment into areas supporting buckwheat.
October 2013

18
Zander Associates

California legless lizard:

Habitat avoidance: Areas potentially suitable to support legless lizards, especially areas
of sparsely vegetated loose sand with bush lupines, mock heather and other dune shrubs,
should be avoided by the project. In the event that any such areas occur within 20 feet of
the existing access road or slant test well facilities, a qualified biologist would establish
appropriate buffers and access procedures, which would be monitored during the term of
the project (see below).
educational training session regarding the legless lizard with all construction personnel.
The training would include a description of the lizards life cycle and habitat preferences,
illustrations of the species and identification of potentially suitable habitat. The biologist
would also monitor equipment access and construction activities in order to avoid
disturbance to potentially suitable habitats or encroachment into areas potentially
supporting the legless lizard.

Coast horned lizard:

Habitat avoidance: Areas potentially suitable to support coast horned lizards, especially
areas of sparsely vegetated loose sand with native dune shrubs, should be avoided by the
project. In the event that any such areas occur within 20 feet of the existing access road
or test well facilities, a qualified biologist should establish appropriate buffers and access
procedures, which would be monitored during the term of the project (see below).
educational training session regarding the coast horned lizard with all construction
personnel. The training would include a description of the lizards life cycle and habitat
preferences and identification of potentially suitable habitat areas. The biologist would
also monitor equipment access in order to avoid disturbance to potentially suitable
habitats or encroachment into areas potentially supporting the coast horned lizard.

Western Snowy Plover:

Timing of construction and operation: Project construction and demobilization
activities should be conducted outside of the active breeding and nesting season for
western snowy plovers. If construction is schedule during the breeding and nesting
season (typically March through September), then the results of pre-construction surveys
October 2013

19
Zander Associates

(see below) should be discussed with the USFWS to establish the appropriate
avoidance/minimization measures.
Pre-construction surveys: Several days or more prior to initiation of construction
activities for the slant test well components, a qualified biologist, in consultation with
Point Blue, would field evaluate snowy plover activity in the vicinity. Any wintering or
breeding activity nearby the project site will be identified and the biologist will discuss
the field results with the USFWS.
Habitat avoidance: The test well site would be located within the active Cemex access
road area to minimize or avoid disruption of potential snowy plover nesting areas along
the shoreline. If required, noise blankets would be installed to provide visual and sound
attenuation during drilling operations. The test well pump would be a submersible pump
that is not expected to generate detectable noise or vibration in snowy plover nesting
areas once in operation. Features (wire excluders) would be incorporated into the top of
the above-ground electrical panel at the test well, if necessary, to deter perching by avian
predators (e.g. ravens and crows). If construction occurs during the breeding/nesting
season, further avoidance measures may be required in consultation with Point Blue and
the USFWS (see above).
Trash management: Construction personnel would keep all food-related trash items in
sealed containers and remove them daily from the project site to discourage the
concentration of potential predators in snowy plover habitat. Refueling of construction
equipment and vehicles would not occur in the project area. Construction personnel
would check and maintain equipment and vehicles operated in the project area daily to
prevent leaks of fuels, lubricants or other fluids, in compliance with applicable state and
federal regulations.
Work area recontouring: Following completion of the drainage pipe connection to the
existing outfall junction structure and after all construction equipment has left the area,
the work area at the end of the Cemex access road would be recontoured as determined
necessary in coordination with representatives of Point Blue. The purpose for the
recontouring would be to achieve the optimum configuration possible for potential
nesting plovers. The timing of this recontouring would be determined in consultation
with Point Blue.
Sampling procedures during operation: A qualified biologist would consult with Point
Blue monitors on a weekly basis during the plover nesting season to stay current with
nesting activity in the vicinity of the test well. The biologist would coordinate weekly
with any Cal Am personnel travelling to the test well during the 24 month operation
period and accompany them as necessary during the nesting season based on information
received from Point Blue.
Biological resource monitoring and education: Several days or more prior to project
construction, a qualified biologist, in consultation with Point Blue, would field evaluate
the nature and extent of plover activity in the project area to inform excavation and other
construction decisions. Also prior to initiation of access or construction activities, the
October 2013

20
Zander Associates

October 2013

21
biologist would conduct an educational session with all construction personnel to
describe snowy plover wintering and breeding behavior, habitat preferences, threats and
other issues. The biologist would also monitor equipment access and
construction/operation activities along trench lines, at the wellhead site, and in the
excavation area for the outfall connection during the project term in order to avoid or
minimize disturbance to potential nesting habitat for snowy plovers and the
overwintering flocks in the area.

Conclusion

The Temporary Slant Test Well Project would occur adjacent to an area of coastal dune, strand
and shoreline habitat known to support several special status species of plants and animals and
within designated critical habitat for two federally listed species. However, the specific locations
of project activities were selected to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive habitats and special
status species. All proposed project facilities are located in previously disturbed areas.
Reasonable and prudent minimization and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the
siting and operation of the project and additional measures are recommended to further minimize
project effects.

The proposed project is not expected to affect any of the special status plants under consideration
herein or adversely modify critical habitat for Monterey spineflower or western snowy plover.
Similarly, the proposed project is not expected to adversely affect globose dune beetle, Smiths
blue butterfly, California legless lizard or coast horned lizard; with implementation of the
minimization and mitigation measures described above.

Impacts to nesting and wintering habitat for the western snowy plover would be avoided with
implementation of all the minimization and mitigation measures proposed above. Therefore, the
project is not likely to result in significant effects on the western snowy plover or appreciably
diminish the value or quality of its habitat.

Zander Associates

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location

Figure 2 Overview of Project Area

Figure 3 Test Well Facilities

Figure 3a Test Well Facilities

Figure 3b Test Well Facilities

Figure 3c Test Well Facilities

Figure 3d Test Well Facilities

Figure 3e Test Well Facilities

Slant Test Well Location
D
u
n
e
s

R
d
S
a
l
i
n
a
s

R
i
v
e
r
R
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

R
d
L
a
p
i
s

R
d
Marina Dunes
Preserve
CEMEX
D
e
l

M
o
n
t
e

B
l
v
d
H
w
y

1
Site Location
MPWSP
Temporary Slant Test Well
Marina, California
Zander Associates
Environmental Consultants
San Rafael, CA 94903
Figure
1
0 0.5 0.25 Miles
Legend
Parcel Boundary
Slant Test Well
Zander Associates
Figure
2
0 400 200 Feet
Legend
Project Area
Overview of Project Area
MPWSP
Marina, California
..
N
A
..

. t -

'V,J
4.' .

. .
... , .
...
' r . .
. .... t

F
ig
u
re
3
a
F
ig
u
re
3
b
F
ig
u
re
3
c
F
ig
u
re
3
d
F
ig
u
re
3
e
ELECTRIC SERVICE
CONNECTION
20 FOOT OUTFALL
EASEMENT
ELEC. PANEL &
SAMPLING LOCATION
SLANT TEST WELL
INSERTION POINT
WELLHEAD VAULT
20 FOOT OUTFALL
EASEMENT
EXISTING MANHOLE
TEMPORARY ACCESS ROAD FOR CEMEX
DISCHARGE PIPELINE
DRILL RIG
TRENCHLESS CONSTRUCTION
BURIED ELEC. CONDUIT
SLANT TEST W
ELL
1,000'
SPINEFLOWER
MONITORING WELL
SPINEFLOWER
SPINEFLOWER
Zander Associates
Test Well Facilities
MPWSP
Marina, California
Figure
3
0
0
0
TEMPORARY
EXISTING MANHOLE
0
20 FOOT OUTFALL EASEMENT
----
Zander Associates
----
LEGEND:
0 Hatched Plover Nests 2011
0 Plover Nest Locations Before 2010
Source: Point Blue
DRILL RIG

'
'( -
- '
MPWSP
Marina, California

_Q
n
(J)
L
::J
01
-
LL
(J)
(J)
(f)
Figure
3a
PLANNING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION
I 111115 a qaDfl' aEBA BOU.EYND. &UTE 1111
SAN DEQO, CAI.FOINA fill4-1824
C: D N S U LTI N G 811UM.1i000 FAXaeMSIOI -.JEF.com
0
n
(J)
L
::J
01
-
LL
_j
I
u
I- .

Zander Associates
20 FOOT OUTFALL
LEGEND:
Spineflower
MPWSP
Marina, California
u
n

(f)
Figure
3b
PLANNI DESIGN CONSTRUCTION
.c
M
~
:s
QO
a:
I
LLI
z
-.....
:I:
~
~
Figure Jc
Test Well Facilities Map
Temporary Construction Footprint
~ PLANNING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION
I 9755 CLAIREMONT MESA BOULEVARD, SUITE 100
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92124-1324
C [] N S U LTI N 13 858.614.5000 FAX 858.614.5001 www.RBF.com
l
~
...
"'
~
::1
"'
~
ii1
I
u
n
(J)
L
::J
01
-
LL
ELEC. CONDUIT
SPINEFLOWER
_j
I
u
I-
<(
2
Zander Associates
TRENCHLESS CONSTRUCTION
ELECTRICAL CONDUIT

(J)
n

.
::J
01
-
LL
(J)
(J)
(f)

M ON I TORI N G ---------,
w
z
_j
I
u
I-
<(
1 , 350 FT EAST OF SLANT WELL
i
..... O __ O ___ ___ E __ T
LEGEND:
Spineflower
-
MPWSP
Marina, California

I
2
Figure
3d
Q)
Q)
(f)

Zander Associates
MPWSP
Marina, California
Figure
3e
111115 a qaDfl' aEBA BOU.EYND. &UTE 1111
Zander Associates

References

Brown, S., Hickey, C., Harrington, B. (Eds.) 2000. The US Shorebird Conservation Plan.
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA.

Burger J . 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays in the
northeastern United States. Environ. Conserv. 13: 123130.

Burger, J . 1994. The effect of human disturbance on foraging behavior and habitat use in piping
plover Charadrius melodus. Estuaries 17, 695701.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2013. California Natural Diversity Data
Base. CDFW Natural Heritage Division, Rancho Cordova, CA

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Native Plant Program. The Status of Rare,
Threatened and Endangered Plants of California from 2000-2004
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/docs/2004/t_eplants.pdf

Environmental Science Associates 2012. E Zigas, King J . Special status species in the vicinity of
the proposed test well sites, Marina, CA. Memorandum prepared for California American
Water, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, J une 13, 2012. 3pp. and maps

Lafferty, K.D., 2001. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation.
101: 315-325.

Lafferty, K.D., D. Goodman, and C.P. Sandoval., 2006. Restoration of breeding by snowy
plovers following protection from disturbance. Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 2217-
2230.

Neuman, K.K, L.A. Henkel, and G. W Page., 2008. Shorebird use of sandy beaches in Central
California. Waterbirds 31(1): 115-121

Page, G.W., J .S. Warriner, J .C. Warriner, and P.W.C. Patton., 1995. Snowy Plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 154 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists'
Union, Washington, D.C.

Page, G.W., K. Neuman, J .C. Warriner, J .S. Warriner, C. Eyster, J Erbes, D. Dixon, and A.
Palkovic. 2010. Nesting of the snowy plover at Monterey Bay and on beaches on
northern Santa Cruz County California in 2010. Report of PRBO Conservation Science,
Publication #1776, Petaluma, CA. 23 pp.

Zander Associates

Palkovic. 2011. Nesting of the snowy plover in the Monterey Bay Area, California in
2011. Report of PRBO Conservation Science, Publication #1833, Stinson Beach, CA. 23
pp

pp

PRBO Conservation Science 2013. Unpublished data and analysis from PRBO monitoring
activities. Memorandum from Kris Neuman to Mike Zander via email on March 27,
2013. 4pp.

Thomas Reid Associates 1997. Marina Dunes Plan, Supporting Technical Studies. Prepared for
Marina Coastal Zone Planning Task Force. Palo Alto, CA.

USFWS 2008. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Designation of critical habitat for
the Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens). Final Rule. Federal
Register 73:1525-1554. J anuary 9, 2008.

USFWS 2012. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Revised designation of critical
habitat for the Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover. Final Rule. Federal
Register 77:36727-36869. J une 19, 2012.

Zoger, A. and B. Pavlik. 1987. Marina Dune Rare Plant Survey. Report prepared for Marina
Coastal Zone Planning Task Force.

Zander Associates

List of Contacts/Contributors/Preparers

Zander Associates
(415) 897-8781 (phone)
(415) 814-4125 (fax)
Michael Zander, Principal
Leslie Zander, Principal

RBF Consulting
Temecula, CA 92591
(951) 676-8042 (phone)
(951) 676-7240 (fax)
Kevin Thomas, CEP
Environmental Services Manager

The Project Applicant is:

4701 Beloit Drive
(916) 568-4296 (phone)
(916) 466-4535 (fax)
Richard Svinland. P.E.

Persons Contacted

Ambrosius, J oyce. NOAA Fisheries (NMFS). Santa Rosa, CA
Arnold, Richard, Ph.D. Entomological Consulting Services, Limited. Pleasant Hill California.
Hendrickson, Beth. California Office of Mine Reclamation. Sacramento, CA
Hoover, Bridget. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Monterey. CA
Marinovic, Baldo, Ph.D. Associate Research Biologist, Oceanography and Ocean Processes,
Long Marine Laboratory, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Martin, J acob. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Field Office.
Neuman, Kriss. PRBO Conservation Science, Petaluma, CA.
Page, Gary. PRBO Conservation Science, Petaluma, CA.
Sanderson, Brandon. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fresno, CA
Wilkens, Eric. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Fresno, CA
Wilson, Ronald D. Manager, Land Use Permits, Pacific Region, Cemex. El Dorado Hills, CA

225 Bush Street
Suite 1700
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.896.5900 phone
415.896.0332 fax
www.esassoc.com

memorandum
date J une 13, 2012

to Rich Svinland, CalAm
J ohn Kilpatrick, CalAm
Kevin Thomas, RBF

from Eric Zigas, ESA
J ulia King, Senior Botanist, ESA

subject California American Water Company
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
Special Status Species within the Vicinity of the Proposed Test Well Sites, Marina, CA.
Summary
Special status plants and animals are known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed CalAm Monterey Peninsula
Water Supply Project test well sites, and depend upon the habitat found in the sand dunes to the north and south
of the Cemex sand mining operation located in Marina, California. Several federally listed plants and two
federally listed animals are either known to occur or have potential to occur in these dunes, as reported by
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB; CDFG, 2012), Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) staff
(personal communications with Kriss Newman, 2012), and through botanical surveys conducted by ESA in May
and J une 2012.
Methods
ESA botanist J ulia King and ESA biologist Michelle Giolli conducted general habitat mapping and botanical
surveys of potential test well sites in association with the CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project on
May 1 and 16, 2012. J uly King conducted additional surveys on May 17 and J une 5, 2012.
ESA surveyors described general habitat conditions and noted potential habitat for special status species within a
portion of the proposed CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project area (proposed Project Area), which
includes the proposed test well sites (test well survey area). ESA surveyors also conducted focused surveys for
special status plant species within the test well survey area by walking transects throughout the entire survey area.
Figures 1 and 2 show the extent of the proposed Project Area within the vicinity of the Cemex property (the area
of general habitat mapping and potential habitat for special status species) and the extent of the test well survey
area (the area of focused surveys for special status plants). Target plants within the test well survey area were:
Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens), coast wallflower (Erysimum ammophilum), Yadon's
wallflower (Erysimum menziesii spp. yadonii), sand gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria), Kelloggs horkelia
(Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea), coast buckwheat
1

1
Coast buckwheat is not currently a special status plant species; however, it was included as a target plant species during surveys because
it is a host species for the federally endangered Smiths blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi).
(Eriogonum latifolium), and sand-mat manzanita
(Arctostaphylos pumila).
Rich Svinland
J une 13, 2012
Page 2
2
Habitat Description
Sand dunes within the proposed Project Area support central dune scrub habitat on stabilized backdune slopes in
patches along much of the coastal strand, with central dune scrub being most developed on large dunes bordered
approximately by Salinas River to the north and Marina State Beach to the south. This uncommon plant
community has been substantially altered by the encroachment of seafig and iceplant (Carpobrotus spp.),
introduced to stabilize the shifting sands. However, some areas continue to support a dense, native scrub
dominated by mock heather (Ericameria ericoides) and live-forever (Dudleya caespitosa), with beach aster
(Corethrogyne filaginifolia), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), and coast buckwheat as important associates. On
windward slopes, dune bush lupine (Lupinus chamissonis) and beach sagewort (Artemisia pycnocephala) become
more prominent, while disturbed sites are colonized by coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). Central dune scrub
transitions to an unstable plant association of cakile (Cakile maritima), sand verbena (Abronia spp.), and beach
primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifolia) on the active dune slopes to seaward.
Survey Results
The federally threatened western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrines nivosus) nests along the coastline of the
proposed Project Area and test well survey area; plover nesting habitat generally occurs between the ordinary high
tide lines and the seaward side of the dunes or "cliff" face of the dunes. Figures 1 and 2 indicate the location of
potential western snowy plover habitat within the Project Area and test well survey area. Plovers are documented
as nesting roughly at the base of the seaward side of the dunes to approximately 100 feet inland, as monitored by
PRBO (personal communications with Kriss Newman, 2012). Between the Salinas River and Marina State Beach,
approximately 40 pairs of snowy plover nest on a yearly basis and approximately 330 pairs of snowy plover use
the Monterey Bay coastal areas for breeding and wintering (personal communications with Kriss Newman, 2012).
Nesting areas within and adjacent to the Project Area and test well survey area are roped off with cables and signs
are posted that indicate sensitive resources for western snowy plover.
Currently-designated critical habitat for the western snowy plover (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS],
2005) does not occur within the proposed Project Area or test well survey area. However, proposed critical
habitat, which is expected to be finalized by the USFWS in 2012, occurs within the proposed Project Area and
test well survey area (USFWS, 2011).
The test well survey area along the beach frontage and the seaward side of the dunes provides both nesting and
wintering habitat for snowy plover; and therefore, impacts to snowy plover habitat, including impacts that would
potentially occur during the non-breeding season (wintering habitat), may require consultation with the USFWS
under Section 7 or Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA).
Smith's Blue Butterfly
The federally endangered Smith's blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi) feed, mate, and lay their eggs
exclusively on the flower heads of coast buckwheat and seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium), of which
coast buckwheat occurs in moderate density throughout dune habitat within the proposed Project Area and test
well survey area. Therefore, the proposed Project Area and test well survey area both have potential to support the
endangered Smith's blue butterfly. There is no finalized critical habitat designation for Smiths blue butterfly.
The consistency between the density of coast buckwheat observed during botanical surveys and CNDDB
occurrence mapping indicate the dune habitat within the proposed Project Area and test well survey area is
suitable habitat for Smith's blue butterfly. Removal of coast buckwheat in association with test well construction
activity may result in the take of eggs and larvae of the Smith's blue butterfly and would require consultation with
the USFWS under Section 7 or Section 10 of FESA.
Rich Svinland
J une 13, 2012
Page 3
3
Plants
Three special status plant species were observed during the focused botanical surveys conducted in May and J une
2012 within the test well survey area. Species included federally threatened and CNPS 1B listed Monterey
spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens), CNPS 1B listed coast wallflower (Erysimum ammophilum), and
federally and state threatened and CNPS 1B listed Yadon's wallflower (Erysimum menziesii spp. yadonii).
Monterey spineflower and coast wallflower were observed throughout dune habitat within the test well survey
area. Yadons wallflower was observed along the seaward side of the dunes, north of the Cemex operations area.
A large population was mapped between the cliff face of the dune to approximately 100 feet inland. Yadons
wallflower was also observed at the southern end of the Cemex property. It occurs along the north and south
sides of the beach access path between the Cemex property and Marina State Beach. To the south of the beach
access path, a large population of Yadons wallflower was observed in association with a dune restoration and
stabilization project on the Marina State Beach lands.
In addition to the three special status plant species observed within the test well survey area described above, the
federally endangered, state threatened and CNPS 1B listed sand gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria) was
observed during separate field efforts conducted by ESA in April 2012. During those efforts (which included
reconnaissance surveys being conducted in preparation for the test well surveys), sand gilia was observed within
Marina State Beach lands, and specifically within the southern edge of the test well survey area, as shown on
Figure 2.
Coastal dune habitat outside of the test well survey area, but within the proposed Project Area, also contains
suitable habitat for Monterey spineflower, coast wallflower, Yadons wallflower, and sand gilia. Maps showing
the location of special-status plants are presented in Figures 1 and 2.
References
California Department of Fish and Game, 2012, California Natural Diversity Database RareFind version 3.1.0,
Search for Occurrences within Monterey County.
Kriss Newman, Avian Biologist, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, personal communication with J ulia King,
Wetland Regulatory Specialist/Senior Botanist, Environmental Science Associates, May 23, 2012.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2005, Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population
of the Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). Federal Register Vol. 70 (188): 56969-57018.
USFWS, 2011, Revised Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover
(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), Proposed Rule. Federal Register Vol. 76 (55): 16045-16165.

5,000 to 8,000 plants
100 to 150 pl ant s
175 plants
100 plants
9 plants
5 plants
15 plants
25 plants
Monterey Regional Water Supply Project . 205335
Fi gure 1
Special Status Species Observations and Habitat within the Proposed Project Area and Test Well Survey Area (North)
SOURCE: ESA, 2012; ESRI, 2012
0 500
Feet
Proposed Project Area
Proposed Test Well Survey Area (Surveyed May 2012)
coast wallflower ( )
Yadon's wallflower ( ssp. )
Monterey spineflower ( var. )
Western snowy plover habitat
occurs within the entire
proposed project area from
the ocean east to the eastern
edge of the foredunes.
Coast buckwheat is the host plant for
Smith's blue butterfly. Since coast buckwheat
occurs in high densities throughout
the proposed project area, Smith's blue
butterfly habitat occurs throughout the entire
proposed project area.
Coast wallflower, Monterey spineflower,
Yadon's wallflower, and sand gilia
( ssp. )
habitat occur throughout the
Erysimum ammophilum
Erysimum menziesii yadonii
Chorizanthe pungens pungens
Gilia tenuiflora arenaria
300 plants
200 plants
80 plants
200 plants
20 plants
150 plants
1 plant
1 plant
3 plants
2 plants
3 plants
9 plants
1 plants
7 plants
5 plants
3 plants
3 plants
2 plants
4 plants
4 plants
10 plants
10 plants
10 plants
11 pl ants
Monterey Regional Water Supply Project . 205335
Fi gure 2
Special Status Species Observations and Habitat within the Proposed Project Area and Test Well Survey Area (South)
SOURCE: ESA, 2012; ESRI, 2012
0 500
Feet
Proposed Project Area
Proposed Test Well Survey Area (Surveyed May 2012)
coast wallflower ( )
Yadon's wallflower ( ssp. )
Monterey spineflower ( var. )
Western snowy plover habitat
occurs within the entire
proposed project area from
the ocean east to the eastern
edge of the foredunes.
Coast buckwheat is the host plant for
Smith's blue butterfly. Since coast buckwheat
occurs in high densities throughout
the proposed project area, Smith's blue
butterfly habitat occurs throughout the entire
-Monterey spineflower is scattered throughout this
polygon.
-Yadon's wallflower is present within this
polygon with densities higher at the west end
of the polygon compared to the east end.
-This polygon was also surveyed in April 2012
as part of a reference survey and sand gilia
( ssp. ) was observed
within this polygon at that time.
-Marina State Beach/dunes preservation area
(restored dunes with windbreaks for sand
stabilization)
-Monterey spineflower and Yadon's wallflower
occur in high densities through this polygon.
Either species of plant occurs approximately
every 5 to 10 feet.
Erysimum ammophilum
Erysimum menziesii yadonii
Chorizanthe pungens pungens
Coast wallflower, Monterey spineflower,
Yadon's wallflower, and sand gilia
( ssp. )
habitat occur throughout the

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE

MPWSP
MARINA, CALIFORNIA

Prepared by:

Zander Associates

Submitted to:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
San Francisco District
1455 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94103

On behalf of:

RBF Consulting
Temecula, California 92591

J uly 2013

i
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Overview ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Threatened or Endangered Species that May Be Affected ............................................... 1
1.3 Critical Habitat ................................................................................................................. 5

2.0 CONSULTATION TO DATE ............................................................................................ 5

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................. 6
3.1 Access .............................................................................................................................. 6
3.2 Restricted Construction Area ........................................................................................... 6
3.3 Project Facilities ............................................................................................................... 6
3.3.1 Temporary Slant Test Well and Well-head Facilities ................................................. 9
3.3.2 Monitoring Wells ........................................................................................................ 9
3.3.3 Electrical Power Supply .............................................................................................. 9
3.3.4 Test Water Disposal Facilities .................................................................................... 9
3.4 Project Phasing and Scheduling ..................................................................................... 10

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA ...................................................................... 10
4.1 Location and General Characteristics ............................................................................ 10
4.2 Cemex Operations Area ................................................................................................. 10
4.3 Slant Test Well ............................................................................................................... 12

5.0 SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND STATUS IN THE ACTION AREA ................................. 14
5.1 Smith's Blue Butterfly .................................................................................................... 14
5.1.1 Status and Description .............................................................................................. 14
5.1.2 Distribution and Habitat ............................................................................................ 14
5.1.3 Life History ............................................................................................................... 15
5.1.4 Threats to Survival .................................................................................................... 15
5.1.5 Occurrence within the Action Area .......................................................................... 15
5.2 Western Snowy Plover ................................................................................................... 17
5.2.3 Life History ............................................................................................................... 18
5.3 Yadon's Wallflower ....................................................................................................... 20
5.3.3 Life History ............................................................................................................... 22
5.4 Monterey Gilia ............................................................................................................... 23

ii
5.4.3 Life History ............................................................................................................... 24
5.5 Monterey Spineflower .................................................................................................... 25
5.5.3 Life History ............................................................................................................... 25

6.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON LISTED SPECIES ......... 26
6.1 Effects on Listed Plants.................................................................................................. 26
6.2 Effects on Listed Animals .............................................................................................. 27
6.2.1 Smiths blue butterfly................................................................................................ 27
6.2.2 Western snowy plover ............................................................................................... 27
6.3 Effects on Critical Habitat ............................................................................................. 28
6.3.1 Monterey spineflower ............................................................................................... 28
6.3.2 Western snowy plover ............................................................................................... 29

7.0 MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES ..................................................... 29
7.1 Monterey Spineflower .................................................................................................... 30
7.1.1 Pre-construction flagging .......................................................................................... 30
7.1.2 Habitat avoidance ...................................................................................................... 30
7.1.3 Timing of construction and operation ....................................................................... 30
7.1.4 Biological resource education and monitoring ......................................................... 30
7.2 Smiths Blue Butterfly ................................................................................................... 30
7.2.1 Pre-construction surveys ........................................................................................... 30
7.2.2 Avoidance of buckwheat ........................................................................................... 30
7.2.4 Biological resource education and monitoring ......................................................... 31
7.3 Western Snowy Plover ................................................................................................... 31
7.3.2 Project siting and configuration ................................................................................ 31
7.3.3 Construction limits .................................................................................................... 31
7.3.4 Trash and fuel management ...................................................................................... 32
7.3.5 Work area recontouring ............................................................................................ 32
7.3.6 Sampling procedures during operation ..................................................................... 32
7.3.7 Biological resource monitoring and education ......................................................... 32

8.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ............................................................................................... 32

9.0 CONCLUSION AND DETERMINATION ..................................................................... 33

10.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 34

11.0 LIST OF CONTACTS/CONTRIBUTORS/PREPARERS ............................................... 37

iii
LIST OF FIGURES:

Figure 1: Site Location
Figure 2: Action Area
Figure 3: Slant Test Well Schematic
Figure 4: Slant Test Well Location Detail
Figure 5: Action Area East-West Access Road Segment

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS:

Photo 1: Access road through Cemex
Photo 2: Flume parallel to access road
Photo 3: Stockpiles along access road
Photo 4: West end of Cemex road at test well location
Photo 5: Vehicle tracks in sand at end of access road
Photo 6: Coast buckwheat on north slope of flume

Zander Associates
BA Temporary Slant Test Well Project
J uly 2013 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This biological assessment (BA) was prepared by Zander Associates to review the Temporary
Slant Test Well Project (Project) proposed by California American Water (Cal Am). The
temporary test well facility is being proposed to gather technical data related to feasibility of a
subsurface intake system for a potential future desalination project. The data will be used, in
part, to facilitate design and intake siting for the separately proposed Monterey Peninsula Water
Supply Project (MPWSP).

The purpose of this BA is to review the Project in sufficient detail to determine to what extent it
may affect federally threatened, endangered, candidate, proposed threatened or proposed
endangered species, or critical habitat for these species. This BA was prepared in accordance
with the legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16
U.S.C. 1536 (c)), and follows the standards established in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration's (NOAA Fisheries) National Environmental Policy (NEPA) implementation
procedures and Endangered Species Act (ESA) guidance. This BA accompanies a request for
authorization submitted to the NOAA Office of Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary on
J une 25, 2013, for the Temporary Slant Test Well Project.
1.1 Project Overview
Cal Am proposes to construct and operate a temporary slant test well and associated monitoring
wells and appurtenances to gather site-specific field data concerning geologic, hydrogeologic,
and water quality characteristics of the Sand Dunes Aquifer, Salinas Valley Aquitard, and 180-
foot Aquifer along the edge of Monterey Bay. The proposed Project would inform the planning,
permitting, design, construction and operation of the separately proposed MPWSP. The Project
would be constructed on lands owned by Cemex (APN 203-011-019-000) in a disturbed portion
of the active mining area, east of the beach and adjacent to the unimproved roadway currently
used by Cemex. (Figures 1 & 2).
1.2 Threatened or Endangered Species that May Be Affected
The federally threatened or endangered species listed below are known to occur nearby the
project area. Other federally listed, candidate or proposed listed species with occurrence records
in the general vicinity of the project area were considered for inclusion in this BA but were
dismissed based on the habitat characteristics in the project area, location of project facilities,
operational procedures and other factors. Many of the listed species eliminated from further
consideration are marine organisms with offshore aquatic habitats that are not expected to be
affected either directly or indirectly by construction and operation of the slant test well project.
Other listed species eliminated from consideration rely on particular environments not found in
the project area (e.g. California red-legged frog [Rana draytonii], Gowen cypress [Cupressus
goveniana], Yadons piperia [Piperia yadonii]). Some listed plants (beach layia [Layia
carnosa], Tidestoms lupine [Lupinus tidestromii], coastal dunes milk vetch [Astragalus tener
var. titi]) occur in coastal dune environments similar to those in the project area, but are only
known from specific, relatively isolated locations in the Monterey Bay region and were also not
considered further here.
D
u
n
e
s

R
d
S
a
l
i
n
a
s

R
i
v
e
r
R
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

R
d
L
a
p
i
s

R
d
Marina Dunes
Preserve
CEMEX
D
e
l

M
o
n
t
e

B
l
v
d
H
w
y

1
Site Location
MPWSP
Marina, California
Zander Associates
Figure
1
0 0.5 0.25 Miles
Legend
Wellhead Vault
Parcel Boundary
Wellhead Vault
Zander Associates
Figure
2
0 400 200 Feet
Legend
Wellhead Vault
Action Area
Action Area
MPWSP
Marina, California
D
D
..
.
..,
'
..
..

'

N
A
..
-. . ..
... ..
: 1-
I

.. ... . . '

'V,J
4.' .

i .-
'
)
f < .
. ,
. ... . :
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 4
Smiths blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi): The Smith's blue butterfly is federally
listed as endangered. Smith's blue butterfly is found in a number of inland and coastal sand
dunes, serpentine grasslands and cliffside chaparral plant communities along the central
California coast. It is completely dependent upon coast and seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum
latifolium and E. parvifolium) during all life stages. During its one-year lifespan, mate location,
copulation, oviposition and pupae emergence all occur on the flowerheads of the buckwheat
species during peak flowering season, J une through September. The dormant pupal form occurs
during non-flowering periods.

Western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus): The western snowy plover (formerly
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) is federally listed as threatened and is designated a Species of
Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). It is a shorebird
distinguished from other plovers (family Charadriidae) by its small size, pale brown upper parts,
dark patches on either side of the upper breast, and dark gray to blackish legs. Nesting sites for
western snowy plovers are found along beaches and adjacent bare dunes of the Pacific coast from
Washington to Baja California. The species also occurs along the shores of salt ponds and alkali
or brackish inland lakes. Monterey Bay as a whole is considered one of eight primary coastal
nesting areas.

Yadons wallflower (Erysimum menziesii ssp. yadonii): Yadon's wallflower is federally listed
and state listed as endangered. It is restricted to four populations in the vicinity of the Marina
Dunes near the Salinas River in Monterey County. It is found in coastal dunes, mostly on the
seaward edge of stabilized foredunes, growing in more saline sites than other subspecies of E.
menziesii. Yadon's wallflower was likely more abundant along the coastal bluffs of Marina at
one time, but the colonies migrate considerably due to storm and bluff erosion (Thomas Reid
Associates, 1997). It thrives in open areas free of other plant competition and tolerates moderate
sand burial.

Monterey gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria): Monterey gilia (also commonly referred to as
sand gilia) is federally listed as endangered and state listed as threatened. It is a small, erect
annual plant in the phlox family (Polemoniaceae) that is endemic to the Monterey Bay area.
Along the coast, Monterey gilia is found on rear dunes, near the dune summit in level areas, and
on depressions or slopes in wind-sheltered openings in low-growing dune scrub vegetation. It
does not occur in areas exposed to strong winds and salt spray. Monterey gilia is distributed in
discontinuous populations and its range extends from Spanish Bay on the Monterey Peninsula
north to Sunset Beach State Park in Santa Cruz County.

Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens): Monterey spineflower is a
prostrate annual herb in the buckwheat family (Polygonaceae). It is federally listed as threatened
but is not listed by the State of California. Monterey spineflower occurs along the coast of
southern Santa Cruz and northern Monterey Counties and inland to the coastal plain of the
Salinas Valley. It flowers from April through J une and is likely self-pollinated in addition to
being insect pollinated. It produces small seeds that are dropped or shaken by wind from their
capsule and may then be dispersed with blowing sand or by fur-bearing animals to which the
spiny fruits may attach and be carried. The species colonizes open sandy sites and tends to
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 5
invade roadsides and firebreaks. It is found in maritime chaparral, coastal live oak woodland,
coastal scrub, grassland, and coastal dune habitats.
1.3 Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined as specific areas that have been found to be essential to the
conservation of a federally listed species, and which may require special management
considerations or protections. Critical habitat is determined using the best scientific and
commercial information available and taking the physical and biological (primary constituent
elements [PCEs]) needs of the species into consideration. The action area addressed in this BA
is within designated critical habitat for the Monterey spineflower (USFWS 2008a), and a small
portion at the west end of the action area is within designated critical habitat for the Pacific Coast
distinct population segment (DPS) of the western snowy plover (Pacific Coast WSP) (USFWS
2012a). The action area is not within critical habitat for any other federally-listed species for
which critical habitat has been designated.
2.0 CONSULTATION TO DATE
On behalf of Cal Am, RBF Consulting (RBF) evaluated numerous alternative temporary slant
test well sites during the summer and fall of 2012. Zander Associates biologists reviewed several
of those alternatives and initiated contact with state and federal resource agencies to solicit their
comments beginning in J uly 2012. An initial meeting with representatives of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS), Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, formerly California Department of Fish and Game,
CDFG), PRBO Conservation Science (now known as Point Blue Conservation Science and
hereinafter referred to as Point Blue), Cal Am, RBF and Zander Associates was held at RBF
offices in Marina on September 20, 2012. At that meeting, RBF presented plans for a proposed
test well site on the beach toward the north end of the Cemex property as the preferred project
alternative. The proposed location of the slant test well project relative to western snowy plover
use of that area of beach was identified as the most critical issue for USFWS. Avoidance of
impacts to other special status plant and animal species associated with the coastal dune
environment, using horizontal directional drilling techniques and other methods for installing
pipelines and infrastructure, was considered potentially feasible by the resource agencies.
However, the agencies encouraged Cal Am to seek an alternative location in previously disturbed
areas south of the Cemex property to avoid potential impacts to plovers.

A second meeting was held at the RBF Marina offices on November 1, 2012 to review issues
limiting the choice of alternative locations and to discuss a modified version of the preferred
project. USFWS maintained its position that an alternative location would be preferable and that
heavy equipment impacts to potential nesting areas on sandy substrates were sufficiently
unknown to warrant caution at the preferred location. According to USFWS and Point Blue,
sand disturbance and compaction from use of heavy equipment and vehicles could have negative
consequences on plover breeding behavior, even if work occurred outside of the breeding season
as proposed.

Zander Associates
J uly 2013 6
As a result of the second agency meeting, Cal Am and RBF developed another alternative plan
with specific avoidance and minimization measures intended to avoid impacts to sandy substrates
that could serve as nesting habitat for plovers. Zander Associates forwarded preliminary exhibits
for this alternative plan to USFWS and Point Blue in late November 2012. Follow up contact
(email exchange and brief telephone discussions) with both USFWS and Point Blue occurred in
December 2012, February 2013 and March 2013. In April 2013, a Biological Assessment (BA)
was completed for that alternative plan.

Additional contact between Cal Am and various agency representatives occurred between April
and J une 2013 to further explore alternative test well sites. An all-hands agency meeting was
held on J une 10, 2013, to review a new siting option for the slant test well and associated
monitoring wells and appurtenances located entirely within previously disturbed areas on the
Cemex property. The alternative plan developed as a result of that meeting is the subject of this
BA.
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The temporary slant test well and related facilities would be located in a disturbed portion of the
active Cemex mining area (APN 203-011-019-000), east of the beach, on and adjacent to the
unimproved roadway currently used by Cemex (Figure 2). The temporary slant well test facilities
would include the slant well, submersible well pump, and well-head vault; vertical monitoring
wells; test water disposal facilities; test water disposal connection to an existing outfall; electrical
facilities; and temporary flow measurement/sampling equipment (Figure 3). The Project does
not include any reverse osmosis (RO), treatment, brine discharge, or conveyance infrastructure.

To minimize potential impacts on western snowy plover nesting habitat, the temporary slant test
well and all associated facilities would be located within the previously disturbed Cemex access
road area (Figure 4). All construction and demobilization activities would occur in the plovers
non-breeding season (October 1
st
through February 28
th
).
3.1 Access
Access to the temporary well facility would be obtained by vehicles transporting personnel,
construction equipment and construction materials to and from the site by using the existing
established route through the Cemex operations area.
3.2 Restricted Construction Area
All construction activities would be restricted to a proposed construction area and access route.
All construction activities would be in non-native or disturbed areas on or adjacent to the active
Cemex access road. No construction equipment, materials, or activity would occur outside the
specified areas.
3.3 Project Facilities
An overview of the layout of the proposed test well facilities is shown on Figure 3. A more
detailed view of the test well facilities at the well-head is shown on Figure 4. The exact location
Zander Associates


MPWSP
Marina, California
Figure
3

Zander Associates

Source: RBF Consulting

Slant Test Well Site Schematic
MPWSP
Marina, California

Figure
4

Zander Associates
J uly 2013 9
of the test well facilities would be determined immediately prior to construction, based on field
conditions at that time.
3.3.1 Temporary Slant Test Well and Well-head Facilities
The temporary slant test well would be designed using similar materials, size and construction
methodology as the proposed intake wells for the MPWSP. The slant test well would be drilled
towards the ocean at 19-degrees from horizontal such that a 1,000 linear foot slant well would
proceed to the bottom of the 180-foot aquifer formation. The slant test well would be completed
using up to 22-inch diameter casing and up to 12-inch diameter screen of Super Duplex
stainless steel, a specialty metal designed for use in seawater environments. Well screen would
be installed starting at elevation 30 feet below mean sea level (BMSL) through both the Dune
Sands Aquifer and the 180-Foot Aquifers.
3.3.2 Monitoring Wells
Two individual vertical monitoring wells would be drilled prior to drilling the slant test well in
order to provide confirmation of geologic conditions. One of the monitoring wells would be in
the immediate vicinity of the slant test well and the second monitoring well would be
approximately 1,200 feet inland on the side of the Cemex access road. The wells would be two-
inch diameter wells, with one being drilled to a depth of approximately 300 feet BMSL, and the
other to approximately 400 feet BMSL. Boreholes for the monitoring wells would be
approximately six inches in diameter, and would be drilled using a sonic drilling method. The
monitoring wells would be constructed with a filter pack and surface seal in accordance with
both County of Monterey and State of California well standards for monitoring wells.
3.3.3 Electrical Power Supply
Electrical power for construction and pumping operations would be provided by a connection to
either Cemex or a new connection to PG&E at the Cemex site. A buried conduit, approximately
four inches in diameter would run about 2,000 linear feet from an existing transformer at the
Cemex administrative buildings out to the test well, generally following the alignment of the
existing Cemex access road. The eastern third of the alignment would most likely be installed
using trenchless technology (either horizontal directional drilling (HDD) or drill-and-burst), but
the western portion would be installed in a trench about 12 inches wide and 3 feet deep that
would be backfilled as the conduit is installed. The conduit would terminate at an above ground
electrical panel to be installed near the well-head that would be about 5 feet high, 4 feet wide,
and 30 inches deep.
3.3.4 Test Water Disposal Facilities
Water pumped from the test well would be discharged from the well head into a 12-16 inch
diameter pipe that would be connected to a junction structure on an existing outfall pipeline
seaward of the test well. The discharge pipe would be approximately 180 linear feet. It would
follow the alignment generally shown on Figure 4 and is intended to be on disturbed ground as
much as possible. The pipe would be installed in a trench and buried 3 to 6 feet under the sand.
The top of the junction structure is approximately 6 feet under the existing ground elevation and
would need to be exposed in order to make the connection. Consequently, a cone shaped
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 10
excavation approximately 6 feet deep and 20 to 30 feet in diameter at the ground surface would
be needed to connect the pipe to the junction structure.
3.4 Project Phasing and Scheduling
The temporary slant test well program would be implemented in a Construction/Initial Testing
Phase, followed by a Monitoring Phase. The Construction/ Initial Testing Phase would consist of
drilling monitoring wells, drilling and developing the test slant well, connecting the discharge
pipe to the existing outfall, and performing short-term pumping tests within the five month non-
nesting season (for the snowy plover) from October 1, 2013 through February 28, 2014.
Construction equipment would be mobilized on October 1 assuming all permits are secured. Site
preparation, drilling and development of the slant test well would be performed around the clock.

Once the well is developed, it would be operated continuously using a submersible well pump for
a period of up to 24 months. Operators would travel to the site using the existing Cemex access
road on a weekly basis for 30 to 60 minutes per visit to check that the pump, meter, and water
quality measurement equipment are operating properly, and to collect water quality samples.

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION AREA
The action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action
and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02).
4.1 Location and General Characteristics
The action area considered for this BA is an approximately 12.6-acre portion of the Cemex Lapis
Sand Plant property (APN 203-011-019-000) (Figure 2). It includes all areas that would be
directly affected by the project and extends approximately 100 feet out from those areas. The
action area is comprised of developed industrial facilities and disturbed, formerly mined coastal
sand dunes.
4.2 Cemex Operations Area
104 acres and is the subject of an approved Reclamation Plan (CA Mine ID #91-27-0006).

The temporary slant test well project will use existing Cemex access roads from the eastern
Cemex site entrance all the way to the slant test well facility. Disturbed areas immediately
adjacent to the main east-west access road would be used for installation of the electrical conduit
and the test water discharge pipe. For the purposes of this BA, the action area extends
approximately 100 feet on either side of the centerline of the roads and 100 feet out from the
outfall junction structure towards the beach.

Zander Associates
J uly 2013 11
The road from the site entrance to the vicinity of the Cemex facility is paved and passes through
operational areas on either side as described above. No dune habitat (or any native habitat,
disturbed or otherwise) occurs in this area based on observations during site reconnaissance visits
on September 20, 2012, March 5, 2013 and April 25, 2013. From the Cemex facility westerly to
the beach entrance, the road consists of unvegetated, compacted sand with disturbed dunes on
either side (Photo 1).
1
The redwood lined flume parallels the road on the north and carries
process water to settling ponds near the beach end of the road (Photo 2). The ponds appear to be
periodically maintained by removing accumulated sediment which is stockpiled alongside the
road. Other stockpiles of sandy material and previously scraped areas characterize both sides of
this section of road along its length (Photo 3). During the March 5
th
and April 25
th
site visits, no
undisturbed dune habitat was observed within 100 feet of either side of the unpaved road. In the
few vegetated areas observed, iceplant (Carpobrotus spp.), was dominant, but occasional
occurrences of native plants such as beach sagewort (Artemisia pycnocephala), mock heather
(Ericameria ericoides), sand verbena (Abronia sp.), beach knotweed (Polygonum paronychia),
and beach evening primrose (Cammissonia cheiranthifolia) were observed. During the April 25
th

plant surveys, Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens) was found in bare sand
areas within the action area and in some cases extended up to the edge of the road, but was not
found within the active roadbed. Individuals of coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), a host
plant for the Smiths blue butterfly, were also encountered within the action area, especially on
the northerly side of the flume adjacent to the road (see below).


1
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 12


4.3 Slant Test Well
The temporary slant test well facilities would be located near where the existing Cemex access
road ends at the beach, approximately 450 feet from the shoreline (Figures 2 & 4; Photo 4). The
Cemex extraction pond is located just northerly of the termination of the road. The existing
buried outfall junction structure is at the westernmost end of the action area, within bare sand at
the top of the beach (Photo 5). Equipment associated with the Cemex operations appears to use
the area occasionally for access to dredge anchors around the perimeter of the extraction pond.
The sand in this area also appears frequently contoured by the wind and is virtually devoid of

Zander Associates
J uly 2013 13

Photo 4: West end of Cemex access road in approximate vicinity of test well

Photo 5: Vehicle tracks in the sand near existing manhole at the end of the Cemex access road.

vegetation. However, successful nests and nesting attempts by western snowy plovers have been
recorded by Point Blue in this area (see below).

The test well would be located about 160 feet east (inland) of the outfall junction structure.
Again, all facilities would be constructed in previously disturbed areas. Although there are
historical records of western snowy plovers nests in this area, no nesting attempts have been
observed here for several years.
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 14
5.0 SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND STATUS IN THE ACTION AREA
5.1 Smith's Blue Butterfly
5.1.1 Status and Description
The Smith's blue butterfly was listed by USFWS as endangered on J une 1, 1976 (41 FR 22041).
Critical habitat for Smiths blue butterfly was proposed in 1977 (42 FR 7972), but to date there
has been no final designation.

When it was listed in 1976 Smith's blue butterfly was known primarily from remnant, partially
stabilized sand dunes around Monterey Bay. Since it was listed additional colonies have been
discovered in other locations and habitat types. The species recovery plan approved by USFWS
in 1984 indicates that the discovery of these additional colonies may warrant reclassification of
the species. In the five-year review document for Smith's blue butterfly, published in September
2006, USFWS recommends that the species be downlisted from endangered to threatened due to
an expansion of the subspecies known range from the time of listing, largely within the southern
part of its range. However, USFWS remains concerned about extirpation of the species from
parts of its northern range due to habitat fragmentation from residential and industrial
development, isolation from the species larger southern populations, and habitat degradation
from invasive non-native plants and industrial and recreational use.

The Smiths blue butterfly is relatively small, slightly less than one inch (2.5 cm) across with
wings fully spread. The undersides are whitish-gray, speckled with black dots, and have a band
of red-orange marks across the hind wings. Sexual differences are seen on the upper wing
surface. Males are bright lustrous blue, whereas females are brown above with a band of red-
orange marks across the hind-wings. Above, both sexes have prominently checkered fringes on
both fore-wings and hind-wings, while males have wide black borders, and a very hairy
appearance of the body and adjacent wings (USFWS 1984). The Smith's blue butterfly is
separated from other subspecies of E. enoptes by the light undersurface ground color with
prominent overlying black markings together with a faint black terminal line.
5.1.2 Distribution and Habitat
In Monterey County, Smith's blue butterfly is found on coastal sand dunes in association with
both coast buckwheat and seacliff buckwheat. Coast buckwheat is often predominant in the
dunes of the northern part of the range, while there are several sand-dune inhabiting populations
that occur in association with seacliff buckwheat from the southern portion of Fort Ord to
Monterey. South of Monterey, into northern San Luis Obispo County, at least as far as San
Carpoforo Creek, Smiths blue butterfly is found at several dozen locations in the Santa Lucia
Mountains and along the immediate coastline, where there are coastal sage scrub or chaparral
habitats and E. parvifolium. Similarly, inland populations of the butterfly, such as those
occurring in the Carmel River Valley, are primarily associated with coastal sage scrub and
chaparral habitats, and feed on E. parvifolium. At some interior locations, adults of the Smiths
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 15
blue have also been observed nectaring on naked buckwheat (E. nudum), but it is not known if
larvae feed on this buckwheat (Arnold 1991).
5.1.3 Life History
Smiths blue butterfly is univoltine, i.e., it has only one generation per year. Adult emergence
and seasonal activity is synchronized with the blooming period of the particular buckwheat used
at a given site. At a particular location, adults are active for about four to eight weeks, but the
adult activity period and duration can vary dramatically from year-to-year and from one location
to another. Individual adult males and females live approximately one week, and both sexes
spend the majority of their time on Eriogonum flowerheads (USFWS 2006). There they perch,
bask (i.e., thermoregulate), forage for nectar, search for mates, copulate, and lay their eggs.
Females lay single eggs on the buckwheat flowers. Larvae hatch in about one week and begin
feeding in the buckwheat flowerheads. Young larvae feed on the pollen and developing flower
parts, while older larvae feed on the seed s. Older larvae are tended by ants, which may provide
some protection from parasites and predators. Upon maturing in about one month, the larvae
pupate in the flowerheads or in the leaf litter and sand at the base of the buckwheat plant. Pupae
that form in the flowerheads later drop to the ground. Dispersal data from capture-recapture
studies (USFWS 2006) indicate that most adults are quite sedentary, with home ranges no more
than a few acres. However, a small percentage of adults disperse farther and exhibited home
ranges between 20-30 acres (USFWS 2006).

Not all of the buckwheat host plants within the range of the Smiths blue are used by the butterfly
at any given point in time. Butterflies that feed on Eriogonum flowers favor mature, robust
individuals of the perennial buckwheats because they produce more flowers (USFWS 2006).
Thus, buckwheat stands that consist of younger or older, senescent individuals, which produce
fewer flowers, may not be visited by the butterfly until these plants mature or are augmented by
robust, flowering specimens. Among butterflies, it is somewhat unusual for both the adult and
larval stages to feed only on one plant, and, in particular, only on just the flowers. Most
butterflies feed as caterpillars on one or a few closely-related plants, and then as adults obtain
nectar from flowers that are generally unrelated to what the caterpillars fed on. Because of the
Smiths blues dual dependency on the flowers of its buckwheat foodplants, it is more
susceptible to habitat degradation. Although it is more extinction prone because of its total
dependence upon the flowers of buckwheats, conservation efforts are greatly simplified because
resource managers only need worry about a single plant rather than several plants to maintain this
endangered butterfly.
5.1.4 Threats to Survival
The decline of Smiths blue butterfly across its range is attributed to degradation and loss of
habitat as a result of urban development, recreational activities, sand mining, military activities,
fire suppression, and encroachment of invasive non-native plants. All of these threats, except
military activities are ongoing within occupied Smiths blue butterfly habitat.
5.1.5 Occurrence within the Action Area
The California natural diversity data base (CDFW 2013) has a relatively large element
occurrence (EO 15) of Smiths blue butterfly mapped on the Cemex property; the southern tip of
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 16
the EO 15 polygon is traversed by the east-west access road segment of the action area. This
occurrence represents the extent of available habitat identified during surveys conducted in 1985
and 1986 for the Marina Dunes Plan under the aegis of the Marina Dunes Coastal Zone Planning
Task Force (Thomas Reid Associates 1997). These surveys and additional surveys conducted in
1996 & 1997 by Thomas Reid Associates indicate that the area is occupied by Smiths blue
butterfly, but the amount of available habitat was not quantified (USFWS 2006).

Environmental Science Associates (ESA) conducted field surveys on the Cemex property in May
and J une 2012 and assumed that Smiths blue butterfly habitat occurred throughout their study
area because of high densities of coast buckwheat (ESA 2012). Although most of the dune
portions of their study area did not overlap with those of the action area considered in this BA,
the conclusion that Smiths blue butterfly could potentially occur on any coast buckwheat plants
in the area also applies to the action area.

During field visits by a Zander Associates biologist on September 20, 2012, and March 5, 2013,
through the Cemex facility. The plants were mostly limited to the slopes adjacent to the return
water flume parallel to and north of the road, but were also seen on remnant dune substrates to
the north of the flume (Photo 6). No buckwheat plants were observed within the action area
south of the road but several were seen in less disturbed areas several hundred feet south of the
action area boundary. During the April 25, 2013 survey, Zander Associates biologists again
observed coast buckwheat plants, primarily on the north side of the road and no closer than about
15 feet from the road's edge. Because of ongoing use, disturbance and compaction, coast
buckwheat is not expected to colonize the roadway or the areas immediately adjacent to it.

Photo 6: Coast buckwheat plants among iceplant mats on north side slope of flume

Zander Associates
J uly 2013 17
5.2 Western Snowy Plover
The Pacific Coast western snowy plover was listed by USFWS as threatened on March 5, 1993
(58 FR 12864). A final Recovery Plan for the species was issued in 2007 (USFWS 2007). In
December of 1999, the USFWS designated critical habitat for the species, including 28 areas
along the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington (64 FR 68508). That rule was remanded
and partially vacated by the U. S. District Court for the District of Oregon on J uly 2, 2003, in
order to conduct a new analysis of economic impacts (Coos County Board of County
Commissioners et al. v. Department of the Interior et al., CV 026128, M. Hogan). A revised
rule designating critical habitat was published on September 29, 2005 (70 FR 56970). As part of
a settlement agreement, USFWS agreed to reconsider the designations and a final revised critical
habitat was published in the Federal Register on J une 19, 2012 (77 FR 36727).

The western snowy plover is a small shorebird in the family Charadriidae. It weighs from 34 to
58 grams (1.2 to 2 ounces) and ranges in length from 15 to 17 centimeters (5.9 to 6.6 inches)
(USFWS 2007). It is pale gray-brown above and white below, with a white hindneck collar and
dark lateral breast patches, forehead bar, and eye patches. The bill and legs are blackish. In
breeding plumage, males usually have black markings on the head and breast; in females, usually
one or more of these markings are dark brown. Early in the breeding season a rufous crown may
be evident on breeding males, but it is not typically seen on females. In non-breeding plumage,
sexes cannot be distinguished because the breeding markings disappear. Fledged juveniles have
buffy edges on their upper parts and can be distinguished from adults until approximately J uly
through October, depending on when in the nesting season they hatched. After this period, molt
and feather wear makes fledged juveniles indistinguishable from adults. Individual birds one year
or older are considered to be breeding adults. The mean annual life span of western snowy
plovers is estimated at about three years, but at least one individual was at least 15 years old
when last seen (USFWS 2007).
The Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover breeds primarily on coastal beaches
from southern Washington to southern Baja California, Mexico. Sand spits, dune-backed
beaches, beaches at creek and river mouths, and salt pans at lagoons and estuaries are the main
coastal habitats for nesting (USFWS, 2007). This habitat is unstable because of unconsolidated
soils, high winds, storms, wave action, and colonization by plants. Less common nesting
habitats include bluff-backed beaches, dredged material disposal sites, salt pond levees, dry salt
ponds, and river bars (USFWS 2007).

Western snowy plovers concentrate in suitable habitat, with the number of adults at coastal
breeding locations ranging from one to over 300, depending in part, on the size of the area.
Nesting sites for western snowy plovers are found along beaches and adjacent bare dunes of the
Pacific coast from Washington to Baja California. The species also occurs along the shores of
salt ponds and alkali or brackish inland lakes. Monterey Bay as a whole is considered one of
eight primary coastal nesting areas.
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 18

Breeding and nesting occurs mid-March through mid-September and nests are found above the
high tide level on sandy, open ground where both the male and female incubate the eggs. In
winter, western snowy plovers are found on many of the beaches used for nesting as well as on
beaches where they do not nest, in man-made salt ponds, and on estuarine sand and mud flats.
Western snowy plovers are highly sensitive to human disturbance and may abandon their nests if
disturbed.
5.2.3 Life History
Nesting western snowy plovers at coastal locations consist of both year-round residents and
migrants. Migrants begin arriving in central California as early as J anuary, although the main
arrival is from early March to late April (USFWS 2007). Since some individuals nest at multiple
locations during the same year, birds may continue arriving through J une. Western snowy
plovers are monogamous by clutch and can have multiple clutches per year with typically three
(but sometimes two) eggs per clutch. Females may lay up to six clutches per year. The young are
precocial and will leave the nest within hours of hatching in search of food. They are not able to
fly for about one month after hatching; fledging requires 28-33 days. Broods of chicks may
remain in the nesting area until fledging or may travel along the beach as far as 6.4 kilometers
(four miles) from their natural area (USFWS 2007).

Nests typically occur in flat, open areas with sandy or saline substrates; vegetation and driftwood
are usually sparse or absent (USFWS 2007). Nests consist of a shallow scrape or depression,
sometimes lined with beach debris (e.g., small pebbles, shell fragments, plant debris, and mud
chips); nest lining increases as incubation progresses. Driftwood, kelp, and dune plants provide
cover for chicks that crouch near objects to hide from predators. Invertebrates are often found
near debris, so driftwood and kelp are also important for harboring western snowy plover food
sources. Nests are usually within 100 meters (328 feet) of water, but could be several hundred
meters away if there is no vegetative barrier between the nest and water. It is believed that the
absence of such a barrier is probably important for newly-hatched chicks to have access to the
shore (USFWS 2007).

Adult western snowy plovers do not feed their chicks, but lead them to suitable feeding areas.
Adults use distraction displays to lure predators and people away from chicks. With
vocalizations, adult western snowy plovers signal the chicks to crouch as another way to protect
them. They also may lead chicks, especially larger ones, away from predators (USFWS 2007).
Young chicks must be brooded frequently by an adult to maintain homeostasis. Females
generally desert mates and broods by the sixth day after hatching and thereafter the chicks are
typically accompanied by only the male. While males rear broods, females obtain new mates and
initiate new nests (Page et al. 1995). Females typically help rear the last brood of the season.

Western snowy plovers are primarily visual foragers, using the run-stop-peck method of feeding
typical of Charadrius species. They forage on invertebrates in the wet sand and amongst surf-
cast kelp within the intertidal zone, in dry sand areas above the high tide, on salt pans, on spoil
sites, and along the edges of salt marshes, salt ponds, and lagoons. They sometimes probe for
prey in the sand and pick insects from low-growing plants.
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 19

While some western snowy plovers remain in their coastal breeding areas year round, others
migrate south or north for winter. In Monterey Bay, 41 percent of nesting males and 24 percent
of the females were consistent year-round residents. The migrants vacate California coastal
nesting areas primarily from late J une to late October (USFWS 2007).

In winter, western snowy plovers are found on many of the beaches used for nesting, as well as
some beaches where they do not nest. Also occurring in these areas are snowy plovers that breed
in the interior but migrate to the coast for winter. Plovers from both interior and coastal breeding
populations also occur in man-made salt ponds and on estuarine sand and mud flats. In
California, most wintering western snowy plovers concentrate on sand spits and dune-backed
beaches. Some also occur on urban and bluff-backed beaches, which are rarely used for nesting
(USFWS 2007). Plovers are typically gregarious in winter, usually roosting and foraging in loose
flocks. Wintering plovers usually roost in small depressions in the sand or in the lee of kelp,
other debris or small dunes which provide some shelter from wind and cover from predators.
When disturbed, winter roosting plovers may run a few meters to a new spot, displacing other
individuals, or the whole flock may fly to a new location.
Human disturbance has been identified as a factor that may limit or prohibit the use of beaches
by nesting snowy plovers (USFWS 2007). Pedestrians may cause plovers to flush from potential
nesting areas, trample nest scrapes, eggs, or chicks, and force broods to move into unsuitable
areas. High rates of disturbance may cause eventual abandonment of breeding sites (Lafferty
2001), although with significant habitat protections and enforcement, plovers can nest
successfully at beaches with high levels of recreation (Lafferty et al. 2006). Predators of snowy
plovers such as the merlin (Falco columbarius) or peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) also
disturb plovers when they are hunting in the wintering and breeding areas.
The shoreline along the Cemex property lies within designated critical habitat for the Pacific
Coast distinct population segment (DPS) of the western snowy plover and is within Recovery
Unit 4 - Sonoma to Monterey Counties, California as described in the Western Snowy Plover
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2007). A small portion at the western end of the action area, where the
discharge pipeline would be connected to the existing outfall junction structure, is within the
limits of designated critical habitat. Each recovery unit includes specific locations and in some
cases subareas that are identified as important for the recovery of the plover. The Cemex
shoreline lies within the Moss Landing to Monterey specific location (CA-65) and the "Lonestar
Beach and interior areas" subarea (USFWS 2007). According to the Recovery Plan (Appendix
B), the management potential for plovers in CA-65 (162 breeding adults) is the highest in
Recovery Unit 4 and the Lonestar (now Cemex) Beach subarea management potential (32
breeding birds) is second only to the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) within CA-
65.

The beach adjacent to the action area has been identified as both important nesting and wintering
habitat for the plover as a result of nearly 30 years of monitoring. Point Blue has intensively
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 20
monitored the productivity and population size of snowy plovers within this area during the
breeding season (March 1-Sept 30) since 1984. During the non-breeding season, at least one
annual winter window survey of the area has been conducted since the winter of 2003-2004. In
addition, incidental winter surveys at known flock areas have been conducted opportunistically to
monitor survival rates of color-banded plovers. Because roosting flocks of wintering birds
persist into the breeding season (roughly into mid-April) and reform before breeding ceases
(roughly beginning mid-J uly), information from incidental surveys of flocked birds during the
breeding season is also available (Point Blue 2013, unpubl. data).

The breeding plover population size along the Cemex shoreline has varied from 39 to 60 plovers
between 2003 and 2012 (Point Blue 2013, unpubl. data). At the adjacent Salinas River NWR to
the north, the breeding population size has ranged from 34 to 68, for an average of about 105
nesting snowy plovers within and directly adjacent to the action area. The most recent
monitoring activity (2012 nesting season) identified about 38 nesting attempts with 23
successfully hatched (Figure 6) along the Cemex shoreline (Page et al 2012). The nests are
typically located between the spring and summer wrack zone and the base of the foredunes, but
can also be found around the Cemex pond and adjacent to the Cemex access road, within the
action area (Figure 5).

Numbers of plovers recorded on the annual winter window surveys of shoreline areas have been
highly variable, probably due to the irregular distribution of plovers in winter. According to
Appendix B of the Recovery Plan, numbers of wintering birds along the subject shoreline ranged
from 0 to 63 over the period 2000-2005 (USFWS 2007). Between 2005 and 2012, numbers
ranged from 0 to 21 individuals along the Cemex shoreline and from 0 to 34 at the adjacent
Salinas River NWR. Data from the recent annual winter window survey indicate that 37 adult
plovers were observed between the Salinas River NWR and the southern end of the Cemex
shoreline during a one day reconnaissance on J anuary 22, 2013 (Point Blue 2013, unpubl. data).
5.3 Yadon's Wallflower
Yadon's wallflower is one of four subspecies of Erysimum menziesii. When first listed as
endangered by the State of California in 1984, and later by USFWS in 1992 (57 FR 27848), E.
menziesii was treated as a single species distributed in coastal dune systems from Monterey
County to Oregon. Following its listing, research showed that the species is a complex,
comprised of four subspecies, three of which are rare. According to the Recovery Plan for the
species (USFWS 2008), the three rare subspecies (ssp. menziesii, ssp. eurekense, and ssp.
yadonii) are endemic to three counties in northern California and are known from sixteen
populations consisting of about 33,300 individuals. The fourth subspecies, cream-colored
wallflower (ssp. concinnum), is not listed; its distribution extends from southern Oregon to Point
Reyes in Marin County, California. These subspecies are primarily differentiated by geographic
location. Critical habitat has not been proposed for the species.
Wellhead Vault
Zander Associates
Figure
5
0 100 50 Feet
Legend
Plover Winter Roosting Site
Plover Nest Locations Before 2010
Drill Rig
Existing J unction Structure
Temporary Construction Footprint
Wellhead Vault
Action Area
Western Snowy Plover Locations
MPWSP
Marina, California
Sources: RBF Consulting
PRBO Conservation Science
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 22

Erysimum menziesii is a biennial or perennial herb in the Mustard Family (Brassicaceae).
Flowers are fragrant and pale to bright yellow. Each plant usually has several flowering stems
from 1-6 inches tall. The fleshy leaves form a basal rosette and are somewhat spoon-shaped and
abruptly narrow to the leaf stalk. The fruit consists of very long, narrow pods, 1-5 inches long.
While the other subspecies of E. menziesii typically have a blooming season limited to late
winter or spring, E. menziesii ssp. yadonii often blooms through the summer (J une-August) and
tends to be perennial with a branched caudex (thickened stem).
Yadon's wallflower is restricted to four occurrences in the vicinity of the Marina Dunes, two at
Marina State Beach, and the others at the Cemex Lapis Sand Plant property approximately 0.8-
kilometer (0.5 mile) south of the Salinas River Lagoon (USFWS 1998). The largest sub-
populations (thousands of plants) have been recorded in the stable foredunes around the Cemex
facility and Marina State Beach in the southern portion of the Monterey Bay dune complex.

Yadon's wallflower can occur on the upper coastal strand, in areas relatively close to the high tide
line, but largely protected from wave action. The subspecies has a high tolerance to exposure to
strong wind, salt spray, and occasional wave action from storms and high tides. Its preferred
substrate is loose sand lacking in organic matter and minerals (USFWS 1998). Associated
species include beach primrose, beach-bur, sea rocket, beach knotweed, sand verbena and
iceplant.
5.3.3 Life History
Erysimum menziesii is a biennial or short-lived perennial. The species reproduces by seed, and
the seeds are dispersed by wind. Subspecies yadonii can be perennial, but does not typically fruit
more than twice. Yadons wallflower forms a basal rosette of leaves that may persist for up to
eight years before flowering. Blooming typically occurs from March through April, although it
may begin as early as late February with an extended blooming season well into the summer
months. The species is self-compatible; therefore, the reproduction of this species involves
selfing and facultative outcrossing (able to produce seed either by self-pollination, or pollination
by other plants). Evidence suggests that the seed bank is contained in the old standing plants and
that the seed in the soil (sand) does not seem to persist (USFWS 1998). Most seed dispersal is
restricted to the immediate vicinity of the parent plants. Long distance dispersal of seed may
occur by fragmentation of seed-bearing branches breaking off and tumbling with the prevailing
wind.
The species is threatened by invasion by non-native species, industrial and residential
development, and trampling by recreational users such as pedestrians, equestrians, hang gliders,
and ORV users (USFWS 1992). Coastal erosion, sand mining activities, and the deposition of
dredge material from adjacent water bodies pose additional threats to the plants in Monterey
County.
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 23
The CNDDB lists two separate element occurrences for Erysimum menziesii on the Cemex
property (EO 17 & EO 18). One of the occurrences (EO 18 - approximately 500 plants in
observed 1991) is south of the action area along the southern Cemex property line with the
Marina Dunes Preserve, and may be the result of dune restoration activities in that area. The
other occurrence (EO 17) is described as about 13,900 plants observed and mapped in 1986,
1987 and 1997 along the west face of the dunes from the railroad tracks [parallel to the existing
east west Cemex access road] to about 0.9 miles north of the railroad tracks. The CNDDB
mapping for EO 17 indicates a small wallflower population adjacent to the Cemex access road
with most of the plants mapped in an area of the upper strand and foredunes north of the Cemex
facility. However, large numbers of those plants were reported to have been lost during winter
storms of 1998.

Field surveys conducted on the Cemex property in May and J une 2012 identified Yadons
wallflower along the seaward side of the dunes, north of the Cemex operations area (ESA 2012).
A large population was mapped between the face of the foredunes to approximately 100 feet
inland (Figure 6). ESA also observed Yadons wallflower at the southern end of the Cemex
property along the north and south sides of the beach access path between the Cemex property
and Marina Dunes Preserve. These observations are generally consistent with the CNDDB
records noted above. However, ESA did not conduct surveys within the action area adjacent to
the Cemex access road.

Emerging basal rosettes of several individuals of E. menziesii were observed on March 5
th
,
approximately 400 feet south of the access road, where less disturbed dune areas occurred. No
individuals of E. menziesii, or any other wallflower species, were observed during the April 25,
2013 survey anywhere within the action area.
5.4 Monterey Gilia
Monterey gilia was listed as federally endangered on J une 22, 1992 (57 FR 27848) and it was
listed by the State of California as threatened in J anuary 1987. Critical habitat has not been
proposed for the species.

Monterey gilia is a short, sticky-haired annual herb in the phlox family (Polemoniaceae). It has
an erect central stem with a basal rosette of leaves, and produces purple funnel-shaped flowers
with narrow petal lobes and a purple throat. Monterey gilia is distinguished from the other three
subspecies of G. tenuiflora by its relatively large fruit capsules and stamens which are only
slightly exerted from the corolla. Sand gilia is known to locally intergrade with G. tenuiflora ssp.
tenuiflora at the more inland areas of its distribution at Fort Ord.
Monterey gilia is endemic to the Monterey Bay and Monterey Peninsula dune complexes. It is
distributed in discontinuous populations and its range extends from Spanish Bay on the Monterey
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 24
Peninsula north to Sunset Beach State Park in Santa Cruz County (CDFW 2013). Most of these
populations are on private land and are unprotected. Along the coast, Monterey gilia is found on
rear dunes, near the dune summit in level areas, and on depressions or slopes in wind-sheltered
openings in low-growing dune scrub vegetation. It does not occur in areas exposed to strong
winds and salt spray (USFWS 2005). On ancient dune soils, which extend inland six to eight
miles in the former Fort Ord area, it occurs in openings among maritime chaparral, coastal sage
scrub, oak woodlands and where other vegetative cover is low.

The plant occurs along trails and roadsides, on the cut banks of sandy ephemeral drainages, in
recently burned chaparral, and in other disturbed patches. It appears to do well on sites that have
undergone recent substrate disturbance. Most populations are small and localized.
5.4.3 Life History
Monterey gilia is an annual herb that typically germinates from December through February. It is
able to self-pollinate as well as outcross, and fruit is set from the end of April to the end of May
(USFWS 2005). It produces small seeds that are dropped or shaken from their capsules and are
then dispersed, likely by gravity or wind. The species appears to produce viable seed even at
very small statures. Seeds are dispersed by wind throughout the dune openings; dispersal is
inhibited however by dense stands of low-growing dune scrub.
The loss of populations and habitat for Monterey gilia has resulted from coastal urban
development and sand mining operations. Recreational users, such as off-road vehicle users,
hikers, and equestrians, threaten populations and habitat. The introduction of aggressive, non-
native species like iceplant and European beach grass (Ammophila arenaria) for dune
stabilization has altered habitats, resulting in unsuitable conditions for sand gilia. Commercial
and residential development near Marina, Seaside, Sand City, and the Monterey Peninsula
threaten remaining Monterey gilia populations.
The CNDDB lists several occurrences of Monterey gilia on the Cemex facility with one of them
just north of the action area adjacent to the Cemex facility access road (EO 26). This location
was recorded in 1998 as 1.25 miles northwest of the junction of Hwy 1 and Reservation Road;
the CNDDB indicates that better mapping detail is needed for this occurrence.

ESA did not observe gilia during its field surveys conducted on the Cemex property in May and
J une 2012, but did find the species during separate reconnaissance surveys conducted along the
southern property boundary with the Marina Dunes Preserve in April 2012. The area identified
was likely part of a dune restoration effort on Marina Dunes Preserve lands.

No individuals of Monterey gilia were observed in the action area during the April 25, 2013
survey, but reference locations with plants in bloom were checked on that same day to confirm
the appropriate seasonality of the survey.
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 25
5.5 Monterey Spineflower
Monterey spineflower was listed by USFWS as threatened on February 4, 1994 (54 FR 5499), It
is not listed by the State of California but is considered rare, threatened, or endangered in
California and elsewhere by the California Native Plant Society (Rank 1B.2). Critical habitat
was designated on May 29, 2002 (67 FR 37498) but in response to a lawsuit filed in March 2005,
USFWS proposed revisions to that designation and issued a revised critical habitat designation
on J anuary 9, 2008 (73 FR 1525).

Monterey spineflower is an annual herb in the buckwheat family (Polygonaceae). It has
involucral lobe margins (edges of the spines) that are white (rarely pinkish) rather than dark
pinkish to purple and the plants tend to be prostrate rather than erect (Reveal and Hardham
1989). The involucres awns are hooked at the tip (uncinate). Monterey spineflower blooms
from April through J une most years.
Monterey spineflower occurs along the coast of southern Santa Cruz and northern Monterey
Counties and inland to the coastal plain of the Salinas Valley. It is found in areas of relatively
mild maritime climate, characterized by fog and winter rains. The fog helps keep summer
temperatures cool and winter temperatures relatively warm, and provides moisture in addition to
the normal winter rains.

The species colonizes open sandy sites and tends to invade roadsides and firebreaks. It is found
in maritime chaparral, coastal live oak woodland, coastal scrub, grassland, and coastal dune
habitats. The distribution of suitable habitat within dune systems is subject to inherent dynamic
shifts caused by patterns of dune mobilization, stabilization, and successional trends in coastal
dune scrub that reduce vegetation gaps. Accordingly, individual colonies of Monterey
spineflower in unstable habitat are naturally subject to substantial long-term turnover and shifts
in distribution and size (USFWS 1998).
5.5.3 Life History
Monterey spineflower is likely self-pollinated in addition to being insect pollinated. It produces
small seeds that are dropped or shaken by wind from their capsule and may then be dispersed
with blowing sand or by fur-bearing animals to which the spiny fruits may attach and be carried.
Seedlings establish in areas that are relatively free from other competing native species. Human-
caused disturbances, such as scraping of roads and firebreaks, can reduce the competition from
other herbaceous species and consequently provide temporarily favorable conditions for
Monterey spineflower. However, such activities also often promote the spread and establishment
of nonnative species; in addition, they can bury the seedbank of Monterey spineflower, and they
do not result in the cycling of nutrients and soil microbial changes that are associated with large-
scale natural disturbances such as fires (USFWS 2008a).

Zander Associates
J uly 2013 26
Monterey spineflower appears to function as an opportunistic annual plant, with most of its seeds
germinating under variable winter conditions rather than persisting to create an extensive, long-
lasting soil seed bank (USFWS 2008a).
Urban development in coastal cities has resulted in the loss of large portions of the range of
Monterey spineflower. Introduction of non-native, aggressive plants like iceplant and European
beach grass for dune stabilization has altered typical Monterey spineflower habitat and made
conditions unsuitable for the species. Historic occurrences in the Salinas Valley have been
extirpated, primarily because of conversion of natural habitat to agricultural land.
The CNDDB reports several occurrences of Monterey spineflower on leeward side of the dune
complex on the Cemex property, mostly resulting from surveys conducted in 1986 and 1987 for
the Marina Dunes Plan (Thomas Reid Associates 1987). One of these occurrences (EO 17) is
mapped just north and toward the easterly (inland) end of the action area along the Cemex
facility access road. The location information for this occurrence is listed as north of Marina, 0.5
mile west of Lapis Siding; it was most recently observed in 2006.

ESA observed Monterey spineflower and suitable habitat for the species throughout the dune
habitats they surveyed on the Cemex property by in May and J une 2012. However, the ESA
survey area did not include the Cemex facility or access road. During Zander Associates April
25, 2013 survey Monterey spineflower was observed within the action area and was relatively
abundant in some areas, often growing in sandy substrates directly adjacent to the access road.
However, no Monterey spineflower was found within the active roadbed.
6.0 POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON LISTED SPECIES
The Project has been designed to minimize impacts on listed species and critical habitat;
however, activities associated with the work could result in direct or indirect effects on Monterey
spineflower or on nesting or wintering western snowy plovers. The potential effects of the
Project on listed species known to occur in the area and designated critical habitat for two of
them are discussed in more detail below. Measures that will be incorporated into the project to
minimize these effects are discussed in Section 7.0.
6.1 Effects on Listed Plants
The proposed test well project is not expected to adversely affect any of the three listed plants
under consideration in this BA. The only special status plant species known to occur in the
action area is Monterey spineflower. Monterey gilia and Yadons wallflower were not found
during spring 2013 surveys. Monterey spineflower was found scattered throughout bare sand
areas adjacent to the access road but not within the active roadbed. The proposed schedule for
the test well project (October through February) would fall outside of the active growing season
for Monterey spineflower. While there may be some limited potential for seed bank disturbance
for Monterey spineflower, such effects would be minimal. Minimization measures identified
below (Section 7.0) are intended to reduce the potential for any effects on Monterey spineflower.
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 27
6.2 Effects on Listed Animals
6.2.1 Smiths blue butterfly
Because the proposed project would occur outside of the flight season for Smiths blue butterfly,
no direct (e.g. windshield hits) or indirect (e.g. dust on the nectaries of buckwheat foodplants)
impacts on adult butterflies are expected. However, project related effects on pupal stages of
Smiths blue butterfly could result from direct disturbance in close proximity to coast buckwheat
plants. Because all project-related activities would occur in previously disturbed areas, the
potential for disturbance in close proximity to any coast buckwheat plants would be very low.
Minimization measures identified below (Section 7.0) are intended to reduce the potential for any
effects on these plants.
6.2.2 Western snowy plover
The potential for direct impacts to nesting western snowy plovers has been minimized through
project design and scheduling (see below). However, there remains some potential for direct
effects on nesting habitat and indirect effects on wintering plovers roosting, foraging and pre-
nesting behavior.

Direct effects on nesting habitat could occur through disturbance of the short (about 100 feet)
segment of upper beach between the end of the existing Cemex facility access road and the
existing outfall junction structure. Trenching for a discharge pipeline and excavation of an area
approximately 20 to 30 feet in diameter at the junction structure location would occur within
plover nesting habitat during the non-breeding season. Monitoring records (Page et al 2010,
2011 & 2012) indicate that at least three nesting attempts have occurred in the immediate vicinity
of this area during the last three breeding seasons, with two successful hatches in 2011 and one in
2012 (Figure 5). Several more nesting records (undifferentiated by failure or success) exist for
that area over the course of Point Blues monitoring (Figure 5). Sand disturbance resulting from
trenching for the pipeline, excavation at the junction structure, and heavy equipment required for
such excavation could create uneven, compacted terrain that would not be removed by wave and
storm action prior to the breeding season. The effects of human-induced sand disturbance in
long-established plover nesting habitat are not well understood, but may affect localized breeding
behavior and nesting success.

Potential indirect effects on the wintering population of plovers along the Cemex shoreline and
nesting habitat just west of the test well could result from increased activity in the action area
over the 24-month operation period. During the non-breeding season, some of the most
frequently used roosting sites along the Cemex shoreline are located on the beaches just to the
north and south of the Cemex pond, though flocks can occur anywhere (Point Blue 2013, unpubl.
data). This area typically experiences little recreational use by humans (and their pets),
especially during the winter months, and is only subject to limited activity associated with
Cemex operations.
2
Consequently, roosting plovers in this area are accustomed to a relatively

2
The need to move the dredge anchors around the Cemex extraction pond requires periodic use of equipment around
the pond.
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 28
low level of disturbance (activity that causes plovers to move or fly) compared with the more
accessible and public beaches to the south. An increase in disturbance to wintering flocks by
increased human activity in the area could cause roosting birds to move, fly or otherwise alter
their spatial distribution. However, because of their site fidelity and narrow habitat requirements,
snowy plovers typically have few alternative roosting sites (Lafferty 2001). In addition,
disturbance of wintering plovers may reduce foraging efficiency and opportunities for rest, which
in turn may deplete energy reserves and result in lower reproductive success (Brown et al 2000,
Burger 1994). In some cases, increased human disturbance can cause birds to abandon habitat
altogether (Burger, 1986).

A study conducted on wintering snowy plovers in Santa Barbara concluded that disturbance rates
are a function of the type of human activity, the frequency of activity and the distance between
the activity and snowy plovers (Lafferty 2001). In that study, snowy plovers were most
frequently disturbed when approached closely by people and animals, especially dogs. The
probability of disturbance decreased with distance between human activity and the roost;
relatively few people and dogs beyond 30 meters (just under 100 feet) were found to disturb
roosting plovers. There was also some evidence that plover feeding was affected by activity on
the beach.

Weekly access to the test well site by crew trucks over a 24 month period would increase regular
activity in the vicinity of roosting and nesting habitat. Because that activity would occur greater
than 100 feet from potential roost sites in an area that is buffered by topography and already used
by Cemex for its operations, potential disturbance to wintering plovers is expected to be minimal.
Regular monitoring in the area by Point Blue Conservation Science during the nesting season
would inform crews about nesting attempts in the area so that maintenance visits could be
scheduled and conducted to reduce disturbance to nesting birds. Further details and additional
minimization measures intended to reduce the potential for project-related effects on snowy
plover nesting habitat and winter roosting birds are identified below (Section 7.0).

6.3 Effects on Critical Habitat
6.3.1 Monterey spineflower
The Federal Register listing notice for Monterey spineflower critical habitat (75 FR 1525)
defines activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat as those that alter the
essential physical and biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the conservation
value of critical habitat for Monterey spineflower. It identifies such activities as (1) actions that
would degrade or destroy native maritime chaparral, dune, and oak woodland communities,
including, but not limited to, livestock grazing, clearing, disking, introducing or encouraging the
spread of nonnative plants, and heavy recreational use; and (2) actions that would appreciably
diminish habitat value or quality through indirect effects (e.g., edge effects, invasion of nonnative
plants or animals, or fragmentation).
All project-related activities would occur in previously disturbed areas that are not essential for
Monterey spineflower. The project would not cause the degradation or destruction of native
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 29
dune communities in the vicinity because access through these areas would follow an existing
road currently used for the Cemex facility.
3
The project is also not expected to diminish the
value of the dune habitat such that it would preclude maintenance or establishment of Monterey
spineflower plants. Consequently, the project would not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat for Monterey spineflower.
6.3.2 Western snowy plover
The adverse modification determination included with the designation of critical habitat for the
Pacific Coast distinct population unit of the western snowy plover (77 FR 36727) lists five
activities that may affect critical habitat: 1) management actions in snowy plover habitat; 2)
dredging and dredge spoil placement that permanently removes the essential physical or
biological features of the habitat; 3) construction and maintenance of facilities that interfere with
snowy plover nesting, breeding, or foraging, or that result in increases in predation; 4) storm
water and waste water discharge that could impact invertebrate abundance; 5) flood control
actions that alter the essential biological or physical features of the habitat.

The proposed project would incorporate several measures to avoid or minimize impacts on
breeding and wintering snowy plovers and their habitat (see below). All construction and
demobilization activities would be limited to the plovers non-nesting season (October 1st
through February 28th). Project facilities would be located within existing disturbed areas on or
adjacent to the active Cemex access road. However, a limited area of plover nesting habitat
would be temporarily disturbed for the trenching and excavation required to connect the
discharge pipeline to the existing outfall junction structure. Nevertheless, the project is not
expected to alter essential physical and biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces
the conservation value of critical habitat for snowy plover.
7.0 MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION MEASURES
In response to concerns expressed through early consultation with regulatory agencies (see
Section 2.0 above), construction and demobilization activities would occur in the fall and winter
months, outside of the breeding season for western snowy plovers, the flight season for Smiths
blue butterfly and the blooming season for listed plants. The test well site has been shifted inland
to minimize or avoid disruption of the snowy plover nesting habitat. The construction zone
would be restricted to the previously disturbed Cemex access road area and a relatively short
(+100 ft.) section of the upper beach for connection to the existing outfall structure. The test
well pump would be a submersible pump and is not expected to generate noise or vibration that
would be detectable in the nearby snowy plover nesting area.

3
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 30
7.1 Monterey Spineflower
7.1.1 Pre-construction flagging
A qualified biologist would conduct late season (August/September) surveys along the Cemex
access road prior to project initiation in an effort to flag the occurrences of spineflower that occur
within potential work areas. Monterey spineflower occurrences within 20 feet of the access road
and perimeters of the work areas will be identified and marked.
7.1.2 Habitat avoidance
Occupied habitat areas, as identified and flagged by a qualified biologist (see above), would be
avoided by the project to the extent feasible. In the event that any such areas occur within
proposed trenching, excavation or drilling sites, the biologist would establish appropriate buffers
and access procedures, which would be monitored during the term of the project (see below).
7.1.3 Timing of construction and operation
The project would commence on October 1
st
and continue through the winter months to February
28
th
. This five month period is outside of the active growing season for Monterey spineflower,
which is ephemeral; it generally germinates from seed in the spring with annual growth and
bloom cycles complete by autumn.
7.1.4 Biological resource education and monitoring
Prior to initiation of access or construction activities, a qualified biologist would be designated to
conduct an educational training session regarding the listed plant species with all construction
personnel. The training would include a description of the plants and their habitat preferences
with illustrations of each species (project timing would not allow field identification). The
biologist would also monitor equipment access in order to avoid disturbance to areas that support
Monterey spineflower as identified through the pre-construction flagging (see above).
7.2 Smiths Blue Butterfly
7.2.1 Pre-construction surveys
A qualified biologist would conduct a survey with the appropriate project team members prior to
initiation of access or construction activities to identify and mark the electrical conduit trench
alignment to assure that no buckwheat plants would be disturbed. Buckwheat occurrences within
20 feet of the access road and work areas would also be identified and marked as necessary.
7.2.2 Avoidance of buckwheat
Buckwheat plants or clusters of plants, as identified and flagged by a qualified biologist (see
above), would be avoided by the project. The biologist would establish appropriate buffers and
access procedures for any buckwheat plants occurring within 20 feet of the existing access road,
which would be monitored during the term of the project (see below).
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 31
Project construction would commence on October 1
st
and continue through the winter months to
February 28
th
. This five month period is well outside of the active flight season for adult Smiths
blue butterflies. It is also outside of the active larval stage of the species. Pupae (the
overwintering or dormant stage of the life cycle) are typically found in the soil at the base of
buckwheat foodplants during this period, but avoidance of, and setbacks from any buckwheat
plants would avoid potential impacts to pupae of the butterfly.
7.2.4 Biological resource education and monitoring
Prior to initiation of access or construction activities, a qualified biologist would be designated to
conduct an educational training session regarding Smiths blue butterfly with all construction
personnel. The training would include a description of the butterflys life cycle and habitat
preferences and identification of buckwheat along the access road. The biologist would also
monitor equipment access in order to avoid disturbance to buckwheat plants or encroachment
into areas supporting buckwheat.

7.3 Western Snowy Plover
Project construction and demobilization activities would commence on October 1
st
and continue
through the winter months to February 28
th
. This five month period is outside of the active
breeding and nesting season for western snowy plovers. The intent is to avoid disruption of
plover breeding behavior and eliminate all evidence of construction activities prior to the
beginning of plover breeding season (see below).
7.3.2 Project siting and configuration
The test well site would be located within the active Cemex access road area to minimize or
avoid disruption of potential snowy plover nesting areas along the shoreline. If required, noise
blankets would be installed to provide visual and sound attenuation during drilling operations.
The test well pump would be a submersible pump that is not expected to generate detectable
noise or vibration in snowy plover nesting areas once in operation. Features (wire excluders)
would be incorporated into the top of the above-ground electrical panel at the test well, if
necessary, to deter perching by avian predators (e.g. ravens and crows).
7.3.3 Construction limits
Construction activities would be restricted to the proposed construction area and access route.
No construction equipment, materials, or activity would occur outside the specified work areas.
No construction equipment or materials would be placed, nor would any activity occur on the
sandy upper beach area outside of the immediate construction zone.
Zander Associates
J uly 2013 32
7.3.4 Trash and fuel management
Construction personnel would keep all food-related trash items in sealed containers and remove
them daily from the project site to discourage the concentration of potential predators in snowy
plover habitat (see also use of wire excluders in measure 7.3.3 above). Refueling of construction
equipment and vehicles would not occur in the project area. Construction personnel would check
and maintain equipment and vehicles operated in the project area daily to prevent leaks of fuels,
lubricants or other fluids, in compliance with applicable state and federal regulations.
7.3.5 Work area recontouring
Following completion of the drainage pipe connection to the existing outfall junction structure
and after all construction equipment has left the area, but before March 1
st
, the work area at the
end of the Cemex access road would be recontoured as determined necessary coordination with
representatives of Point Blue. The purpose for the recontouring would be to achieve the
optimum configuration possible for potential nesting plovers.
7.3.6 Sampling procedures during operation
A qualified biologist would consult with Point Blue monitors on a weekly basis during the plover
nesting season to stay current with nesting activity in the vicinity of the test well. The biologist
would coordinate weekly with any Cal Am personnel travelling to the test well during the 24
month operation period and accompany them as necessary during the nesting season based on
information received from Point Blue.
7.3.7 Biological resource monitoring and education
Several days or more prior to project construction, a qualified biologist, in consultation with
Point Blue, would field evaluate the nature and extent of wintering plover activity in the project
area to inform excavation and other construction decisions. Also prior to construction of access
or construction activities, the biologist would conduct an educational session with all
construction personnel to describe snowy plover wintering and breeding behavior, habitat
preferences, threats and other issues. The biologist would also monitor equipment access and
construction/operation activities along trench lines, at the wellhead site, and in the excavation
area for the outfall connection during the project term in order to avoid or minimize disturbance
to potential nesting habitat for snowy plovers and the overwintering flocks in the area.
8.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The data and experience gained from the project are intended to contribute to the siting and
design decisions for the potential future MPWSP project, which could involve a feedwater intake
system, a desalination plant, a brine conveyance and disposal system, and a desalinated water
conveyance system. Experience from the slant test well project to date would likely lead the
MPWSP project to similar siting and operational conclusions (e.g. maximizing use of existing
disturbed areas; limiting construction activities near the beach to the non-nesting season for
snowy plovers).

Zander Associates
J uly 2013 33
Nonetheless, the MPWSP is a separate, potential future project requiring separate environmental
review and permitting. The slant test well would be a temporary permitted facility until March of
2016 and is independent of any future permanent desalination facility. In fact, the temporary
slant test well design precludes future permanent use due to lack of conveyance infrastructure.
Conversion of the temporary slant test well to a permanent well would require considerable
additional information such as conveyance, pumps and treatment, all of which would be
addressed as part of a separate CEQA and permitting process for the potential future MPWSP.

9.0 CONCLUSION AND DETERMINATION
The proposed Temporary Slant Test Well Project would occur in an area known to support three
federally listed plants, two listed animals and critical habitat for two of these species. However,
the specific locations, timing and operating procedures of project activities were selected to avoid
or minimize impacts to these species and critical habitat. All areas proposed for project-related
activities occur in previously disturbed areas. The proposed schedule for the test well project
construction (October through February) would fall outside of the growing season for the listed
plant species and the critical activity periods for the listed animals. Reasonable and prudent
minimization measures have been incorporated into the siting, design, construction and operation
of the project.

The proposed project is not expected to adversely affect any of the three listed plants under
consideration in this BA: Monterey gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria), Yadons wallflower
(Erysimum menziesii ssp. yadonii) and Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var.
pungens), or adversely modify critical habitat for the latter species. Similarly, the proposed
project is not expected to adversely affect the Smiths blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi),
primarily because adults of that species are not present during the term of the project and
foodplants for the species would be avoided.

Impacts to nesting habitat for the western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) would be
very limited; potential effects on wintering behavior are not expected to harm the local
population of the species. With implementation of all the minimization measures proposed
above, the project is not likely to adversely affect the western snowy plover or appreciably
diminish the value or quality of its critical habitat.

10.0 REFERENCES
Arnold, R.A. 1991. Status surveys and habitat assessment for the endangered Smith's blue
butterfly at the Garland Ranch Regional Park in Carmel Valley, California.
Prepared for the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District. Entomological
Consulting Services, Inc. Pleasant Hill, California. 29 pp and map



Burger, J . 1994. The effect of human disturbance on foraging behavior and habitat use in
piping plover Charadrius melodus. Estuaries 17, 695701.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2013. California Natural Diversity
Data Base. CDFW Natural Heritage Division, Rancho Cordova, CA


ESA 2012. E Zigas, King J . Special status species in the vicinity of the proposed test well
sites, Marina, CA. Memorandum prepared for California American Water,
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, J une 13, 2012. 3pp. and maps

Lafferty, K.D., 2001. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological
Conservation. 101: 315-325.

plovers following protection from disturbance. Biodiversity and Conservation 15:
2217-2230.

Magoon, O. T., J . C. Haugen, and R. L Sloan., 1972. Coastal Sand Mining in Northern
California, USA., Proceedings, 13th International Conference on Coastal
Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, pages 1571-1597.

Neuman, K.K, L.A. Henkel, and G. W Page., 2008. Shorebird use of sandy beaches in
Central California. Waterbirds 31(1): 115-121

Page, G.W., J .S. Warriner, J .C. Warriner, and P.W.C. Patton., 1995. Snowy Plover
(Charadrius alexandrinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 154 (A. Poole
and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the
American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.

Page, G.W., K. Neuman, J .C. Warriner, J .S. Warriner, C. Eyster, J Erbes, D. Dixon, and
A. Palkovic. 2010. Nesting of the snowy plover at Monterey Bay and on beaches
on northern Santa Cruz County California in 2010. Report of PRBO Conservation
Science, Publication #1776, Petaluma, CA. 23 pp.

A. Palkovic. 2011. Nesting of the snowy plover in the Monterey Bay Area,
California in 2011. Report of PRBO Conservation Science, Publication #1833,
Stinson Beach, CA. 23 pp

A. Palkovic. 2012. Nesting of the snowy plover in the Monterey Bay Area,
California in 2012. Report of PRBO Conservation Science, Publication #1898,
Stinson Beach, CA. 26 pp

PRBO Conservation Science 2013. Unpublished data and analysis from PRBO
monitoring activities. Memorandum from Kris Neuman to Mike Zander via email
on March 27, 2013. 4pp.

Reveal, J .L. and C.B. Hardham. 1989. A revisionof the annual species of Chorizanthe
(Polygonaceae: Eriogonoideae). Phytologia 66(2):98198

Ruhlen, T.D., S. Abbott, L.E. Stenzel and G.W. Page. 2003. Evidence that human
disturbance reduces Snowy Plover chick survival. J ournal of Field Ornithology
74(3): 300-3004.

Thomas Reid Associates 1997. Marina Dunes Plan, Supporting Technical Studies.
Prepared for Marina Coastal Zone Planning Task Force. Palo Alto, CA.

USFWS 1984. Smith's Blue Butterfly Recovery Plan. Portland, Oregon. November 9,
1984. 67 pp.

USFWS 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Six plants and Myrtle's
silverspot butterfly from coastal dunes in northern California determined to be
endangered. Final Rule. Federal Register 57:27848-27859. J une 22, 1992.

USFWS 1998. Seven Coastal Plants and the Myrtle's Silverspot Butterfly Recovery Plan.
Portland, Oregon. September 29, 1998. 141 pp.

USFWS 2005b. Biological opinion for Bureau of Land Management ongoing activities
on Fort Ord public lands, Monterey County, California ((1-8-04-F/C-22). Fish and
Wildlife Service. Ventura, California. December 30, 2005

USFWS 2006. Smith's blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi) 5-Year Review:
Summary and Evaluation. Ventura, California. September 2006. 25 pp.

USFWS 2007. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy
Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). Sacramento, California. August 13,
2007. 274 pp. plus appendices.

USFWS 2008a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Designation of critical
habitat for the Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens). Final
Rule. Federal Register 73:1525-1554. J anuary 9, 2008.

USFWS 2008b. Menzie's Wallflower (Erysimum menziesii) 5-Year Review: Summary
and Evaluation. Arcata, California. J une 2008. 41 pp.

USFWS 2008c. Monterey Gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria) 5-Year Review:
Summary and Evaluation. Ventura, California. March 2008. 29 pp.

USFWS 2009. Monterey Spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens) 5-Year
Review: Summary and Evaluation. Ventura, California. J anuary 2009. 17 pp.

USFWS 2012a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Revised designation of
critical habitat for the Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover. Final
Rule. Federal Register 77:36727-36869. J une 19, 2012.

USFWS 2012b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Designation of critical
habitat and taxonomic revision for the Pacific Coast population of the western
snowy plover. Proposed Rule. Federal Register 77:2243-2254. J anuary 17, 2012.

Zoger, A. and B. Pavlik. 1987. Marina Dune Rare Plant Survey. Report prepared for
Marina Coastal Zone Planning Task Force.

11.0 LIST OF CONTACTS/CONTRIBUTORS/PREPARERS
Zander Associates
(415) 897-8781 (phone)
(415) 814-4125 (fax)

RBF Consulting
Temecula, CA 92591
(951) 676-8042 (phone)
(951) 676-7240 (fax)
Kevin Thomas, CEP


4701 Beloit Drive
(916) 568-4296 (phone)
(916) 466-4535 (fax)

Persons Contacted

Arnold, Richard, Ph.D. Entomological Consulting Services, Limited. Pleasant Hill
California.
Dixon, Dave. Point Blue Conservation Science, Petaluma, CA.
Marinovic, Baldo, Ph.D. Associate Research Biologist, Oceanography and Ocean
Processes, Long Marine Laboratory, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Neuman, Kriss. Point Blue Conservation Science, Petaluma, CA.
Page, Gary. Point Blue Conservation Science, Petaluma, CA.
Palkovic, Amy. California Department of Parks and Recreation. Marina, CA
Wilson, Ronald D. Manager, Land Use Permits, Pacific Region, Cemex. El Dorado Hills,
CA

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

MPWSP
EXPLORATORY BORINGS PROGRAM
PACKAGE 1 CEMEX ACTIVE MINING AREA

Prepared for:

RBF Consulting
Temecula, CA 92591

Prepared by:

Zander Associates
San Rafael, California 94903

J une 2013

Zander Associates
Biological Resources Assessment Exploratory Borings, Package 1
J une 2013 1
MPWSP EXPLORATORY BORINGS PROGRAM
PACKAGE 1 CEMEX ACTIVE MINING AREA

Zander Associates is providing this evaluation of the Exploratory Borings Program, Package 1
project, proposed by California American Water (Cal Am) to identify and discuss potential
project effects on biological resources. The exploratory borings are being proposed to gather
technical data related to feasibility of a subsurface intake system for a potential future
desalination project. The data will be used to facilitate design and intake siting for the separately
proposed slant test well and slant wells for the full-scale Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project (MPWSP).

Our evaluation is based on review of background materials including a current query of the
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2013), surveys of existing biological resources
in the project area completed by ESA Biological Services (Memorandum dated J une 13, 2012),
recent monitoring reports on western snowy plover prepared by PRBO Conservation Science
(December 2012), and other documents. We consulted with resource agency personnel and
acknowledged authorities in particular habitats and species known to occur in the project area
and conducted reconnaissance-level surveys of the project area on September 20, 2012, March 5,
2013, and April 25, 2013.
1
This latter visit involved a complete floristic survey within 100 feet
of either side of the existing Cemex access road at an appropriate time of year to identify most of
the special status plants that might occur in the project area (see below).

Location and General Site Characteristics

The Package 1 Project of the Exploratory Borings Program includes three boring locations, all of
which are located on lands owned by Cemex (APN 203-011-019-000) within the limits of the
City of Marina (Figure 1). The borings would be sited adjacent to the unimproved roadway used
by Cemex to access the sand mining pond (Figure 2) and all would be accessed via this road.
For purposes of this assessment, the project area includes an approximate 200-foot-corridor
along the existing Cemex access roads from the eastern Cemex site entrance all the way to its
western end (Figure 2). This area is comprised of developed industrial facilities and disturbed,
formerly mined coastal sand dunes.

Project Description

Three exploratory borings are planned for the Package 1 Project: CB-1, CB-2, and CB-4 (Figure
2). For each boring, a track-mounted diesel powered sonic drilling rig would be used to collect
the core samples (Figure 3). The work area needed for the drill rig, support equipment, and area
to layout the core samples at each boring location would be approximately 50 feet by 30 feet.
No fences or additional security measures would be required around the drill rig sites.
Exploratory borings would extend down to 350 feet at all three locations. Core samples would
be collected, bagged and carried off-site for further sampling and analysis. Boring holes would
be back-filled with cement.

1
Zander Associates did not conduct species-specific surveys for all special-status plants and animals that could
potentially occur in the project area.
Boring Locations
D
u
n
e
s

R
d
S
a
l
i
n
a
s

R
i
v
e
r
R
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n

R
d
L
a
p
i
s

R
d
Marina Dunes
Preserve
CEMEX
D
e
l

M
o
n
t
e

B
l
v
d
H
w
y

1
Site Location
MPWSP
Exploratory Borings, Package 1
Marina, California
Zander Associates
Figure
1
0 0.5 0.25 Miles
Legend
Boring Locations
Parcel Boundary
Boring Locations
CB-1
CB-2
CB-4
Zander Associates
Figure
2
0 200 100 Feet
Legend
Boring Locations
Study Area Boundary
Project Study Area
MPWSP
Marina, California
Track-Mounted Drill Rig
MPWSP
Marina, California
Zander Associates
Figure
3
Zander Associates
J une 2013 5
Drilling is planned for summer 2013; mobilization, drilling, and demobilization would be
completed during a three day period and the drilling rig would only be operated during the
daylight hours.

Site Protection during Construction: All construction work will occur in the active/disturbed
areas of the Cemex site. The CB-1 location (at the western end of the Cemex access road), will
be field evaluated by the project biologist in consultation with PRBO, to avoid significant
impacts to western snowy plover. If there are still active snowy plover nests in close proximity
to CB-1 at the preferred time of drilling, additional avoidance/minimization measures will be
applied at the direction of the Project biologist and PRBO such that no adverse effects occur to
snowy plover (see below).

Existing Conditions

104 acres and is the subject of an approved Reclamation Plan (CA Mine ID #91-27-0006). The
project area includes an approximate 200-foot-corridor along the existing Cemex access roads
from the eastern Cemex site entrance all the way to its western end.

The road from the site entrance to the vicinity of the wet processing plant is paved and passes
through the Cemex facility on either side. No dune habitat (or any native habitat, disturbed or
otherwise) occurs in this area based on observations during site reconnaissance visits on
September 20, 2012, March 5, 2013 and April 25, 2013. From the Cemex facility westerly to the
beach, the road consists of unvegetated, compacted sand with disturbed dunes on either side
(Photo 1).
2
A redwood lined flume parallels the road on the north and carries process water to
settling ponds near the beach end of the road (Photo 2). It is along this portion of the road where
all three boring sites will be located.

During the March 5
th
and April 25
th
site visits, no undisturbed dune habitat was observed within
100 feet of either side of the unpaved road (Photo 3 and Photo 4). Where vegetation was present,
iceplant (Carpobrotus spp.) was dominant, but occasional occurrences of native plants such as
beach sagewort (Artemisia pycnocephala), mock heather (Ericameria ericoides), sand verbena
(Abronia sp.), beach knotweed (Polygonum paronychia), and beach evening primrose
(Cammissonia cheiranthifolia) were observed. During the April 25
th
plant survey, Monterey
spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens) was found in bare sand areas within the project
study area, and in some cases extended up to the edge of the road, but was not found within the
active roadbed. Individuals of coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), a host plant for the
Smiths blue butterfly, were also encountered within about 20 feet of the road, primarily on the
northerly side of the flume adjacent to the road.

2
Zander Associates
J une 2013 6



Zander Associates
J une 2013 7


Photo 4: West end of Cemex access road in approximate vicinity of CB-1

Zander Associates
J une 2013 8
Special Status Species & Critical Habitat

Several species of plants and animals that are listed as threatened or endangered under the
federal and/or state endangered species acts (ESA & CESA, respectively) are known from or
could potentially occur in the project area. Designated critical habitat for one of these species,
Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens), includes the project area. Some
plant species known to occur in the area are listed by the California Native Plant Society
(CNPS), and some animals are considered species of special concern by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly Fish and Game). In addition, the City of Marina
Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) lists rare and endangered species for dune habitat areas
within the plan area (LUP Exhibit A).

Table 1 presents the results of a current search of CNDDB records within a three mile radius of
the exploratory boring project area. It also includes those species listed in LUP Exhibit A that
are otherwise not found in current CNDDB records.
3
Listing status, habitat characteristics and
an assessment of actual or potential presence or absence in the project area are provided for each
species.

Spring (April, May & J une 2012) survey work conducted in dune and strand areas on the Cemex
property by ESA Biological Services (Environmental Science Associates J une 13, 2012) found
special status plant species, including a sizeable population (6,000 to 8,000 plants) of the state
and federally endangered Yadons wallflower, the federally listed Monterey spineflower, the
CNPS listed (1B) coast wallflower (Erysimum ammophilum), and suitable habitat for others,
including the state threatened and federally endangered Monterey sand gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp.
arenaria). Coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), a host plant for the federally endangered
Smiths blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi) was also observed in high densities throughout
the study area for those surveys.

During field visits by Zander Associates biologists on September 20, 2012 and March 5, 2013,
through the Cemex facility. Emerging basal rosettes of several individuals of E. menziesii were
also observed on March 5
th
, approximately 400 feet south of the access road, where less
disturbed dune areas occurred. During the April 25, 2013 survey, Zander Associates biologists
again observed coast buckwheat plants, primarily on the north side of the road and no closer than
about 15 feet from the road's edge. Monterey spineflower was just beginning its growing season,
but was relatively abundant in some areas, often growing in sandy areas directly adjacent to the
access road. However, no Monterey spineflower was found within the active roadbed. No other
special status plant species were observed in the project area during the April 25
th
survey, but
reference locations for many of the potential species were observed that same day to confirm the
appropriate timing of the survey (see Table 1). Protocol-level, site specific surveys for special
status animals that could use habitat in the project study area (e.g. legless lizards [Anniella
pulchra], coast horned lizard [Phrynosoma coronatum]) were not conducted during any of these
visits.

3
Some of the species listed in Exhibit A (e.g. bush lupines, coast buckwheat) were included by association with
other special status species (e.g. legless lizards, Smiths blue butterfly) and have no formal legal status. Others were
once candidates for federal listing status (e.g. globose dune beetle) but were dropped from consideration due to
insufficient data to make any listing decision. Nonetheless, all of the species listed in LUP Exhibit A are included
and assessed in Table 1.

9

Table 1: Special Status Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur within the Exploratory Borings Program Package 1 Project Study Area*
PLANTS Status
1
Fed/CA/CNPS
Habitat and Blooming Period Assessment
2
(Sandmat manzanita)
--/--/1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal dines, and
cismontane woodland habitats; sandy soil with other chaparral
associates; blooms February through May (evergreen)
habitats in general vicinity but not observed or
expected w/in project study area boundary
(coastal dunes milk-vetch) E/E/1B.1
Low ground, alkali flats, and flooded lands in coastal bluff
scrub or coastal dunes along the coast; blooms March through
J une
Only limited and localized records for this
plant in Monterey County. Habitats in project
area not appropriate; not expected to occur.
Castilleja latifolia #
(Seaside paintbrush)
--/--/4.3 Coastal strand, northern coastal scrub; perennial herb found on
dunes in Monterey Bay area; blooms March through August.
Observed in undisturbed dune habitats in
general vicinity but not observed or expected
within project study area boundary.
Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens
(Monterey spineflower)

T/--/1B.2 Coastal dunes, chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal
scrub habitats in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties; blooms
April through J une
Found in disturbed areas adjacent to Cemex
access road but not found or expected to
colonize active roadbed.
Ericameria fasciculata #
(Eastwoods golden bush)
--/--/1B Sandy openings of closed-cone coniferous forest, maritime
chaparral, coastal scrub or coastal dune habitats in Monterey
County; blooming period J uly through October
habitats in general vicinity but not observed or
expected within project study area boundary.
Eriogonum latifolium #
(Coast buckwheat)
na Common on dunes and coastal areas along the Monterey
County shoreline. Species is not protected but is host plant for
Smiths blue butterfly. Blooms May through Sept.
Observed within study area and in general
vicinity, but not expected to colonize Cemex
access road or other project areas.
Eriogonum parvifolium #
(Seacliff buckwheat)
na Common on dunes and coastal areas, especially along the
southern Monterey County shoreline and extending inland.
Species is not protected but is host plant for Smiths blue
butterfly. Blooms May through Sept
expected within project study area boundary.
Erysimum ammophilum
(Coast wallflower)
--/--/1B.2 Chaparral (maritime), coastal dunes, coastal scrub. Sandy
openings; blooms February through J une.
vicinity but not expected within project study
area boundary.
Erysimum menziesii ssp. yadonii
(Yadons wallflower) E/E/1B.1
Very localized variety of species limited in range to Monterey
and two other counties; occurs on coastal dunes; blooms
March through J une.
area boundary.
Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria
(Sand gilia)

E/T/1B.2 Cismontane woodland, maritime chaparral, coastal scrub and
dune habitats in Monterey County, in particular bare, wind-
sheltered areas near dune summits or hind dunes; blooms April
through May.
project study area boundary.
Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea
(Kelloggs horkelia)

--/--/1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, and coastal scrub
habitats, old dunes and coastal sand hills; blooms April
through September.
within project study area boundary.
Lupinus spp. #
(Bush lupines)
na Both purple and yellow bush lupines (L. chamissonis & L.
arboreus) are common along the Monterey County shoreline;
neither is protected. Blooms April through J uly
area. Included in Marina LUP because of
association with legless lizards (see below).

10
Table 1 (Cont.): Special Status Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur within the Exploratory Borings Program Package 1 Project Area *
ANIMALS Status
1

Fed/CA
Habitat

Assessment
2

INVERTEBRATES
Coelus globosus #
(Globose dune beetle)
na Extensive geographic range along coastal California but
habitat is restricted to foredunes immediately bordering the
sea in open or sparsely vegetated loose sand above the mean
high tide line.
Possible occurrence at wrack line and in
strand and foredune areas nearby project area.
No suitable habitat within project study area,
not expected to occur.
(Smiths blue butterfly)
E/-- Most commonly found in coastal dunes and coastal sage scrub
plant communities in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties.
Found in association with host plant, Eriogonum latifolium
and Eriogonum parvifolium, which are utilized as both larval
and adult food plants.
Probable occurrence on coast buckwheat in
study area but all buckwheat will be avoided
by project.
FISH
(tidewater goby)
E/CSC Brackish water habitats along the California coast fromAgua
Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego County to the mouth of the
Smith River. Found in shallow lagoons and lower stream
reaches, they need fairly still but not stagnant water and high
oxygen levels
Nearest record is at mouth of Salinas River.
Very unlikely to occur in marine environment
along Cemex shoreline and will not be
affected by project.
AMPHIBIANS / REPTILES
Rana draytonii
(California red-legged frog)
T/CSC Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent sources of deep
water within streams, marshes, and occasionally ponds with
dense, shrubby, or emergent riparian vegetation.
by project.
Emys marmorata
(Western pond turtle)
--/CSC Requires aquatic habitats with permanent or persistent water
and protected areas for basking such as partially submerged
rocks or logs, floating vegetation mats or open mud banks.
by project.
Anniella pulchra
(California legless lizard)
--/CSC Sandy or loose loamy soils usually in dune substrates with
sparse vegetation, especially mock heather & bush lupine.
Soil moisture is essential. Black variant found in Monterey
and Morro Bay areas.
Phrynosoma coronatum (blainvillii)
(Coast horned lizard)

--/CSC Frequents a wide variety of habitats, mostly common in
lowlands along sandy washes with scattered low bushes. Open
areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for
burial, and abundant supply of ants and other insects.
BIRDS
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
(Western snowy plover)
T/CSC Federal listing applies to nesting sites of pacific coastal
populations only. For nesting, require sandy, gravelly or
friable soils that are found on sandy beaches, salt pond levees
and shores of large alkali lakes. Winter roosting sites often
based on history of use
Known summer nesting and winter roosting
habitat nearby project study area.
Athene cunicularia
(Burrowing owl)
--/CSC Ground nester in open dry annual or perennial grasslands,
deserts and scrublands with low-growing vegetation, depends
on burrowing mammals (i.e. California ground squirrel).
Could occur in sand hills, grasslands and other
areas in general vicinity, but no suitable
habitat in project study area

11
Table 1 (Cont.): Special Status Species Evaluated for Potential to Occur within the Exploratory Borings Program Package 1 Project Area *
BIRDS (Cont.)
Agelaius tricolor
(Tricolored blackbird t)
--/CSC Highly colonial species, most numerous in Central Valley and
vicinity, requires open water, protected nesting substrate and
foraging area with insect prey within a few kmof the colony.

Buteo regalis
(Ferruginous hawk)

--/-- Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low foothills
and fringes of pinyon-juniper habitats. East mostly
lagomorphs, ground squirrels and mice. Population trends may
follow lagomorph population cycles.
(California horned lark)

--/-- Coastal regions, chiefly fromSonoma County to San Diego
County. Also main part of San J oaquin Valley and east to
foothills. Short grass prairie, Bald Hills, mountain meadows,
open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, alkali flats.
MAMMALS
Dipodomys heermanni goldmani #
(Salinas kangaroo rat)
na A variety of a common and widespread species known to
colonize grasslands, fallow agricultural lands and other upland
habitats. Not listed at either the state or federal level.
Reithrodontomys megalotis distichlis
(Salinas harvest mouse)
--/-- Known only fromthe Monterey Bay region. Occurs in fresh
and brackish water wetlands and probably in the adjacent
uplands around the mouth of the Salinas River.

1. Status Explanations
Federal (Fed)
E =listed as endangered under thefederal Endangered Species Act
T =listed as threatened under thefederal Endangered Species Act
D =delisted
-- =no designation

California State (CA)
R =listed as rareunder theCalifornia Endangered Species Act
E =listed as endangered under theCalifornia Endangered Species Act
T =listed as threatened under theCalifornia Endangered Species Act
CE candidatefor endangered under theCalifornia Endangered Species Act
CSC =California Department of Fish and GameSpecies of Special Concern
-- =no designation
California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
1B =plants considered rare, threatened or endangered in Californiaand elsewhere.
1B.1 =seriously endangered in CA
1B.2 =fairly endangered in CA
1B.3 =not very endangered in CA
4 =Plants of limited distribution; a watch list
4.3 =not very threatened in CA

2. Findings based on literaturereview, field surveys and assessment of habitat types present, and knowledgeof species habitat requirements.

*Source: Search of theCalifornia Department of Fish and Wildlife's Natural Diversity Database(CDFW 2013) occurrences and theCalifornia NativePlant Society's On-lineInventory
(CNPS 2013) for theMarina and Moss Landing 7.5-minuteUSGS quadrangles.

#Species listed in City of Marina LUP, Exhibit A, that areotherwisenot found in current CNDDB records.
Zander Associates

J une 2013

12

The beach adjacent to the project area has been identified as both important nesting and
wintering habitat for the western snowy plover as a result of nearly 30 years of monitoring by
PRBO. The most recent nesting data available (2012 nesting season) identified about 38 nesting
attempts with 23 successfully hatched along that stretch of beach (PRBO 2012). The nests are
typically located between the spring and summer wrack zone and the base of the foredunes.
However, some nests have been located around the Cemex pond and adjacent to the portion of
the Cemex access road that is within the project study area (Figure 4). The sparsely vegetated
foredunes and sand hummocks immediately bordering the sea (typically no more than
approximately 50 meters inland from the mean high tide line) provide habitat for the globose
dune beetle but there is no suitable habitat for globose dune beetle within the project study area.

Potential Impacts

The project has been designed to avoid or minimize impacts on special status species; it has been
sited completely within previously disturbed areas and away from the coastal dunes, strand and
shoreline habitats. However, activities associated with the work could result in direct or indirect
effects on Monterey spineflower or nesting western snowy plovers. The potential effects of the
project on special status species known to occur in the area and designated critical habitat for one
of them are discussed in more detail below. Measures that will be incorporated into the project
to minimize and mitigate these effects are discussed in the following section.

Potential Effects on Special Status Plants: The Exploratory Borings Package 1 Project is not
expected to adversely affect any special status plants. The only special status plant species
known to occur in the project study area is Monterey spineflower. All of the other plant species
listed in Table 1 are typically found in relatively undisturbed dune habitats and none were
observed or are expected to occur within the project study area. Monterey spineflower was
found scattered throughout bare sand areas adjacent to the access road but not within the active
roadbed. In order to avoid direct effects on Monterey spineflower, the work areas for each of the
three proposed boring locations will need to be sited outside of occupied habitat. While there
may be some limited potential for seed bank disturbance for Monterey spineflower, this effect
would be minimal in the context of ongoing operational activities at the Cemex facility.
Minimization and mitigation measures identified below are intended to reduce the potential for
any effects on Monterey spineflower.

Potential Effects on Special Status Animals: Only four of the special status animal species
listed in Table 1 potentially occur within the project area. These species include Smiths blue
butterfly, California legless lizard, coast horned lizard and western snowy plover. Other special
status animal species with occurrence records within a three mile radius can be dismissed based
on the habitat characteristics in the project area, location of project facilities, operational
procedures and other factors (see Table 1). Following is an assessment of potential project
impacts on each of the four animal species known, or with some potential, to occur in the study
area.

CB-1
CB-2
CB-4
Zander Associates
Figure
4
0 200 100 Feet
Legend
Boring Locations
Plover Nest Locations Before 2010
Study Area Boundary
Special Status Species Locations
MPWSP
Marina, California
Sources: RBF Consulting
PRBO Conservation Science
Zander Associates

J une 2013

14

Smiths blue butterfly: Drilling operations are proposed to occur in summer, within the
flight season for Smiths blue butterfly. However, direct (e.g. windshield hits) or indirect
(e.g. dust on the nectaries of buckwheat foodplants) impacts on adult butterflies are not
expected to occur for the following reasons. The majority of buckwheat plants were
found north of the access road. Butterflies that may be using these plants are likely to
move about in that general vicinity; not necessarily crossing the road in large numbers.
The drill rig is track-mounted and will move slowly along the access road to reach each
boring location, thereby reducing the potential for windshield hits and minimizing
fugitive dust. Because all project-related activities would occur in previously disturbed
areas where buckwheat plants were not found, the potential for disturbance in close
proximity to the butterfly's hostplant would be very low. Minimization and mitigation
measures identified below are intended to reduce the potential for any effects on Smith's
blue butterfly.
California legless lizard: This fossorial (burrowing) species can be found in a number of
habitats in dunes and sandy areas, from immediately above high tide, the crest of sand
dunes, and the edge of the hind dunes to inland sandy areas associated with oak
woodlands, grasslands, maritime chaparral and other habitats. Legless lizards burrow in
sand and leaf litter beneath plants growing in these habitats and feed on insects and other
invertebrates; some plant cover is required to support insects that, in turn, serve as food
for the lizards. Because dune habitats with native vegetation will be avoided by the
project, no adverse impacts on legless lizards are expected. Minimization and mitigation
measures identified below are intended to reduce the potential for any effects on legless
lizards.
Coast horned lizard: Coast horned lizards inhabit open country, especially sandy areas,
washes, flood plains, and wind-blown deposits in a wide variety of habitats, including
coastal dunes, shrublands, woodlands, riparian habitats and annual grassland. Warm,
sunny, open areas with sparse vegetation are primary habitat requirements, along with
patches of loose soil where the lizard can bury itself. The disturbed, compacted and
unvegetated roadbed through the Cemex facility does not provide suitable habitat for the
coast horned lizard. Minimization and mitigation measures identified below are intended
to reduce the potential for any effects on coast horned lizards.
Western snowy plover: Because drilling operations are proposed within the plover's
nesting season, there is some potential for direct effects on nesting habitat, primarily for
boring location CB-1. The other two borings CB-2 and CB-4 are far enough inland
and out of line of sight from nests that direct or indirect effects on plover nesting habitat
are not expected to occur. Since CB-1 will be located at the west end of the access road,
nearby plover nesting habitat, drilling operations could disrupt active nesting activities if
they occur in close proximity to the drill site. The minimization and mitigation measures
identified below are intended to reduce the potential for project-related effects on snowy
plover nesting habitat.

Potential Effects on Critical Habitat: The potential effects on designated critical habitat for
Monterey spineflower are discussed below.

Monterey spineflower: The Federal Register listing notice for Monterey spineflower
critical habitat (73 FR 1525) defines activities that may destroy or adversely modify
Zander Associates

J une 2013

15
critical habitat as those that alter the essential physical and biological features to an extent
that appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for Monterey
spineflower. It identifies such activities as (1) actions that would degrade or destroy
native maritime chaparral, dune, and oak woodland communities, including, but not
limited to, livestock grazing, clearing, disking, introducing or encouraging the spread of
nonnative plants, and heavy recreational use; and (2) actions that would appreciably
diminish habitat value or quality through indirect effects (e.g., edge effects, invasion of
nonnative plants or animals, or fragmentation).

All project-related activities would occur in previously disturbed areas that are not
essential for Monterey spineflower. The project would not cause the degradation or
destruction of native dune communities in the vicinity because access through these areas
would follow an existing road currently used by Cemex .
4
The project is also not
expected to diminish the value of the dune habitat such that it would preclude
maintenance or establishment of Monterey spineflower plants. Consequently, the project
would not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for Monterey spineflower.

Minimization and Mitigation Measures

Monterey spineflower: The following measures are intended to avoid or further minimize and
mitigate potential impacts to Monterey spineflower that may occur in the study area.
Pre-construction surveys: A qualified biologist will conduct a survey with the
appropriate project team members prior to equipment mobilization to identify and mark
the work areas for each of the three borings to assure that no Monterey spineflower will
be disturbed. Monterey spineflower occurrences within 20 feet of the access road and
perimeters of the work areas will be identified and marked.
Habitat avoidance: The designated work area for each boring will be clearly delineated
with rope line or fencing and project activities will be restricted to that specific area.
Access to the work areas will be along the existing Cemex access road. Where Monterey
spineflower occurs within 20 feet of the access road, the biologist will establish
appropriate buffers and access procedures for the drilling operations (see below).
initiation of drilling operations, a qualified biologist would be designated to conduct an
educational training session regarding Monterey spineflower with all construction
personnel. The training would include a description of the plant and its habitat
preferences with onsite identification and/or illustrations. The biologist would also
monitor equipment access in order to avoid disturbance to areas that support or could
support Monterey spineflower as identified through the pre-construction surveys (see
above).

Smiths blue butterfly: The following measures are intended to avoid or further minimize
potential impacts to Smiths blue butterfly in the study area.
Pre-construction surveys: A qualified biologist will conduct a survey with the
appropriate project team members prior to equipment mobilization to identify and mark
the work areas for each of the three borings to assure that no buckwheat plants will be

4
Zander Associates

J une 2013

16
disturbed. Buckwheat occurrences within 20 feet of the access road and work areas will
also be identified and marked as necessary.
Avoidance of buckwheat: Buckwheat plants or clusters of plants, as identified and
marked by a qualified biologist (see above), would be avoided by the project. The
biologist would establish appropriate buffers and access procedures for any buckwheat
plants occurring within 20 feet of the existing access road, which would be monitored
during drilling operations (see below).
educational training session regarding Smiths blue butterfly with all construction
personnel. The training would include a description of the butterflys life cycle and
habitat preferences and identification of buckwheat along the access road. The biologist
would also monitor equipment access in order to avoid disturbance to buckwheat plants
or encroachment into areas supporting buckwheat.

California legless lizard: The following measures are intended to avoid or further minimize and
mitigate potential impacts to California legless lizard in the study area.
Habitat avoidance: Areas potentially suitable to support legless lizards, especially areas
of sparsely vegetated loose sand with bush lupines, mock heather and other dune shrubs,
would be avoided by the project. In the event that any such areas occur within 20 feet of
the existing access road or boring locations, a qualified biologist would establish
appropriate buffers and access procedures, which would be monitored during the term of
the project (see below).
educational training session regarding the legless lizard with all construction personnel.
The training would include a description of the lizards life cycle and habitat preferences,
illustrations of the species and identification of potentially suitable habitat. The biologist
would also monitor equipment access in order to avoid disturbance to potentially suitable
habitats or encroachment into areas potentially supporting the legless lizard.

Coast horned lizard: The following measures are intended to avoid or further minimize and
mitigate potential impacts to coast horned lizard in the study area.
Habitat avoidance: Areas potentially suitable to support coast horned lizards, especially
areas of sparsely vegetated loose sand with native dune shrubs, would be avoided by the
project. In the event that any such areas occur within 20 feet of the existing access road
or boring locations, a qualified biologist would establish appropriate buffers and access
procedures, which would be monitored during the term of the project (see below).
educational training session regarding the coast horned lizard with all construction
personnel. The training would include a description of the lizards life cycle and habitat
preferences and identification of potentially suitable habitat areas. The biologist would
also monitor equipment access in order to avoid disturbance to potentially suitable
habitats or encroachment into areas potentially supporting the coast horned lizard.

Zander Associates

J une 2013

17
Western Snowy Plover: The following measures are intended to avoid or further minimize and
mitigate potential impacts to western snowy plover in the study area.
Pre-drilling evaluation: A qualified biologist will be present prior to and during drill rig
setup to stake off the work areas with the drilling contractor to ensure that drilling
activities avoid any impacts to nesting plovers. Prior to initiation of drilling operations at
boring location CB-1, the biologist will coordinate with PRBO and review current (J une-
J uly-August 2013) nest monitoring data to determine the location and status of active
nests and broods within 200 feet of the western end of the Cemex access road.
Avoidance of Nesting Disturbance: If the biologist and PRBO determine that there are
active nests in close enough proximity to CB-1 at the proposed time of drilling that they
could be disturbed by drilling operations, then the nesting activity will be monitored and
drilling at CB-1 would not commence until the young in those nests have fledged and/or
nesting has not been reinitiated in the area. If adults and chicks are still using the area
late into the summer, drilling of CB-1 may not occur until the official end of the nesting
season (October 1
st
). Also, the contractor may be directed to install noise blankets at CB-
1 as determined necessary by the biologist. The decisions to allow drilling operations to
commence at boring location CB-1 prior to the end of the nesting season and
determination of any further minimization measures would be made in consultation with
the USFWS.
Project operation limits: Drilling activities would be restricted to the designated work
areas and access route. No construction equipment, materials, or activity would occur
outside of these work areas.
Trash management: Construction personnel would keep all food-related trash items in
sealed containers and remove them daily from the work areas to discourage the
Biological resource monitoring and education: Prior to mobilization of equipment or
initiation of drilling operations, a qualified biologist would conduct an educational
session with all construction personnel to describe snowy plover nesting behavior, habitat
preferences, threats and other issues. The biologist would also monitor equipment access
and drilling operations to assure avoidance of active nesting areas or encroachment into
areas potentially used by snowy plovers.

Conclusion

The Exploratory Borings, Package 1 project would occur adjacent to an area of coastal dune,
strand and shoreline habitat known to support several special status species of plants and animals
and within designated critical habitat for one federally listed species. However, the specific
locations of project activities were selected to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive habitats
and special status species. All proposed boring locations occur in previously disturbed areas.
The proposed schedule for the drilling operation (J uly or August) would fall within the growing
season for Monterey spineflower and the nesting period for western snowy plover. Reasonable
and prudent minimization and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the siting and
operation of the project.

The proposed project is not expected to affect any of the special status plants under consideration
herein or adversely modify critical habitat for Monterey spineflower. Similarly, the proposed
Zander Associates

J une 2013

18
project is not expected to affect Smiths blue butterfly, California legless lizard or coast horned
lizard, primarily because the habitats of these animals will be avoided.

Impacts to nesting habitat for the western snowy plover would be avoided with implementation
of all the minimization and mitigation measures proposed above. Therefore, the project is not
likely to result in significant effects on the western snowy plover or appreciably diminish the
value or quality of its habitat.
Zander Associates

References



Burger, J . 1994. The effect of human disturbance on foraging behavior and habitat use in piping
plover Charadrius melodus. Estuaries 17, 695701.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 2013. California Natural Diversity Data
Base. CDFW Natural Heritage Division, Rancho Cordova, CA


Environmental Science Associates 2012. E Zigas, King J . Special status species in the vicinity of
the proposed test well sites, Marina, CA. Memorandum prepared for California American
Water, Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, J une 13, 2012. 3pp. and maps

Lafferty, K.D., 2001. Disturbance to wintering western snowy plovers. Biological Conservation.
101: 315-325.

plovers following protection from disturbance. Biodiversity and Conservation 15: 2217-
2230.

Neuman, K.K, L.A. Henkel, and G. W Page., 2008. Shorebird use of sandy beaches in Central
California. Waterbirds 31(1): 115-121

Page, G.W., J .S. Warriner, J .C. Warriner, and P.W.C. Patton., 1995. Snowy Plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 154 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists'
Union, Washington, D.C.

Palkovic. 2010. Nesting of the snowy plover at Monterey Bay and on beaches on
northern Santa Cruz County California in 2010. Report of PRBO Conservation Science,
Publication #1776, Petaluma, CA. 23 pp.
Zander Associates

pp

pp

PRBO Conservation Science 2013. Unpublished data and analysis from PRBO monitoring
activities. Memorandum from Kris Neuman to Mike Zander via email on March 27,
2013. 4pp.

Thomas Reid Associates 1997. Marina Dunes Plan, Supporting Technical Studies. Prepared for
Marina Coastal Zone Planning Task Force. Palo Alto, CA.

USFWS 2008. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Designation of critical habitat for
the Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens). Final Rule. Federal
Register 73:1525-1554. J anuary 9, 2008.

USFWS 2012. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: Revised designation of critical
habitat for the Pacific Coast population of the western snowy plover. Final Rule. Federal
Register 77:36727-36869. J une 19, 2012.

Zoger, A. and B. Pavlik. 1987. Marina Dune Rare Plant Survey. Report prepared for Marina
Coastal Zone Planning Task Force.
Zander Associates

List of Contacts/Contributors/Preparers

Zander Associates
(415) 897-8781 (phone)
(415) 814-4125 (fax)

RBF Consulting
Temecula, CA 92591
(951) 676-8042 (phone)
(951) 676-7240 (fax)
Kevin Thomas, CEP


4701 Beloit Drive
(916) 568-4296 (phone)
(916) 466-4535 (fax)

Persons Contacted

Arnold, Richard, Ph.D. Entomological Consulting Services, Limited. Pleasant Hill California.
Marinovic, Baldo, Ph.D. Associate Research Biologist, Oceanography and Ocean Processes,
Long Marine Laboratory, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Neuman, Kriss. PRBO Conservation Science, Petaluma, CA.
Page, Gary. PRBO Conservation Science, Petaluma, CA.
Palkovic, Amy. California Department of Parks and Recreation. Marina, CA
Wilson, Ronald D. Manager, Land Use Permits, Pacific Region, Cemex. El Dorado Hills, CA

MARCH 5, 2014, 2-3 PM Meeting

Informal Consultation Summary

Meeting Held at NOAA Offices in Monterey
NOAA Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
99 Pacific Street Bldg. 455
Monterey, CA 93940

Attendees: Bridget Hoover (MBNMS), Karen Grimmer (MBNMS), Jacob Martin (USFWS), Ian
Crooks (CAW), Sarp Sekeroglu (RBF), Paul Findley (RBF), Kevin Thomas (RBF), Michael
Zander (Zander Associates)

The following summarizes a conference callmeeting with Jake Martin, USFWS, and serves to
document informal Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act.

General Discussion:

1) CAW re-affirmed that test well construction or demobilization activities will not go into the
Snowy Plover nesting season (March 1st September 30th) under any condition.

2) All agreed that, after construction commences, CAW will monitor construction progress and
schedule and keep USFWS and PRBO apprised of status.

3) EA will address decommissioning of the test well. CAW/MBNMS to review EA and BA to be
sure the two documents are consistent on Project Description, including construction,
operation, and decommissioning.

4) SWCA provided USFWS with an updated APE map showing construction limits.

5) Mike Zander to provide a critical habitat map to USFWS.

6) (BA pg. 27) - RBF will provide USFWS with total disturbed acreage on the west segment of
the Test Well APE.

7) Pre-construction and de-mobilization biological monitoring will be required. However, no
western snowy plover nesting is expected during project construction and demobilization due
to the proposed seasonal avoidance (item 1, above). In the unexpected event that a nest is
found during construction, the operation will be suspended until authorized by USFWS
representatives.

8) Continuous biological monitoring throughout all operations is not necessary. Point Blue
currently monitors the Project area during the plover nesting season and the BA prescribes
coordination with Point Blue before Cal-Ams operators visit the wellhead during the nesting
season. Cal-Am would provide Point Blue funding, if needed, to ensure adequate staff for
ongoing monitoring throughout the test well operation period. Cal-Am or Point Blue will
contact the Service immediately if a nest is found in areas near the wellhead that could be
affected by operations. Under such circumstances, operations will be suspended until
authorized by USFWS representatives.
7) Construction monitoring will ensure that there are no nesting birds affected. In the event a
nest is observed by monitoring biologists, the operation will be suspended until authorized by
Comment [MJ1]: Good
Comment [MJ2]: Good
Comment [MJ3]: So we are waiting for an
update to the PD when the EA is finished; correct?
That is fine, but I wont be able to complete a draft
letter until we have it.
Comment [MJ4]: Received via email from
Bridget on March 6, 2014.
Comment [MJ5]: Received via email from
Bridget on March 24, 2014.

The map indicates that the construction footprint
ends landward of the CH boundary. This is great, if
true, but not consistent with the BA. Please confirm
that the map supersedes the BA on this point.
Comment [MJ6]: This is still pending; correct?
either Pointt Blue or USFWS representatives. CAW could consider providing PRBO Point
Blue funding to ensure adequate staff for monitoring.

8) Continuous monitoring throughout all oOperationss monitoring is not necessary, since PRBO
Point Blue is already in the Project area for plover nesting season monitoring. Pre-
construction and de-mobilization monitoring will be required.

9) USFWS requested that the avoidance/minimization measures be stated as commitments, not
if necessary in the BA, section 7.3.2,. CAW agreed to include this language in the Project
Description, EA, and MND. Examples include using noise blankets, wire excluders on
electrical panels, working around any spineflower, etc. These are not optional, rather
required.

9)

10) USFWS indicated that its not necessary to revise the BA, provided that these informal
consultation comments are provided to USFWS for their file, and is appropriately reflected in
the EA.

11) Per a subsequent email exchange between Service and Sanctuary staff (i.e., not discussed in
the March 5, 2014, meeting but included here for convenience), the project footprint will be
surveyed for Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens, seacliff buckwheat
(Eriogonum parvifolium) and coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium) in the spring and/or
early summer of the year of project construction. The purpose of these surveys will be to
provide the newest possible information on the locations of these plants, which will then be
avoided during construction. Avoidance will include any known occupied areas discussed in
the BA and any new areas found to be occupied in the new surveys.

10)

Adjourned 3:00

Next Meeting TBD
Comment [b7]: I was not clear where this
language will be incorporated? Is this correct?
Comment [MJ8]: Good
Formatted: List Paragraph, No bullets or
numbering
Comment [MJ9]: Good
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or
numbering
Comment [MJ10]: I added number 11 here to
address the email exchange between Bridget and I of
March 27 and 28. Let me know if anyone has
concerns about this addition.
Comment [MJ11]:
By avoiding the old areas and the new areas (if any)
we can be more certain of not disturbing the seed
bank.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or
numbering

Rare and Endangered Species
Habitat Assessment for the
Slant Test Well Project,
Marina, Monterey County, California
Prepared for
City of Marina
Prepared by
May 2014

Rare and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment
for the
California American Water Slant Test Well Project

Prepared for

City of Marina
211 Hillcrest Avenue
Attn: Theresa Szymanis
(831) 884-1289

Prepared by

Benjamin Hart, Senior Biologist

1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-7095
www.swca.com

SWCA Project No. 26292

May 12, 2014

Cal Am Water Slant Test Well Project Rare and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment
SWCA Environmental Consultants i
CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 HABITAT ASSESSMENT STUDY AREA ................................................................................ 1
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND STUDY AREA ............................................................................ 2
2.2.1 Site Access .......................................................................................................................... 2
2.3 PHASE 1 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................. 5
2.3.1 Project Components ............................................................................................................ 5
2.3.2 Construction Activities ....................................................................................................... 6
2.4 PHASE 2 PROJECT OPERATION ........................................................................................ 13
2.5 PHASE 3 PROJECT DECOMMISSIONING ......................................................................... 14
3 REGULATORY SETTING ............................................................................................................... 14
3.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND POLICY ............................................................................ 14
3.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ...................................................................................... 14
3.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ................................................................................................ 15
3.1.3 Clean Water Act ................................................................................................................ 15
3.1.4 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 .................................................................... 15
3.2 STATE REGULATIONS AND POLICY .................................................................................. 15
3.2.1 State Endangered Species Act .......................................................................................... 15
3.2.2 Other Sections of the California Fish and Game Code ..................................................... 16
3.2.3 Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code ......................................................................... 16
3.2.4 California Coastal Act of 1976 ......................................................................................... 16
3.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS AND POLICY ................................................................................. 16
3.3.1 City of Marina Local Coastal Program ............................................................................. 16
3.3.2 City of Marina Zoning Ordinance ..................................................................................... 18
4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................. 19
5 EXISTING BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 20
5.1 HABITAT TYPES ..................................................................................................................... 20
5.1.1 Coastal Dunes ................................................................................................................... 20
5.1.2 Exposed Sandy Beach ....................................................................................................... 24
5.1.3 Dredge and Settlement Ponds ........................................................................................... 25
5.1.4 Ruderal/Landscaped/Developed ....................................................................................... 26
5.2 RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ................................................................................... 27
6 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY HABITAT ASSESSMENT ........................................................ 35
6.1 HABITAT FOR RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ........................................................ 35
6.1.1 Monterey Spineflower ...................................................................................................... 35
6.1.2 Smiths Blue Butterfly ...................................................................................................... 35
6.1.3 Globose Dune Beetle ........................................................................................................ 37
6.1.4 Snowy Plover .................................................................................................................... 37
6.1.5 Burrowing Owl ................................................................................................................. 37
SWCA Environmental Consultants ii
6.1.6 Black and Silvery Legless Lizards .................................................................................... 37
6.1.7 Coast Horned Lizard ......................................................................................................... 38
6.1.8 Additional Rare and Endangered Plant Species ................................................................ 38
6.2 VERNAL PONDS AND WETLANDS ..................................................................................... 38
6.3 NATIVE DUNE VEGETATION ............................................................................................... 38
6.4 SECONDARY HABITAT AREAS ........................................................................................... 39
7 PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ........................................ 39
7.1 APPLICANT-PROPOSED AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES .................. 43
8 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................... 45
9 LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................................... 46

Figures

Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Study Area Map ............................................................................................................................. 4
Figure 3. Proposed Project Development Plans ............................................................................................ 7
Figure 3a. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 1 of 5) ..................................................................... 8
Figure 3b. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 2 of 5) .................................................................... 9
Figure 3c. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 3 of 5) ................................................................... 10
Figure 3d. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 4 of 5) .................................................................. 11
Figure 3e. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 5 of 5) ................................................................... 12
Figure 4. Slant Test Well Representative Illustration (Not to Scale) ....................................................... 13
Figure 5. Existing Biological Conditions Map ........................................................................................... 21
Figure 6. Primary and Secondary Habitat Map ........................................................................................... 36

Tables

Table 1. Rare and Endangered Plant Species Potential for Occurrence in the Study Area ......................... 28
Table 2. Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Potential for Occurrence in the Study Area ...................... 32
Table 3. Project Consistency with Local Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance Policies ............. 39

Appendices

Appendix A. Local Coastal Land Use Plan Applicable Policies and Guidance

SWCA Environmental Consultants 1
1 INTRODUCTION
California American Water (Cal Am) proposes development of a slant test well in the foredunes of the
City of Marinas (City) coastal area. The slant test well would pump up to 2,500 gallons of water per
minute for a maximum 24-month operational period to provide subsurface field data concerning the
geologic, hydrogeologic, and water quality characteristics of the project site. The data obtained would be
used in the design and planning of a potential subsurface intake system and desalination plant to serve as
the primary future water supply source for the Monterey Peninsula.
The potential future desalination project, known as the Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
(MPWSP), is subject to a separate environmental review and regulatory permitting process currently
being conducted by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), which regulates privately owned
utility companies, including water providers. The MPWSP is not included within the scope of this
document.
This Rare and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment (Habitat Assessment) has been prepared to meet
requirements of the City of Marina Local Coastal Program (LCP). The City of Marina Local Coastal
Program is contained within two volumes. Volume I is the Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP) and
Volume II is the Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (LCPIP). The LCLUP requires a project-
specific habitat assessment prior to development in any areas identified as containing potential habitat for
rare and endangered plant or animal species. The LCPs jurisdictional boundary and the Citys permitting
authority extend to the mean high tide line, but do not apply to areas or activities occurring within the
Pacific Ocean seaward of mean high tide. Therefore, this Habitat Assessment is limited to an assessment
of terrestrial (land-dwelling) species in the area subject to the relevant LCP requirements.
From the mean high tide line out to the 3 nautical mile State waters limit, the California State Lands
Commission (CSLC), California Coastal Commission (CCC), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA
Fisheries) are the primary regulatory permitting agencies. Potential impacts to marine species and/or their
habitats associated with discharge of water from the proposed slant test well into the Pacific Ocean will
be analyzed in environmental clearance documents to be prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
1.1 Habitat Assessment Study Area
Construction, operation, and decommissioning activities and associated increased human presence in the
proposed slant test well (project) area could affect rare and endangered species and their habitats within
and adjacent to the proposed area of disturbance. For the purposes of this report, a Habitat Assessment
Study Area (Study Area) was established to encompass all habitat areas within the LCP jurisdictional
boundary that could be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project. The Study Area includes all
natural and/or man-made features within the project disturbance area and also any features adjacent to the
project that could be indirectly affected by project activities such as wetlands and ponds that are protected
by LCP and CCC policies. The construction footprint, potential temporary disturbance areas, and Study
Area are shown in Figure 2, below.

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Summary
Cal Am proposes the development, operation, and decommissioning of a slant test well that would extend
diagonally under the floor of the Pacific Ocean through the Dunes Sand Aquifer, Salinas Valley Aquitard,
and 180-Foot Aquifer or its equivalent (180-FTE). The slant test well would conduct a temporary
pumping program to test the geologic and hydrogeologic conditions of the site and the water quality
characteristics of the subsurface aquifers. The pumped water would be discharged into the Pacific Ocean
through an existing wastewater outfall pipeline that extends approximately 2 miles offshore from the
project site.
The project would be conducted in three phases: Phase 1 Project Construction; Phase 2 Project
Operation; and Phase 3 Project Decommissioning. The entire project lifetime is estimated to last
approximately 2 to 3 years. Once constructed, the proposed slant test well and related appurtenances
would operate for up to 24 months and would then be decommissioned in accordance with the regulations
of the California Department of Water Resources, as described below.
2.2 Project Location and Study Area
The project would be located in the City of Marina (Marina), an incorporated coastal community in
northwest Monterey County, situated approximately 5 miles west of the City of Salinas and 7 miles
north/northeast of the City of Monterey. The project is proposed in the northwest portion of Marina, at the
site of an existing CEMEX sand mining operation located in the coastal dunes west of Lapis Road and
State Route 1 (Assessors Parcel Number 203-011-019-000). Figures 1 and 2 show the Project Vicinity
and Study Area.
The CEMEX parcel encompasses approximately 400 acres. Of those, approximately 104 acres have
experienced some disturbance associated with sand dredging and mining activities that have occurred at
the site since 1906. Currently, approximately 50 acres experience heavy levels of disturbance associated
with ongoing mining activities. The remainder of the site consists of coastal dune habitat with minimal
levels of disturbance.
The proposed project has been designed to avoid undisturbed areas of dune habitat to the extent feasible
and to utilize areas of the parcel that are currently disturbed by existing mining activities and truck traffic.
The majority of the proposed development would occur within or directly adjacent to an existing graded
access road within the CEMEX facility that is currently used by heavy equipment and trucks on a daily
basis to access various areas on the site. The proposed project area encompasses approximately 5.26 acres
of the 400-acre CEMEX parcel, including a construction footprint of approximately 0.75 acre and
potential temporary disturbance areas of approximately 4.51 acres (collectively referred to as the Project
Area; refer to Figure 2).
2.2.1 Site Access
Site access would be provided via State Route 1, Lapis Road, and the existing internal CEMEX access
road. Parking has not yet been negotiated with the property owner; however, it is anticipated that parking
during all phases of the project would be located within the existing paved CEMEX parking area.

Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
C o p ~ t 0 u.s. GeCIIogicel SUrvey 7 .S Mlnul e Series
(TQPogre.phi') Marint Ouldrngle
0 2 4 unes
SWCA
Project Vici nity Map
Temporary Slant Test Well Proj ect
Figure 2. Study Area Map

Legend
c:J Project Area
c:J Habitat Assessment Study Area

0 100 200 400
N

s
SWCA
EW!RO,MllltTAl COMSUUANTS
Study Area Map
Cali fornia American Water
Temporary Slant Test Well Project
2.3 Phase 1 Project Construction
2.3.1 Project Components
The proposed project includes the construction of the slant test well, as well as up to four vertical
monitoring well clusters to measure changes in groundwater levels and quality during operation of the
slant test well.
The slant test well facilities would include: the slant test well, wellhead vault, and submersible well
pump; test water flow measurement and sampling equipment; test water disposal facilities, including
pipeline connection to an existing ocean outfall via an existing subsurface manhole; temporary
sedimentation tanks; and electrical facilities, including a buried 4-inch conduit that would extend
approximately 0.38-mile east of the slant test well insertion point and connect to an existing power source
near the entrance of the CEMEX site. Figures 3 through 3e, below, show the proposed development plans.
The slant test well wellhead vault and insertion point would be situated approximately 450 feet inland of
the mean sea level shoreline, at an approximate elevation of 25 feet above mean sea level. The slant test
well would be completed using up to 22-inch diameter casing and up to 12-inch diameter screen, and
would be drilled in a westerly direction at an approximate 19-degree angle from horizontal to a length of
1,000 feet, such that the well would terminate at the bottom of the 180-Foot Aquifer. The terminus of the
well would be approximately 500 feet offshore at an estimated depth of 300 feet below mean sea level
(and 290 feet below the surface of the ocean floor). The exact length and angle of the well may be
adjusted based on information obtained through previous exploratory borings and during installation of
the monitoring well clusters. Figure 4, below, provides a representative illustration of the proposed slant
test well.
The wellhead vault would be approximately 5 feet wide, 10 feet long, and 5 feet deep, encompassing a
total area of approximately 250 cubic feet. It would be buried at the slant test well site at an approximate
depth of 5 feet, with the top (cover) of the vault flush with existing surface elevation. The wellhead vault
would hold flow-metering equipment, water quality monitoring equipment, and a sampling station.
Up to four vertical monitoring well clusters would be drilled in order to measure changes in groundwater
levels and water quality during operation of the slant test well. Each monitoring well cluster would
include two or three individual monitoring wells, including two wells drilled at different depths into the
targeted Dune Sand and 180-FTE Aquifers. If a third monitoring well is included in a cluster, it would be
drilled into the 400-Foot Aquifer to evaluate the response of that aquifer to slant test well pumping
activities. The 400-Foot Aquifer would not be pumped during slant test well operations. One of the
monitoring well clusters would be located in the immediate vicinity of the slant test well insertion point,
and the others would be located farther inland, either within the existing CEMEX access road or the
disturbed area at the east end of the project area. The monitoring well clusters would be permitted by
Monterey County Environmental Health and decommissioned upon project completion consistent with
California Department of Water Resources regulations (refer to Section 2.5 below).
The water pumped from the aquifers would be discharged into the Pacific Ocean via an existing ocean
outfall pipeline used by the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) for treated
wastewater disposal. The existing outfall includes a buried 60-inch diameter pipeline that generally
crosses the CEMEX property parallel to and just south of the service road (refer to Figure 3, which shows
the 20-foot wide outfall easement). A 12-inch-diameter discharge pipe would extend approximately 250
feet from the wellhead vault to an existing junction structure located on the MRWPCA outfall. The
discharge pipe would be constructed approximately 3 feet below grade and would connect to the existing
cover on the junction structure pressure lid, which is also currently below surface.
Electrical power for pumping operations would be provided by a new pole-mounted transformer
connected to Pacific Gas & Electrics (PG&Es) existing service near the entrance of the CEMEX site,
located approximately 0.38-mile (2,000 feet) east of the slant test well insertion point. A 4-inch-diameter
buried electrical conduit would be installed to convey power to an aboveground electrical/control panel
located adjacent to the slant test well. The electrical/control panel would be approximately 5 feet tall, 6
feet wide, and 2.5 feet deep.
The proposed project includes a radio telemetry system that would communicate an alarm in the event of
any system malfunction. The telemetry equipment would be mounted in the electrical/control panel and a
radio antenna would extend an additional 2 to 3 feet above the panel.
2.3.2 Construction Activities
Phase 1 of the project would entail construction of all components of the proposed project. Construction
is expected to last approximately 4 to 5 months and would generally include:
drilling and development of the monitoring well clusters
excavation and placement of the wellhead vault
construction of the water discharge piping and outfall connection
drilling and development of the slant test well
completion of initial testing and pumping program
installation of electrical conduit and electrical/control panel
installation of submersible well pump
backfilling of wellhead vault, and
re-grading of the CEMEX access road per property owner requirements
The monitoring wells would be drilled by using a sonic drilling method and the temporary slant test well
would be drilled by using a dual rotary closed system drilling method. Neither method involves the use of
drilling additives.
The water discharge pipeline would be installed approximately 3 feet below grade using an open trench
construction method. Connection to the existing outfall would require locating and excavating the existing
junction structure, which is currently located approximately 3 to 6 feet below surface elevation. Of the
2,000 lineal feet of electrical conduit to be installed, approximately 1,400 feet would be installed
approximately 3 feet below grade predominantly within the existing CEMEX access road using an open
trench construction method. An approximately 600-foot section would be installed through the active
mining area using trenchless construction techniques, with trench input and output portals on both sides
of the mining area as shown in Figures 3d and 3e.
Project construction would result in approximately 0.75-acre of ground disturbance within the Project
Area. This includes areas for construction staging, equipment storage, a portable restroom facility and
hand washing station, a refueling area, and grading and excavated materials storage. The project would
result in the total excavation of approximately 650 cubic yards (yd
3
) of material, including drill tailings.
Approximately 425 yd
3
would be used to backfill previously excavated areas and 225 yd
3
would be
disposed of at an approved landfill site.
Construction would be primarily limited to daylight hours on Mondays through Fridays. However,
development of the slant test well would need to be continuous for between 24 and 72 hours and
additional periods of nighttime construction activities may be necessary during project construction to
avoid conflicts with CEMEX mining operations. It is anticipated that between 7 and 15 personnel would
be required during the construction phase.
Figure 3. Proposed Project Development Plans

>
--
LJ
(J
0
EXIS11NC MANiOli ........_ -
20 FOOT OUTFAil.
EASfMENT
200 100 0 200
I
I
400 600
I
Figwe 3
Figure 3a. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 1 of 5)

40 20 0 40
I
80
I
120
I
flglft 3a
0 DEO !DN 0 CDNOTRUC"DN
------------------------------------
CONSULTING 8!58.ew.5COO FAX8511 GM.ooot - ABF.com
I
Figure 3b. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 2 of 5)

40 20 0 40
I
I
80
I
120
I
Figure 3b
0 DEO ! DN 0 CDN OT R U C "DN

-------------------------------------
CONSULTING 8!58.ew.5COO FAX8511 GM.ooot - ABF.com
Figure 3c. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 3 of 5)

..0
M

I
1.1.1
z
:::::1
:I:
u

i
I
flgll'e 3c
ln'5e ct..AI8IONT loE8A BOllEVAFD. 9I.ATE 00
........ CDNOTAUCTODN
SAN OEOO. CAL.FCfttA
._ ___________________________________ CONSULTING 858.Cl4.5000 wwwltiF.oorn
Figure 3d. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 4 of 5)

I

i

SfN """'"

I
flglft 3d
4o 20 o 4o
80 120
I I I I , CDNOTRUCTODN
------------------------=========:::::_
CONSULTING ase.ew.scoo
Figure 3e. Detailed Project Development Plans (Sheet 5 of 5)

40 20 0 40
I ..._....
I
80
I
120
I
Figwe 3e
0 DEO !DN 0 CDNOTRUC"DN

--------------------------------------
CONSULTING 8!58.ew.5COO FAX8511 GM.ooot -ABF.com
Figure 4. Slant Test Well Representative Illustration (Not to Scale)

2.4 Phase 2 Project Operation
The slant test well would operate continuously (24 hours/day) for a maximum period of up to 24 months.
Routine operation would include continuous extraction of water from the Dune Sand and 180-FTE
aquifers and discharge into the Pacific Ocean via the existing outfall pipe. The water flow rate during the
testing period would vary from 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) to 2,500 gpm. The well screen portion of
the slant test well (the filtering device that serves as the intake portion of the well) would be continuous
through both aquifers and would be designed to allow the Dune Sand and 180-FTE Aquifers to be
separately pumped and analyzed.
One or two well operators would visit the site on a weekly basis to collect water quality samples and
check operation of the well pump, meter, and water quality measurement equipment. The operators would
utilize the existing CEMEX access road to access the monitoring wells and the slant test well during the
operational phase. This phase would also include a one-time repositioning of the packer device that is
used to isolate one aquifer for testing and pumping. This modification would take 2 to 3 days to
accomplish. Equipment and operations required for the repositioning, including temporary laydown of the
pump column, would occur within the original construction footprint shown in Figure 3a.
2.5 Phase 3 Project Decommissioning
At the conclusion of the 24-month operational phase, the slant test well, monitoring well clusters, and all
related appurtenances and infrastructure would be decommissioned and removed. Decommissioning
activities would be restricted to the snowy plover non-nesting season (October 1 through February 28) to
avoid impacts to nesting plovers and other sensitive species. In the event the operational phase is
completed outside of the permissible construction period, then the slant test well and all related facilities
would remain dormant in their existing location, until decommissioning could be completed the following
non-nesting season.
The slant test well and all monitoring wells would be destroyed (sealed) pursuant to the requirements of
State of California Well Standards Bulletin 74-81 and 74 90, Part III Section 23. Applications to destroy
the slant test well and monitoring wells would be submitted to the Monterey County Environmental
Health Bureau, Drinking Water Protection Services Unit, for approval. All well components and
appurtenant facilities and structures would be removed to a depth of 5 vertical feet below ground surface,
and the wells would be sealed with neat cement (or sand-cement) sealing material.
The wellhead vault, electrical/control panel, buried electrical conduit, discharge pipe and outfall
connection would all be excavated and removed, followed by backfilling and compaction of the
excavated vault location and trenches.
All decommissioning activities would occur within the 0.75-acre construction footprint. Re-grading of the
CEMEX access road would be necessary at the conclusion of decommissioning activities consistent with
property owner requirements.
3 REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed project is located within the California Coastal Zone and extends through areas subject to
both original and appellate jurisdiction of the CCC. Development of the project would require compliance
with the California Coastal Act and LCP. The Rare and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment is a
requirement of the Citys LCLUP, and the applicable regulatory standards related to protection of
sensitive species and habitats are generally located within the LCLUP and related local planning
documents. Federal and state regulatory standards and local regulatory plans, policies, and guidelines
specific to protection of species and habitats are described below.
3.1 Federal Regulations and Policy
3.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17)
provides legal protection for plant and animal taxa that are in danger of extinction, and classified as either
threatened or endangered under the FESA. The FESA requires federal agencies to make a finding on all
federal actions, including the approval by an agency of a public or private action, such as the issuance of
an U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as to the
potential to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species potentially impacted by the action.
Section 9 of the FESA protects federally listed plant and animal species from unlawful take. Take is
defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to
engage in any such conduct. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NOAA Fisheries regulate
activities that may result in take of listed species. Federally designated critical habitat is also regulated.
Constraints to listed species resulting from the implementation of a project would require the responsible
agency or individual to consult with the USFWS and/or NOAA Fisheries to determine the extent of
impact to a particular federally listed species. Consultation typically includes preparation of a Biological
Assessment (BA) outlining potential effects to species and critical habitat, and issuance of a Biological
Opinion (BO) from the USFWS and/or NOAA Fisheries that includes measures to avoid or minimize
potential effects.
3.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) protects all migratory birds, including their eggs, nests,
and feathers, and was originally drafted to put an end to the commercial trade in bird feathers, popular in
the latter part of the 1800s. The MBTA is enforced by the USFWS, and potential impacts to species
protected under the MBTA are evaluated by the USFWS in consultation with other federal agencies. For
projects that could impact nesting migratory bird species, pre-disturbance nesting bird surveys are
typically required to identify any active nests, and to establish nest avoidance buffers as appropriate to
minimize potential impacts to nesting migratory birds.
3.1.3 Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 USC 1344), the USACE is responsible for the
issuance of permits for the placement of dredged or fill material into Waters of the U.S. As defined by
USACE at 33 CFR 328.3(a)(parts 1-6), the following summarizes Waters of the U.S.:
Those waters that are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in
interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the
tide; tributaries and impoundments to such waters; all interstate waters including interstate
wetlands; and territorial seas.
Waters of the U.S. are typically identified by the presence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) and
connectivity to traditional navigable waters or other jurisdictional features. If a project would result in
dredge or fill of USACE jurisdictional waters, the project would be subject to USACE review under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
3.1.4 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of 1977
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and its provisions ensure that federally permitted activities comply
with the federal Clean Water Act and state water quality laws. Section 401 is implemented through a
review process that is conducted by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and is
triggered by the Section 404 permitting process. The RWQCB, through the 401 process, certifies that a
proposed project complies with applicable effluent limitations, water quality standards, and other
conditions of California law. Evaluating the effects of the proposed project on both water quality and
quantity falls under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB.
3.2 State Regulations and Policy
3.2.1 State Endangered Species Act
California has a parallel mandate to the FESA, which is embodied in the California Endangered Species
Act of 1984 (CESA) and the Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (NPPA). The CESA ensures legal
protection for plants listed as rare or endangered, and wildlife listed as threatened or endangered. The
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates activities that may result in the take of
such species. The CDFW also maintains a list of California Species of Special Concern (SSC) based on
the limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational, or
educational value of species. Under state law, CDFW is empowered to review projects for their potential
to impact state-listed species and SSC species, and their habitats.
Take of state-listed species would require a Section 2081 incidental take permit from CDFW. This
process requires submittal of a sensitive species study and permit application package, and is similar to
the FESA Section 10 process, except that CDFW is the regulatory and decision-making agency. A CDFW
Section 2081 permit typically has avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation requirements similar to a
federal BO. CDFW may also include compensatory mitigation (mitigation/conservation bank)
requirements for impacts to habitat for listed plants and wildlife.
3.2.2 Other Sections of the California Fish and Game Code
Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Fish and Game
Commission and/or the CDFW. Information on these species can be found within section 3511 (birds),
section 4700 (mammals), section 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and section 5515 (fish) of the Fish and
Game Code.
3.2.3 Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code
Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code requires any person, state, or local government
agency, or public utility proposing a project that may impact a river, stream, or lake to notify the CDFW
before beginning the project. If the CDFW determines that the proposed project may adversely affect
existing aquatic fish and wildlife resources or habitats, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement is
required. A Streambed Alteration Agreement lists the CDFW conditions of approval relative to the
proposed project, and serves as an agreement between an applicant and the CDFW for the performance of
activities subject to this section.
3.2.4 California Coastal Act of 1976
The California Coastal Act (Coastal Act; Public Resources Code [PRC] 30000 et seq.) is intended to
protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone
environment and its natural and artificial resources. By state law, the coastal zone is established by the
California Coastal Commission, which has authority to permit, restrict, or prohibit certain development
within the zone. The Coastal Act mandates protection of public access, recreational opportunities, and
marine and land resources. This umbrella legislation requires local governments to prepare a land use plan
and schedule of implementing actions to carry out the policies of the Coastal Act within local
jurisdictions. This is done through the City of Marinas LCP.
3.3 Local Regulations and Policy
3.3.1 City of Marina Local Coastal Program
Together, the LCLUP and LCPIP comprise the LCP for the City of Marina. The Marina LCLUP sets out
the policy commitments of the City to implement the mandates of the Coastal Commission. The LCLUP
includes guidance to address local coastal program policy, establish and protect public access to and along
the beach, and develop coastal land use designations that are consistent with the policies of the LCLUP
and the California Coastal Act. The LCPIP provides implementation measures to carry out the LCLUP.
The policies and measures contained within the LCLUP and the LCPIP are codified in Chapter 17.41,
Coastal Zoning of the Zoning Ordinance (ZO), and are implemented through compliance with applicable
permit requirements and development standards included in the ZO.
The critical coastal planning issues identified in the LCLUP include: (1) the future of the dunes, including
the role of sand mining; (2) the future of vernal ponds; and (3) the establishment of uses that will be
compatible with the existing environmental sensitive habitat constraints present in the Citys coastal zone
as well as with the California Coastal Act. The policies of the LCLUP and the Coastal Zoning
development standards are designed to address and resolve these issues.
Those directly relevant to the requirement of a Rare and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment are set
out below.
3.3.1.1 APPLICABLE LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN POLICIES AND
GUIDELINES
The LCLUP provides the following standards and guidance regarding the requirement for preparation of a
Rare and Endangered Species Habitat Assessment. Additional relevant policies within the LCLUP are
provided in Appendix A.
Planning Guidelines
Rare and Endangered Species: Habitat Protection
In Marinas Coastal Zone, the foredune, dune and grassy inland areas all contain potential habitat for rare
and endangered plants and animals. The precise range for each plant and animal is not known because
intensive site-specific study throughout the area was not financially possible. However, the potential for
various rare and endangered habitats has been identified and mapped (see Environmental Capability
section) to provide a guide to the locations where more intensive study is required. Because a site-specific
study is needed in many areas before any development can take place, the following policies apply to all
of the areas meeting the definitions of the LCLUPs Exhibit A as being potential habitats for rare and
endangered plants and animals.
Before any use or change in use, areas identified as potential habitat for rare and endangered plant
or animal species shall be investigated by a qualified biologist to determine the physical extent of
the primary habitat areas for the specific rare and endangered plants and animals on that site.
Primary habitat areas shall be protected and preserved against any significant disruption of habitat
values and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. All
development must be sited and designed so as not to interfere with the natural functions of such
habitat areas. Management and enhancement opportunities should be incorporated into use or
development proposals; potential impacts shall be fully mitigated, including the assurance of
long-term mitigation and maintenance of habitat through the use of appropriate acreage
replacement/restoration ratios for any unavoidable direct impacts to habitat areas.
Potential secondary or support habitat areas to the primary habitats identified on the site should
also be defined. Secondary habitat investigation should include identification of the role and
importance of the secondary area to the primary habitat area and should stress the impact of use
or development in the secondary area on the primary habitat. All development in this area must
be designed to prevent significant adverse impacts on the primary habitat areas. In concert with
State law, City Ordinances shall require environmental review and appropriate mitigation of
identified impacts for all development in the Coastal Zone, including the assurance of long-term
mitigation and maintenance of habitat through the use of appropriate acreage
replacement/restoration ratios for any unavoidable direct impacts to habitat areas.
Development in wetlands shall be prohibited. Access for nature observation shall be the only
exception; and this access should not be permitted unless a qualified biologist determines that the
impacts of construction and human observation can be sufficiently mitigated to insure
continuation of the rare and endangered species and/or its habitat.
Available evidence indicates that dune vegetation is more resilient than previously thought, and
areas damaged by illegal use or negligence shall be considered restorable and eligible for
restoration.
Where habitats of rare and endangered species are located on any parcel, owners and/or operators
shall, at such time that development is proposed, develop and execute a Management Plan which
will protect identified rare and endangered plant and animal communities. Each plan should be
drawn up by a qualified biologist in cooperation with the property owner developer.
Exhibit A LCLUP Habitat Definitions
Primary Habitat
This term includes all of the environmentally sensitive areas in Marina. These are as follows:
1. Habitat for all identified plant and animal species which are rare, endangered, threatened, or are
necessary for the survival of an endangered species. These species will be collectively referred to
as rare and endangered.
2. Vernal ponds and their associated wetland vegetation. The Statewide Interpretive Guideline for
Wetlands and Other Wet Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (California Coastal
Commission, February 14, 1981) contains technical criteria for establishing the inland boundary
of wetland vegetation.
3. All native dune vegetation, where such vegetation is extensive enough to perform the special role
of stabilizing Marinas natural sand dune formations.
4. Areas otherwise defined as secondary habitat that have an especially valuable role in an
ecosystem for sensitive plant or animal life, as determined by a qualified biologist approved by
the City [Resolution No. 2001-118 (October 16, 2001); approved by CCC November 14, 2001].
Secondary Habitat
This term refers to areas adjacent to primary habitat areas within which development must be sited and
designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade the primary habitat. The secondary habitat
area will be presumed to include the following, subject to more precise determination upon individual site
investigation:
1. The potential/known localities of rare and endangered plant species as shown on LUP page 71
(Disturbed Vegetation map).
2. The potential wildlife habitats as shown on LUP page 75 (Potential Wildlife map).
3. Any area within 100 feet of the landward boundary of a wetland primary habitat area.
3.3.2 City of Marina Zoning Ordinance
As described in ZO Chapter 17.02, the ZO is a districting and zoning plan, adopted by the City to
promote the public health, safety, peace, morale, comfort, convenience and general welfare, and to
accomplish the following particularly specified purposes: (1) to assist in providing a definite plan of
development for the City, and to guide, control and regulate the future growth of the City in accordance
with that plan; (2) to protect the character and the social and economic stability of agricultural, residential,
commercial, industrial, and other areas within the City and to assure the orderly and beneficial
development of such areas; and (3) to implement the Citys coastal program.
3.3.2.1 APPLICABLE ZONING ORDINANCE STANDARDS
Section 17.41.070 Habitat Protection
A. Much of the Marina Coastal Zone either is environmentally sensitive because of the presence of
rare and endangered species or has the potential for supporting a rare and endangered species. In
Marina, environmentally sensitive habitats include, but are not limited to areas of undisturbed
native dune vegetation, vernal ponds, and vernal pond wetlands. The potential habitat map in the
LCLUP reveals areas where such plant and animal habitats are to be found. The precise limits of
such habitats shall be confirmed by professional on-site evaluation at the time development is
proposed and before a coastal development permit is issued.
B. In additional to indicating the location of primary habitat areas for rare and endangered plant and
animal species (which are to be protected), the evaluation shall address protective measures, such
as setbacks, restoration of habitat areas where natural dune landform remains, and limitations to
uses in secondary and/or support areas which are necessary to the health of the identified primary
habitat area. Because of the variety of plants and animals involved, the secondary or support area
will have to be individually identified and specifically protected on a site-by-site or case-by-case
basis.
C. In the case of wetlands, the biologists will have to determine the extent and landward boundary of
the wetland. The biologist will then establish a one-hundred-foot setback line from the boundary
of the wetland. This entire area, pond, wetland and setback, will be subject to coastal
development permit requirements as well as being in the coastal permit appeal zone.
D. In the case of dune habitat areas, the environmental analysis report prepared for this plan
identified a number of plant and animal species which are locally or generally rare, endangered,
threatened, or are necessary for the survival of an endangered species. The habitats of these
species, collectively referred to throughout this plan as rare and endangered, warrant protection
as environmentally sensitive.
Section 17.41.110 Definitions
Disturbed Area
Disturbed area means terrain that has been substantially altered by erosion, grading, mining, excavation
or other natural or man-made causes to the extent that none or very little of the native vegetation and/or
natural landform remains.
4 METHODOLOGY
Preparation of this Habitat Assessment included analysis of biological resources, primary habitats, and
secondary habitats that may occur within the Study Area based on the results of a literature review and
several field surveys conducted by Zander Associates, Environmental Science Associates (ESA), and
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA). SWCA conducted the literature review, which consisted of
a query of the CDFW California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and a peer review of existing
biological documents, including the Technical Memorandum Biological Resources Assessment,
MPWSP Temporary Slant Test Well Project (Zander 2013) and Memorandum Special Status Species
within the Vicinity of the Proposed Test Well Sites, Marina, CA (ESA 2012). The CNDDB query resulted
in a list of rare and endangered species that have been documented and are known to occur within the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Marina 7.5-minute quadrangle. The results of the CNDDB search were
evaluated to determine the potential for occurrence of rare and endangered species within the Study Area.
In addition, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Vascular Plants of California (2013) was reviewed to provide additional information on rare plants that
have potential to occur in the area.
Following the literature review, SWCA Biologist Barrett Holland conducted a field survey on November
13, 2013. Mr. Holland walked through the accessible portions of the Study Area to observe and document
existing habitat conditions and biological resources. Plant communities and special-status biological
resources were mapped with a Trimble GeoXT Global Positioning System (GPS) unit capable of sub-
meter accuracy. Observed plant communities and habitat types were classified according to the
Preliminary Description of Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986) and the CDFW,
and were also classified with reference to the Statewide Interpretive Guideline for Wetlands and Other
Wet Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (CCC 1981). Plant species observed were identified based
on The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd Edition (Baldwin 2012). Although plant
species observed were documented in order to characterize surrounding habitats, a full floristic inventory
was not compiled, as the habitat assessment survey did not span the entire blooming period for many rare
and endangered plant species that have potential to occur in the region.
5 EXISTING BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
The Study Area is located at the existing CEMEX sand mining operation in the northwest portion of
Marina. Portions of the Study Area currently experience heavy levels of disturbance associated with
ongoing mining activities. The remainder generally consists of coastal dune habitat with minimal levels of
disturbance. Elevation within the Study Area ranges from approximately 0 to 60 feet (0 to 18 meters).
Soils within the Study Area consist predominantly of dune land (Df), with small areas of coastal beaches
(Cm) along the shoreline and Baywood sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes (BbC), in the developed areas at the
eastern end of the Study Area.
5.1 Habitat Types
Plant communities and habitat types observed in the Study Area include coastal dunes, exposed sandy
beach, open water/wetlands in dredge and settlement ponds, and ruderal/landscaped/disturbed areas
associated with mining activities. These habitat areas are shown in Figure 5, Existing Biological
Conditions Map, and discussed below.
5.1.1 Coastal Dunes
Active coastal dunes are often characterized by a lack of stabilizing vegetation and are typically foredunes
and back dune scrub areas overrun by sand movement (Holland 1986). Due to the ongoing disturbances
and edge-related effects associated with the sand dredging and mining activities, coastal dunes within the
Study Area are heavily dominated by iceplant (Carpobrotus spp.) (refer to Photo 1). However, remnant
central dune scrub plants are scattered throughout the Study Area. Central dune scrub species observed in
surveyed areas include mock heather (Ericameria ericoides), sagewort (Artemisia pycnocephala),
common sand aster (Corethrogyne filaginifolia), silver dune lupine (Lupinus chammisonis), and deerweed
(Acmispon glaber) (refer to Photo 2). Other less dominant species observed include beach-bur (Ambrosia
chammisonis), beach knotweed (Polygonum paronychia), golden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum),
beach evening primrose (Camissonia cheiranthifolia), coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium) (refer to
Photo 3), live-forever (Dudleya caespitosa), sand verbena (Abronia latifolia), and Nuttals milk-vetch
(Astragalus nuttallii var. nuttallii). The colonization of these plant species appears to be hindered by the
dominance of iceplant on the dunes and from the continuous movement of beach sand by prevailing
winds and/or as a result of past mining activities. No areas of considerable vegetative cover of these
species were observed in the Study Area; therefore, no areas are classified as central dune scrub, a CDFW
sensitive community.
Figure 5. Existing Biological Conditions Map

N
~
W ~ SWCA
---==::::::J _____ Feet
400 0 100 200 H-IVI RO NMENTAL CONSULTANTS
s
Legend
Coastal Dunes
Dredge and Settlement Ponds
Ruderai/Landscaped/Disturbed
Sandy Beach
Sensi tive Species
[2J Plover Nest Locations Before 2010
+ Failed Plover Nest s 2010
0 Failed Plover Nests 2012
Coastal buckwheat
D Spineflower
NRCS Soils
BbC- Baywood sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes
Of- Dune land
OaD- Ocean loamy sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes
W- Water
Existing Biological Conditions


Foredunes are the portion of a sand dune system nearest to the ocean and are often dominated by
perennial grasses and low-growing succulent herbs that are typically less than 10 centimeters tall (Holland
1986). These low-growing vegetation areas are important for dune stabilization. Sea rocket (Cakile
maritima), beach evening primrose, salt scale (Atriplex leucophylla), beach morning-glory (Calystegia
soldanella), European beach grass (Ammophila arenaria), and croton (Croton californicus) were
observed in the foredunes of the Study Area (refer to Photos 5 and 6).
Photo 1. View of coastal dunes at west end of
access road looking east. Note dense iceplant
and dune lupine (see arrow).
Photo 2. View of coastal dunes at west end of
access road looking southeast. Note flume that
carries dredge material from the facility to the
settlement ponds (see arrow).

Photo 3. View of coastal dunes adjacent to the
outfall easement and just south of the access
road looking west. Note mock heather shrubs
and iceplant.
Photo 4. View of a small population of coast
buckwheat in coastal dunes at west end of the
access road looking west (see arrow).

Photo 5. View of foredune vegetation located at
the western terminus of the access road (see
arrow).
Photo 6. View of exposed sandy beach
transitioning to foredunes at west end of Study
Area.

5.1.2 Exposed Sandy Beach
Exposed sandy beach habitat includes the sandy beach areas above the mean high tide line. Within the
Study Area, this includes the beach areas at the west end of the proposed project site surrounding the
dredge pond and extending to the foredunes (refer to Photos 7 and 8). Exposed sandy beach areas are
unvegetated, but include some of the species that occur in the adjacent foredunes as well as miscellaneous
debris that has washed up onto the shore from the ocean during high tide (e.g., driftwood, kelp).
Photo 7. View of exposed sandy beach at west
end of Project Area.
Photo 8. View of exposed sandy beach and
dredge pond at west end of Project Area.

5.1.3 Dredge and Settlement Ponds
Several ponds associated with the CEMEX sand mining operation are present within the Study Area.
These include a large dredge pond and three smaller settlement ponds located north of the proposed slant
test well insertion point; one periodically inundated drainage and pond area extending northeast from the
three settlement ponds that appear to be used to drain excess water from the settlement ponds; and one
settlement pond located north of the access road adjacent to the active mining areas. The top of bank of
the five permanent ponds was mapped as part of this Habitat Assessment and is shown on Figure 5. The
periodic drainage was not inundated at the time surveys were conducted; therefore, its boundaries have
been defined based on a review of current and historic aerial imagery.
The CCC defines wetlands as lands that contain any one of the three indicators for wetlands used by the
USACE to delineate wetland areas, including hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, or wetland hydrology.
The dredge and settlement ponds are likely to be considered coastal wetlands by the CCC due to the
presence of wetland hydrology (i.e., connectivity between the ponds and the ocean and the presence of
surface water).
Vegetation observed around the settlement ponds consists primarily of iceplant down to the existing
OHWM (refer to Photos 9 and 10 below). A few pickleweed plants (Salicornia virginica) were observed
along the OHWM of the southernmost settlement pond closest to the slant test well insertion point. This
species is not considered a hydrophytic plant species per the 2012 National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar
2012). No hydrophytic vegetation was observed around any of the settlement ponds, likely due to varying
water levels and unfavorable soil conditions. Little to no vegetation was observed in the exposed sandy
beach area surrounding the dredge pond; however, sea rocket and salt scale plants were observed
sporadically around its perimeter.
Photo 9. View of settlement ponds located just
north of the proposed slant test well insertion
point. Note iceplant vegetation.
Photo 10. View of the largest of the settlement
ponds located just north of the proposed slant
test well insertion point. Note iceplant
vegetation.

5.1.4 Ruderal/Landscaped/Developed
The Study Area encompasses areas that have been heavily disturbed by long-term mining uses, including
developed areas that include the CEMEX sand processing plant, accessory structures, parking areas and
other infrastructure located near the plant entrance. Ruderal and developed habitats are typically found in
disturbed areas that have been significantly altered by construction, landscaping, access roads, or other
types of land-clearing or disturbing activities. Ruderal vegetation exists south of the parking lot at the east
end of the Study Area (refer to Photo 11). Species observed growing in this area included non-native
grasses and forbs such as ripgut (Bromus diandrus), slender oats (Avena barbata) sow thistle (Sonchus
asper), rattail fescue (Fescue myuros), iceplant (Carpobrotus spp.), plantain (Plantago coronopus), sour
clover (Melilotus indica), and bur clover (Medicago polymorph). The access roads within the Study Area
along with other developed areas experience regular grading and disturbance, and as such vegetation is
sparse or absent (refer to Photo 12 below).
Landscaped vegetation in the Study Area includes several windrows of Monterey cypress
(Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) located in areas along the perimeter
of the site entrance in the easternmost portion of the Study Area.
The Study Area includes developed habitat at the active CEMEX sand mining plant. Access was
restricted in this area during the field survey due to safety around heavy equipment operations. Although
no pedestrian surveys were performed within this area, the habitat was assessed based on visual
inspection of the area from surrounding vantage points and review of historic aerial photos. This area is
subject to a high level of disturbance from ongoing mining activities, which largely eliminates the
potential for any stable habitat development or permanent wildlife presence. Based on visual inspection of
the area, it is likely comprised of beach and/or dune sand that has blown in naturally or has been moved
around by mining equipment (refer to Photo 13). This area is heavily disturbed and unlikely to support
special-status vegetation or wildlife.
Photo 11. View of Monterey cypress and
eucalyptus windrows and ruderal areas located
south of the entrance to the CEMEX parcel.
Photo 12. View of developed habitat along
graded access road.

Photo 13. View of active mining areas from the
access road looking southwest.

5.2 Rare and Endangered Species
Tables 1 and 2 below describe the rare and endangered plant and wildlife species known to exist in the
project vicinity, and provide a description of suitable habitat for the species and an analysis of their
potential to occur within the Study Area. The species lists were developed based on the rare and
endangered species documented in the Technical Memorandum Biological Resources Assessment,
MPWSP Temporary Slant Test Well Project (Zander 2013), the LCLUP, the Memorandum Special
Status Species within the Vicinity of the Proposed Test Well Sites, Marina, CA (ESA 2012), and the
results of the CNDDB and CNPS queries (CNDDB 2013, CNPS 2013).

Table 1. Rare and Endangered Plant Species Potential for Occurrence in the Study Area
Species Name
Habitat and
Distribution
Blooming
Period
Legal Status
Federal/
State/CNPS
Rationale for Expecting
Presence or Absence
sandmat manzanita
Low growing evergreen shrub that occurs
on sandy soils in maritime chaparral,
coastal dunes, and openings within
Monterey pine forest. 3 to 205 meters
February-March --/--/1B.2
Potential to occur, not observed: Though
coastal dune habitat and sandy soils are
present in the in the proposed slant test
study area (study area) for this species, this
species was not identified during botanical
surveys of the study area (Zander 2013) or
during surveys conducted in the project
vicinity in 2012 (ESA 2012).
coastal dunes milk-vetch
Annual herb occurs in coastal bluff scrub,
coastal dunes, and coastal prairie. Often in
vernally mesic areas. 1 to 50 meters.
March-May FE/SE/1B.1
Not expected: Coastal dune habitat and
sandy soils are present in the study area for
this species; however, populations of this
species are limited to one location along 17-
Mile Drive in Pebble Beach (USFWS 2009).
Species not identified during botanical
Seaside painted cup
Castilleja latifolia
Perennial herb that occurs on sandy soils in
closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane
woodland (openings), coastal dunes, and
coastal scrub. 0 to 185 meters.
February-
September
--/--/4.3
present in the study area, this species was
not identified during botanical surveys of the
study area (Zander 2013) or during surveys
conducted in the project vicinity in 2012
(ESA 2012).
Monterey spineflower
Chorizanthe pungens var.
pungens
Annual herb occurs in chaparral,
cismontane woodland, coastal dunes,
coastal scrub, and valley and foothill
grassland on sandy soils. 3 to 450 meters.
April-June FT, CH/--/1B.2
Present: Species observed and mapped
within the study area (Zander 2013). Critical
habitat for this species is located south of
the study area at Marina State Beach/dunes
preservation area (USFWS 2014).
Species Name
Habitat and
Distribution
Blooming
Period
Legal Status
Federal/
State/CNPS
Presence or Absence
robust spineflower
Chorizanthe robusta var.
robusta
cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, and
coastal scrub with sandy or gravelly soils. 3
to 300 meters.
April-
September
FE, CH/--/1B.1
Not expected: Though coastal dune habitat
and sandy soils are present in the study
area, CNDDB occurrence information
indicates that this population is in question
due to voucher specimens not being
collected to support the identification of the
species (CNDDB 2013). Species not
identified during botanical surveys of the
conducted in the project vicinity (ESA 2012).
seaside birds-beak
Cordylanthus rigidus ssp.
littoralis
Annual herb occurs in closed-cone
coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub
with sandy soils. Often found in disturbed
sites. 0 to 425 meters.
April-October --/SE/1B.1
Not expected: Though coastal dune habitat
and sandy soils are present in the study
area, occurrence information indicates that
this species was last seen in 1941, 1-mile
north of Seaside, between Highway 1 and
the Ocean (CNDDB 2013). Species not
identified during botanical surveys of the
(ESA 2012).
Sea cliff buckwheat
Eriogonum parvifolium
Perennial herb, that occurs on coastal
dunes in Monterey County. Species not
protected; however, is a known host plant
for the federally endangered Smiths blue
butterfly, which feeds, mates, and lays their
eggs on the flower heads.
May-September --/--/LCLUP
conducted in the project vicinity (ESA 2012).
Coast buckwheat
Eriogonum latifolium
Perennial herb, that occurs on coastal
dunes in Monterey County. Species not
protected; however, is a known host plant
for the federally endangered Smiths blue
butterfly, which feeds, mates, and lays their
eggs on the flower heads.
May-September --/--/LCLUP
Present: This species was observed and
mapped by SWCA biologists during the
assessment. Species also observed during
botanical surveys of the study area by
Zander in 2013.
Species Name
Habitat and
Distribution
Blooming
Period
Legal Status
Federal/
State/CNPS
Presence or Absence
Eastwoods goldenbush
Ericameria fasciculata
Perennial shrub occurs in closed-cone
coniferous forest, chaparral, coastal dunes,
and coastal scrub. Within openings on
sandy soil. 30 to 275 meters.
July-October --/--/1B.1
Potential to occur, not observed: Coastal
dune habitat and sandy soils are present in
the study area for this species. However,
this species was not identified during
botanical surveys of the study area (Zander
2013) or during surveys conducted in the
project vicinity in 2012 (ESA 2012).
coast wallflower
Erysimum ammophilum
Perennial herb occurs in chaparral, coastal
dunes, and coastal scrub with sandy soils
and openings. 0 to 60 meters.
February-June --/--/1B.2
study area (Zander 2013). Species is known
to occur in the Marina State Beach/ dune
preservation area located south of the study
area and has been documented in the
project vicinity (ESA 2012).
Yadons wallflower
Erysimum menziesii ssp.
yadonii
Perennial herb occurs in coastal dunes. 0 to
35 meters.
March-June FE/SE/1B.1
study area (Zander 2013). Species known to
occur in the Marina State Beach/ dune
preservation area and in the project vicinity
(ESA 2012).
Monterey gilia
Gilia tenuiflora ssp.
arenaria
cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, and
coastal scrub in sandy soil with openings. 0
to 45 meters.
April-June FE/ST/1B.2
study area (Zander 2013). Species is known
to occur in the Marina State Beach/ dune
preservation area located south of the study
area (ESA 2012).
Species Name
Habitat and
Distribution
Blooming
Period
Legal Status
Federal/
State/CNPS
Presence or Absence
Kelloggs horkelia
Horkelia cuneata ssp.
sericea
Perennial herb. Occurs in closed-cone
coniferous forest, maritime chaparral, and
coastal scrub with sandy or gravelly
openings. 10 to 200 meters.
April-
September
--/--/1B.1
Not expected: Though sandy soils are
present, suitable coastal scrub habitat for
this species is not present in the study area.
Species not identified during botanical
Bush lupine (Lupinus spp.)
Perennial herbs. Bush lupines (L.
chammisonis & L. arboreus) are common
along the Monterey County shoreline;
however, neither is protected. Included in
Marina LCLUP because of their association
with legless lizards, a California species of
special concern (SSC).
April-July --/--/LCLUP
Present: Lupinus chammisonis shrubs were
observed by SWCA biologists during the
assessment on both sides of the access
road within the study area.
Tidestroms lupine
Lupinus tidestromii
Rhizomatous herb occurs on coastal dunes.
0 to 100 meters.
April-June FE/SE/1B.1
(ESA 2012).
General references: CDFW 2013, Baldwin et al 2012, CNDDB 2013, CNPS 2013
Status Codes
-- No status
Federal:
FE = Federal Endangered
FT = Federal Threatened
CH = Federal Critical Habitat

State:
SE = State Endangered
ST= State Threatened
SR= State Rare

LCLUP = City of Marina Local Coastal Land Use Plan
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rank:
1B = rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
2 = rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.
3 = plants that about which more information is needed.
4 = a watch list plants of limited distribution.

Threat Code:
.1 = Seriously endangered I California (over 80% of occurrences threatened
.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened)
.3 = Not very endangered I California (<20% of occurrences threatened)

Table 2. Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Potential for Occurrence in the Study Area
Species Name
Habitat and
Distribution
Legal Status
Federal/State
Presence or Absence
Amphibians
California red-legged frog
Rana draytonii
Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent or
seasonal deep ponds, streams, marshes and
occasionally ponds with dense, shrubby or
emergent riparian vegetation. Also grasses and
slow moving streams.
FT/--/SSC
Not expected: Aquatic habitat within the study area
is not suitable freshwater aquatic habitat for this
species. Nearest known occurrence of this species is
from the Salinas River north of the study area
(CNDDB 2013).
Fishes
tidewater goby
Brackish water habitats along the California coast
from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego County,
to the mouth of the Smith River, Del Norte
County. Found in shallow lagoons and lower
stream reaches, they need fairly still but not
stagnant water and high oxygen levels.
FE/--/SSC
Not expected: Aquatic habitat within the study area
does not contain brackish water habitat for this
species. Nearest known occurrence of this species is
from the mouth of the Salinas River, north of the
study area (CNDDB 2013).
Birds
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor
Nesting colony; requires open water, protected
nesting substrate such as cattails or tall rushes,
and foraging area with insect prey.
MBTA/--/SSC
Not expected: Suitable habitat (i.e., cattails and tall
rushes) was not observed within the study area for
this species.
western snowy plover
Charadrius nivosus nivosus
Federal listing applies to nesting sites of pacific
coastal populations only. For nesting, require
sandy, gravelly or friable soils that are found on
sandy beaches, salt pond levees and shores of
large alkali lakes. Winter roosting sites often
based on history.
FT, CH, MBTA /--
/SSC
Present: Suitable nesting and wintering habitat for
this species is present in the study area. Critical
habitat has been designated by USFWS for this
species in the project vicinity and in the study area
(USFWS 2013).
California horned lark
Occurs in short grass prairies, coastal plains,
fallow grain fields and alkali flats. Found in
coastal regions from Sonoma to San Diego
Counties, and west to the San Joaquin Valley.
MBTA/--/--
Not expected: Suitable habitat was not observed
within the study area for this species.
Species Name
Habitat and
Distribution
Legal Status
Federal/State
Presence or Absence
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
Ground nester in open dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts and scrublands with low-
growing vegetation, depends on burrowing
mammals (i.e. California ground squirrel).
MBTA/--/SSC
Potential to occur: The coastal dune areas within
and outside the study area provide marginal habitat
for wintering burrowing owls. No owls were physically
observed during the assessment; however, the
presence of ground squirrels and the low growing
vegetation in the study area has the potential to
support this species in the winter months. The
nearest burrowing owl occurrence is 1.65 miles
southeast of the project area (CNDDB 2013).
Class Aves
Other migratory bird species
(nesting)
Birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
may nest in urban habitats, windrows, non-native
annual grasslands, coastal dunes, and coastal
scrub habitats. The typical nesting period is from
mid-March to mid-September.
MBTA/--/ CDFW
Code Section
3503
Potential to occur: Coastal dunes, windrows,
existing exposed sandy beach/foredunes, and pond
areas may provide nesting habitat.
Invertebrates
globose dune beetle
Coelus globosus
Extensive geographic range along coastal
California but habitat is restricted to foredunes
immediately bordering these in open or sparsely
vegetated loose sand above the mean high tide
line
--/--/LCLUP
Potential to occur: Suitable foredune habitat is
present at the western terminus of the study area for
this species.
Smiths blue butterfly
Most commonly found in coastal dunes and
coastal sage scrub plant communities in
Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties. Found in
association with host plant, Eriogonum latifolium
and Eriogonum parvifolium, which are utilized as
both larval and adult food plants.
FE/--/SSC
Potential to occur: Eriogonum latifolium was
observed on the north side of the access road within
the study area during the assessment. E. latifolium is
also known to occur in the Marina State Beach / dune
preservation area located south of the study area and
has been documented in the project vicinity (ESA
2012).
Mammals
Salinas kangaroo rat
Dipodomys heermanni
goldmani
Known to occur in grasslands, fallow agriculture
fields and other upland habitats.
--/--/LCLUP
within the study area for this species.
Salinas harvest mouse
Reithrodontomys megalotis
dsitichlis
Occurs in fresh and brackish water wetlands in
the Monterey Bay area.
--/--/SA
within the study area for this species. Habitat for this
species likely occurs in close proximity to the Salinas
River.
Species Name
Habitat and
Distribution
Legal Status
Federal/State
Presence or Absence
Reptiles
western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
Requires aquatic habitats with permanent or
persistent water and protected areas for basking
such as partially submerged rocks or logs,
floating vegetation mats or open mud banks.
--/--/SSC
Not expected: Suitable aquatic habitat was not
observed for this species. Nearest known occurrence
of this species is from the Salinas River north of the
study area (CNDDB 2013).
coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii

Frequents a wide variety of habitats, mostly
common in lowlands along sandy washes with
scattered low bushes. Open areas for sunning,
bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial
and abundant supply of ants and other insects.
--/--/SSC
Potential to occur: Suitable dune habitat is present
throughout the study area for this species. Nearest
known occurrence approximately 1.65 miles
southeast of the study area.
silvery legless lizard
Anniella pulchra pulchra
Sandy or loose loamy soils with high moisture
content under sparse vegetation. Known to be
found under legumes such as deerweed and
bush lupines. Species has also known to be
found under iceplant.
--/--/SSC
Potential to occur: Suitable dune habitat, sandy
soils and vegetation (i.e., deerweed, dune lupine, and
iceplant) is present throughout the study area for this
species.
black legless lizard
Anniella pulchra nigra
Sandy or loose loamy soils with high moisture
content under sparse vegetation. Known to be
found under legumes such as deerweed and
bush lupines. Species has also known to be
found under iceplant.
--/--/SSC
Potential to occur: Suitable dune habitat, sandy
soils and vegetation (i.e., deerweed, dune lupine, and
iceplant) is present throughout the study area for this
species.
General references: Unless otherwise noted all habitat and distribution data provided by California Natural Diversity Database
Status Codes
--= No status
Federal:
FE = Federal Endangered
FT= Federal Threatened
FC= Federal Candidate
CH= Federal Critical Habitat
PCH= Proposed Federal Critical Habitat
MBTA= Protected by Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
State:
SE= State Endangered
ST= State Threatened

California Department of Fish and Wildlife:
SSC= California Special Concern Species
FP= Fully Protected Species
SA= Not formally listed but included in CDFW Special Animal List.

6 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY HABITAT ASSESSMENT
The LCLUP requires that the physical extent of any primary and secondary habitat areas be determined
prior to any use or change in use in the Coastal Zone. Generally, the LCLUP graphics (LCLUP Figures 5,
6, 7, and 9; refer to Appendix A) indicate that the actively mined areas within the CEMEX site (formerly
Lonestar) were intended to be excluded from the definition of Primary Habitat, as the boundary of
identified Potential Wildlife Habitat appears to generally mimic the areas of heavy disturbance at the site.
However, the coastal dune areas immediately surrounding the existing mining activities are identified as
having the potential for supporting habitat for rare and endangered species (refer to Appendix A). The
Study Area is generally located along a margin of habitat transition, with heavy dredging and mining
activities north of the proposed project access road and less-disturbed vegetated dune habitat south of the
access road.
Primary and secondary habitat areas were determined based on LCLUP definitions and guidance, and
based on existing biological conditions observed in the Study Area. Previous survey results of the Study
Area and project vicinity were also incorporated to determine primary and secondary habitat areas. Figure
6 identifies all areas determined to contain primary or secondary habitat, as discussed below.
6.1 Habitat for Rare and Endangered Species
The following species were determined to have the greatest potential to occur in the Study Area based on
documented occurrences or observations in the project vicinity. The Study Areas potential to contain
primary habitat for each species is discussed below.
6.1.1 Monterey Spineflower
Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens) is federally threatened under the FESA and is
considered a CNPS 1B.2 ranked plant species (rare, threatened, or endangered in California and
elsewhere). Critical habitat for this species has been designated south of the Study Area at Marina State
Beach. Monterey spineflower is an annual species and is known to thrive in shifting sand dune areas as
well as areas that have been disturbed by land-clearing activities. Botanical surveys conducted by Zander
Associates in April 2013 identified this species along the perimeter of the active mining area and along
the north and south sides of the access road (refer to Figure 5). Coastal dune areas and/or previously
mined areas that are not consistently disturbed may support Monterey spineflower. Because the species
thrives in moving sand and areas of disturbance, it is unknown where new populations of Monterey
spineflower may establish. Therefore, coastal dunes in the Study Area and areas that arent continually
mined should be considered primary habitat for this species.
6.1.2 Smiths Blue Butterfly
The federally endangered Smith's blue butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes smithi) feeds, mates, and lays its
eggs on the flower heads of seacliff and coast buckwheat. Several coast buckwheat plants were observed
emerging out of dense iceplant within the Study Area and have been observed in the coastal dune areas to
the north and south of the Project Area (CNDDB 2013). Based on personal communications with Mike
Zander of Zander Associates, occurrences of this species were prolific in the area north of the access road
during surveys conducted in September 2012 and March 2013. Coast buckwheat locations indicate
suitable habitat for Smiths blue butterflies since they support the species during its life cycle. Removal of
any of the coast buckwheat plants found in the Study Area could result in take of the eggs and larvae of
the Smith blue butterfly; therefore, coast buckwheat population areas should be considered a primary
habitat area for the species. As coast buckwheat has been documented in coastal dune areas both within
and surrounding the Study Area, including in previously disturbed mining areas dominated by iceplant,
the entire area of coastal dune habitat is considered primary habitat for this species.
Figure 6. Primary and Secondary Habitat Map

, IGP, and the GIS User Conomunitv.
--====----Feet
0 100 200 400 SWCA
ENVIRONMENT!I.l CONSULTA.NTS
c:J Project Area
D Habitat Assessment Study Area
- - - Mean High Tide Line
Primary and Secondary Habitats
6.1.3 Globose Dune Beetle
The Globose dune beetle (Coelus globosus) is not protected by the FESA or CESA; however, is included
in the LCLUP. This species has an extensive geographic range along coastal California but habitat is
restricted to foredunes in open or sparsely vegetated loose sand above the mean high tide line. Suitable
foredune habitat is present in the Study Area for this species; however, this species has an extensive range
and the proposed project activities are not likely to jeopardize the survival of the species. The foredunes
in the exposed sandy beach area are considered primary habitat for this species; however, Globose dune
beetle may no longer constitute a rare and endangered species under the LCLUP definition.
6.1.4 Snowy Plover
While the inland population of the western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus) is not protected by
either the FESA or CESA, the coastal population is listed under the FESA as federally threatened, is
considered a SSC by the CDFW, and is protected by the MBTA. The Pacific coast population is
genetically isolated from western snowy plovers breeding in the interior, and is defined to include those
individuals that nest adjacent to or near tidal waters. Nesting season extends from early March through
late September. Fledging of late-season broods may extend into the third week of September throughout
the breeding range. Nests typically occur in flat, open areas, with sandy or saline substrates, with
vegetation and driftwood usually sparse or absent. Snowy plovers are primarily visual foragers, feeding
on invertebrates in the wet sand and among surf-cast kelp within the intertidal zone, in dry, sandy areas,
above the high tide line. Both resident and migratory individuals compose the coastal snowy plover
population. Suitable nesting and foraging habitat is present in the Study Area and there are known
occurrences of this species in the Study Area adjacent to the dredge pond, in the foredune areas, on the
western edge of the coastal dune areas, and on the exposed sandy beach. Critical habitat has been
designated for western snowy plovers in the project vicinity and in the Study Area (USFWS 2013). The
beach adjacent to the proposed project footprint has been identified as important nesting and wintering
habitat for snowy plover as a result of nearly 30 years of monitoring of this species by Point Blue (a
conservation science organization that has been monitoring snowy plovers along the California Coast
since the mid-1970s). Nesting data is depicted in Figure 5, above. All suitable habitat areas for this
species are considered primary habitat per the LCLUP; this includes open sandy beach areas, foredunes,
and coastal dune areas adjacent to the beach.
6.1.5 Burrowing Owl
The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is considered a SSC species by CDFW and is protected by the
MBTA. Burrowing owls may use a site for migration stopovers, breeding, wintering, or foraging.
CNDDB occurrence information indicates that owls have been observed wintering in close proximity to
the Study Area (1.65 miles southeast of the Study Area) and there is one historic record of nesting in the
vicinity. No burrowing owls or signs of owls (i.e., burrows, feathers, pellets, or white wash) were
observed during the assessment; however, the presence of ground squirrels, man-made structures (i.e.,
pipes, culverts and junk piles), and low growing vegetation in the Study Area provides marginal wintering
habitat for this species. Since burrowing owls are transient in nature and there is suitable foraging habitat
to the north and south of the Study Area, the coastal dune areas could be considered primary habitat for
this species if owls are present or observed at some time during the year. However, burrowing owls are
not likely to nest in the coastal dune areas; therefore, coastal dunes could also be considered secondary
habitat for this species.
6.1.6 Black and Silvery Legless Lizards
The California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) is considered a SSC species by CDFW. It is an elusive,
fossorial (sub-surface), coastally distributed lizard ranging from the San Francisco Bay area southward
into northern Mexico (Zeiner et al., 1990). Suitable habitat includes loose sandy soils of coastal dune,
valley foothill woodland, chaparral, and coastal scrub areas, where the species forages at the bases of
vegetation and under leaf litter. Legless lizards are known to be found under legumes such as deerweed
and silver dune lupine, but have also been found beneath iceplant and other vegetation in the absence of
legumes. Two subspecies of legless lizard are recognized in California: silvery legless lizard (A. p.
pulchra), and black legless lizard (A. p. nigra). Based on CNDDB occurrence information and the
presence of sandy soils, dune lupine, deerweed, and iceplant in the Study Area, both of these subspecies
have the potential to occur in all vegetated areas within the Study Area. Areas of vegetated coastal dunes
are considered primary habitat since they have the potential to support these two species.
6.1.7 Coast Horned Lizard
The coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii) is considered a SSC species by CDFW. The range of the
species extends from northern California to the tip of Baja California. This species typically occupies
open country, especially sandy areas, washes, flood plains, and wind-blown deposits, in a wide variety of
habitats including sand dunes. The open sandy areas within the Study Area provide suitable sunning
habitat for this species, and central dune scrub plants located to the north and south of the access roads
provide escape cover. The nearest known occurrence of this species is approximately 1.65 miles southeast
of the Study Area. Due to the presence of suitable habitat and local records of occurrence, coastal dune
areas are considered primary habitat since they have the potential to support this species; however,
potential for occurrence in the Study Area may be reduced by ongoing disturbances associated with sand
mining activities.
6.1.8 Additional Rare and Endangered Plant Species
Several additional rare and endangered plant species were identified as having the potential to occur
within the Study Area, but were not observed during previous surveys of the Study Area (i.e., sand gilia,
coast wallflower, Yadons wallflower). There are documented occurrences of these species in the less
disturbed areas of the CEMEX site, outside of the Study Area, based on surveys conducted by ESA in
April, May, and June 2012 (ESA 2012). These species would also have the potential to occur within the
Study Area where conditions are favorable for their establishment, as these species have been identified in
the vicinity and seeds have the potential to blow into the Study Area via wind dispersal. Any areas where
occurrence of these species has been identified are considered primary habitat.
6.2 Vernal Ponds and Wetlands
The LCLUP definition of primary habitat includes vernal ponds and their associated wetland vegetation.
There are no vernal ponds within the Study Area; however, the dredging and settlement ponds associated
with the mining activities are likely to be considered wetlands under the CCCs single-parameter
definition due to their hydrological connectivity to jurisdictional waters. The dredge and settlement ponds
are actively disturbed for mining operations and provide little to no benefit to biological resources in the
project vicinity. However, because they constitute wetlands per the CCCs definition, which is
specifically referenced in the LCLUPs definition of primary habitat, the ponds are considered primary
habitat for purposes of this Habitat Assessment. The ponds will also likely be considered Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) under CCC guidelines.
6.3 Native Dune Vegetation
Per the LCLUP, primary habitat includes native dune vegetation, where such vegetation is extensive
enough to perform the special role of stabilizing Marinas natural sand dune formations. Native dune
vegetation observed in the Study Area includes native plant species that occur in the coastal dune and
foredune areas. These plant species include mock heather, sagewort, common sand aster, silver dune
lupine, deerweed, beach-bur, beach knotweed, golden yarrow, beach evening primrose, coast buckwheat,
live-forever, sand verbena, Nuttals milk-vetch, salt scale, beach morning-glory, and California croton.
Some dune areas within the Study Area, particularly north of the access road, are largely dominated by
iceplant; however, native species are sufficiently dispersed within those areas that they would become
established and stabilizing if the iceplant were removed. Although portions of the Study Area are
disturbed due to active mining uses, vegetated areas intermingled within the mining facility support
various species of native dune vegetation. All areas where these species occur are considered primary
habitat per the LCLUP.
6.4 Secondary Habitat Areas
Secondary habitat refers to areas adjacent to primary habitat areas within which development must be
sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade the primary habitat. Due to the
presence of substantial primary habitat within the Study Area, several adjacent areas, though heavily
disturbed, are considered secondary habitat based on their proximity to primary habitat areas. These
include the unvegetated internal access roads and mined areas within the Study Area, and all areas within
100 feet of the dredging and settlement ponds that are not otherwise considered to be primary habitat.
By definition, areas within 100 feet of the dredge and settlement ponds would qualify as secondary
habitat. However, these ponds are manmade and not natural vernal features such as those specifically
identified for protection in the LCP. They experience consistent disturbance associated with sand mining
operations, and they provide limited suitable habitat for special-status species as compared to natural
vernal ponds in the region. Development of the project within the 100-foot buffer of secondary habitat
surrounding these ponds would not be likely to have significant impact on the function or value of
primary habitat. Ruderal, landscaped, and developed areas at the eastern end of the Study Area are
sufficiently buffered from primary habitat by the large active mining area within the CEMEX site, and are
therefore not considered secondary habitat. Although this area has the potential to support nesting birds
and other sensitive species, the area is heavily disturbed and degraded and does not support high-quality
habitat for these species.
Figure 6 shows delineated areas of primary and secondary habitat within the Study Area. Historic maps
from the LCLUP are included in Appendix A. The level of detail of the LCLUP maps is not adequate to
delineate primary and secondary habitat boundaries. However, the Project Area has been approximated
and overlain on these maps for reference purposes.
7 PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL COASTAL
PROGRAM
The proposed slant test well project is located in proximity to large areas of primary habitat. However,
effects of the project would be minimal. An analysis of the projects consistency with applicable policies
of the LCLUP and ZO is provided below.
Table 3. Project Consistency with Local Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance Policies
Policy Analysis
Consistency
Determination
City of Marina Local Coastal Land Use Plan
Primary habitat areas shall be protected and
preserved against any significant disruption of
habitat values and only uses dependent on
those resources shall be allowed within those
Effects on primary habitat within the Study
Area would be minimal. The coastally
dependent project has been designed to
utilize the disturbed and actively mined areas
Consistent
Policy Analysis
Consistency
Determination
areas. All development must be sited and
designed so as not to interfere with the natural
functions of such habitat areas. Management
and enhancement opportunities should be
incorporated into use or development
proposals; potential impacts shall be fully
mitigated, including the assurance of long-
term mitigation and maintenance of habitat
through the use of appropriate acreage
replacement/restoration ratios for any
unavoidable direct impacts to habitat areas.
of the site to the greatest extent feasible.
Project components would almost exclusively
be sub-surface and would not interfere with
the natural function of surrounding habitat
during project operation. Disturbance during
construction and/or decommissioning of the
project would be monitored by a qualified
biologist and all disturbed areas would be
restored to existing conditions at the
conclusion of well operations.

All areas that would be disturbed by project
construction are within areas that could, at
any time and without any additional regulatory
authority, be graded, excavated or mined by
CEMEX. MRWPCA also has the existing
rights to excavate and disrupt habitat areas
within its easement for maintenance or repair
of the outfall pipeline and/or junction structure.
Therefore, the slant test well project would
disturb habitat areas that are currently at risk
of substantial disturbance through existing
entitlements.

The entire Project Area and 104-acre
historically mined portion of the CEMEX
parcel are also currently subject to the
requirements of the Lapis Plant Reclamation
Plan, which was adopted in 1989 to meet
requirements of the State Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). The
Reclamation Plan sets out requirements for
site reclamation and revegetation at the
conclusion of mining activities, including
stabilization of slopes, rehabilitation of
drainage patterns, erosion and sedimentation
control measures, and resoiling and
revegetation of the 104-acre mined area.
Implementation of the Plan would likely result
in subsequent disturbance, recontouring,
restoration, and/or revegetation of the Project
Area.
Potential secondary or support habitat areas
to the primary habitats identified on the site
should also be defined. Secondary habitat
investigation should include identification of
the role and importance of the secondary area
to the primary habitat area and should stress
the impact of use or development in the
secondary area on the primary habitat. All
development in this area must be designed to
prevent significant adverse impacts on the
primary habitat areas. In concert with State
law, City Ordinances shall require
environmental review and appropriate
mitigation of identified impacts for all
development in the Coastal Zone, including
the assurance of long-term mitigation and
Secondary habitat areas have been described
and mapped above. Development within these
areas includes trenching and construction of
buried electrical conduit within the access
roadway. The project applicant proposes to
stay entirely within the actively graded
roadway, and construction fencing or other
exclusionary measures would be sufficient to
prevent impacts on adjacent dunes.
Consistent
Policy Analysis
Consistency
Determination
maintenance of habitat through the use of
appropriate acreage replacement/restoration
ratios for any unavoidable direct impacts to
habitat areas.
Development in wetlands shall be prohibited.
Access for nature observation shall be the
only exception; and this access should not be
permitted unless a qualified biologist
determines that the impacts of construction
and human observation can be sufficiently
mitigated to insure continuation of the rare
and endangered species and/or its habitat.
No development within the dredge or
settlement ponds is proposed. Although
development is proposed within 100 feet of
the ponds, the ponds are unlikely to support
any rare or endangered species or sensitive
wetland vegetation. Onsite surveys have
identified a lack of dominant wetland species
habitat in the vicinity of the ponds.
Consistent
Available evidence indicates that dune
vegetation is more resilient than previously
thought, and areas damaged by illegal use or
negligence shall be considered restorable and
eligible for restoration.
The habitat assessment has considered
damaged areas of dune vegetation and found
them to contain primary habitat despite past
disturbance and the presence of iceplant,
consistent with this policy. Native dune
vegetation within the Study Area is substantial
enough to support restoration and
establishment of native dune scrub habitat.
Consistent
Where habitats of rare and endangered
species are located on any parcel, owners
and/or operators shall, at such time that
development is proposed, develop and
execute a Management Plan which will protect
identified rare and endangered plant and
animal communities. Each plan should be
drawn up by a qualified biologist in
cooperation with the property owner
developer.
The project applicant has conducted various
studies and has developed project-specific
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures to avoid impacts on rare and
endangered species. These measures have
been developed in consultation with qualified
biologists, including Zander Associates and
Point Blue. Development of a Restoration
Management Plan consistent with the
requirements of the LCP is identified as
required mitigation for the project.
Consistent
City of Marina Zoning Ordinance
Much of the Marina Coastal Zone either is
environmentally sensitive because of the
presence of rare and endangered species or
has the potential for supporting a rare and
endangered species. In Marina,
environmentally sensitive habitats include, but
are not limited to areas of undisturbed native
dune vegetation, vernal ponds, and vernal
pond wetlands. The potential habitat map in
the LCLUP reveals areas where such plant
and animal habitats are to be found. The
precise limits of such habitats shall be
confirmed by professional on-site evaluation
at the time development is proposed and
before a coastal development permit is
issued.
This Habitat Assessment has identified areas
of primary and secondary habitat within the
Study Area, consistent with this requirement.
Consistent
In additional to indicating the location of
primary habitat areas for rare and endangered
plant and animal species (which are to be
protected), the evaluation shall address
protective measures, such as setbacks,
restoration of habitat areas where natural
dune landform remains, and limitations to
Secondary habitat areas have been identified
in this Habitat Assessment. The project
applicant has conducted various studies and
has developed project-specific avoidance,
minimization, and mitigation measures to
avoid impacts on rare and endangered
species. These measures have been
Consistent
Policy Analysis
Consistency
Determination
uses in secondary and/or support areas which
are necessary to the health of the identified
primary habitat area. Because of the variety of
plants and animals involved, the secondary or
support area will have to be individually
identified and specifically protected on a site-
by-site or case-by-case basis.
developed in consultation with qualified
Point Blue, and include construction outside of
nesting bird season, flagging and avoidance
of rare and endangered plant species, and
restoration/re-contouring of disturbed dune
habitat areas.
In the case of wetlands, the biologists will
have to determine the extent and landward
boundary of the wetland. The biologist will
then establish a one-hundred-foot setback line
from the boundary of the wetland. This entire
area, pond, wetland and setback, will be
subject to coastal development permit
requirements as well as being in the coastal
permit appeal zone.
Development is proposed within 100 feet of
the settlement ponds north of the slant test
well insertion point and access road.
However, these ponds provide little to no
benefit to biological resources due to their
extensive use for mining purposes. CEMEX
mining operations will continue to use the
ponds in their existing manner, and traffic will
stay within the existing graded roadway in the
proximity of the ponds. Project approval and
permitting includes obtaining coastal
development permits from the City and the
CCC.
Consistent
In the case of dune habitat areas, the
environmental analysis report prepared for
this plan identified a number of plant and
animal species which are locally or generally
rare, endangered, threatened, or are
necessary for the survival of an endangered
species. The habitats of these species,
collectively referred to throughout this plan as
rare and endangered, warrant protection as
environmentally sensitive.
The project applicant has conducted various
studies and has developed project-specific
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures to avoid impacts on rare and
endangered species. These measures have
been developed in consultation with qualified
Point Blue, and include construction outside of
nesting bird season, flagging and avoidance
of rare and endangered plant species, and
restoration/re-contouring of disturbed dune
habitat areas.
Consistent

7.1 Applicant-Proposed Avoidance and Minimization
Measures
Cal Am proposes to implement several measures during project construction to minimize potential
environmental effects. The following measures were included in Cal Ams Coastal Development Permit
application package and have been refined through consultation with the USFWS. Additional measures
will be identified in the CEQA and NEPA clearance documents prepared for the project.
Construction Limits: Cal Am would restrict construction activities to the proposed construction
area and designated access route, in order to minimize access impacts to surrounding habitat and
ongoing CEMEX operations. No construction equipment, materials, or activity would occur
outside of the specified areas.
Notice of Commencement: The property owner (CEMEX) would be consulted prior to the
commencement of construction activities, in order to schedule construction activities during non-
peak hours and provide advance notice of construction activities.
Monterey Spineflower: Cal Am would implement the following measures to avoid and/or
minimize impacts to this sensitive plant species:
o Prior to project initiation, a qualified biologist would conduct late season
(August/September) surveys to flag previously identified occurrences within 20 feet of
the access road and perimeters of the work areas.
o Flagged occupied habitat areas would be avoided.
o A biologist would establish appropriate buffers and access procedures in areas of
occurrence for trenching, excavation, or drilling sites.
o Construction and demobilization activities would occur in the fall and winter months,
outside of the blooming/growing season.
o Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist would conduct educational training
for all construction personnel, which would include a description of the Monterey
spineflower and their habitat preferences.
o A qualified biologist would monitor construction equipment access in order to avoid
plant disturbance.
Smiths Blue Butterfly: Cal Am would implement the following measures to avoid and/or
minimize impacts to this sensitive wildlife species:
o To minimize disturbances to buckwheat plants, a qualified biologist would conduct a
survey with appropriate project team members prior to project initiation to flag
occurrences of buckwheat plants within 20 feet of the access road, along electrical trench
alignment, and perimeters of the work areas.
o Flagged occupied habitat areas would be avoided and buffer procedures would be
established.
o Construction and demobilization activities would occur in the fall and winter months,
outside of the active flight season for adult Smiths blue butterflies and outside of the
active larval stage of the species.
o Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist would conduct educational training
for all construction personnel that would include a description of the butterflys life cycle
and habitat preferences.
o A qualified biologist would monitor construction equipment access in order to avoid
disturbance to buckwheat plants or encroachment into areas supporting buckwheat.
Western Snowy Plover: Cal Am would implement the following measures to avoid and/or
minimize impacts to this sensitive wildlife species:
o Construction and decommissioning activities would occur in the fall and winter months
(October through February), outside of the active plover breeding and nesting season to
avoid disruption of plover breeding behavior and to eliminate all evidence of construction
activities prior to the beginning of the plover breeding season.
o Noise blankets would be installed to provide visual and sound attenuation during drilling
operations.
o Features (wire excluders) would be incorporated into the top of the aboveground
electrical panel at the test well to deter perching by avian predators.
o Construction activities would be restricted to the construction area and access route. No
construction equipment, materials, or activity would occur outside the specified work
areas. No construction activity, equipment or materials would be placed or occur outside
of the immediate construction zone.
o Construction personnel would be required to keep all food-related trash items in sealed
containers and remove them daily to discourage the concentration of potential predators
in snowy plover habitat.
o After construction, the work area at the end of the CEMEX access road would be re-
contoured as determined necessary and in coordination with representatives of Point Blue
(a conservation science organization that has been monitoring snowy plovers along the
California Coast since the mid-1970s) so that the optimum ground configuration is
obtained for potential nesting plovers.
o During the operational period, a qualified biologist would consult with Point Blue
monitors on a weekly basis during the plover nesting season to stay current with nesting
activity in the vicinity of the slant test well. The biologist would coordinate weekly with
Cal Am personnel travelling to the test well during the 24-month operational period and
accompany them as necessary during the nesting season based on information received
from Point Blue.
o Several days or more prior to construction, a qualified biologist, in consultation with
Point Blue, would field evaluate the nature and extent of wintering plover activity in the
Project Area and inform Cal Am so they could make excavation and other construction
decisions that avoid or minimize disturbance to plovers.
o Prior to construction activities, a qualified biologist would conduct an educational session
with construction personnel to describe plover wintering and breeding behavior, habitat
preference, threats and other issues, with the intent to minimize or avoid disturbance to
plovers.
o A qualified biologist would monitor equipment access and construction/operation
activities along trench alignments at the wellhead site and in the excavation area for the
outfall connection during the project term in order to avoid or minimize disturbance to
potential nesting habitat for plovers and the overwintering flocks in the area.
Biological Education and Monitoring: Prior to initiation of access or construction activities, a
designated biologist would conduct an educational session with all construction personnel. An
appropriately trained biologist would be designated to monitor equipment access in order to avoid
disturbance to sensitive habitat.
8 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The CEMEX parcel supports large areas of coastal dune habitat with the potential to support a variety of
rare and endangered species. Multiple rare and endangered species, or those necessary for the survival of
rare and endangered species, have been documented at the site, including in previously disturbed areas
and within the existing active mining areas. However, the proposed project has been designed to
minimize impacts to biological resources to the greatest extent feasible. Areas of disturbance are largely
limited to actively graded or disturbed areas, and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures have
been developed to protect sensitive biological resources where suitable habitat may be affected. The
project is short-term in nature and project-related effects would be negligible in comparison to the
extensive mining activities that presently occur at the site, including the mining of dune and beach sands,
use of heavy machinery, and grading and accessory mining uses within coastal dune habitat. Additionally,
areas disturbed by construction, operation, and decommissioning of the project would be restored at the
end of the proposed project lifespan despite being at risk of substantial subsequent disturbance through
existing entitlements. Therefore, the project is generally consistent with the policies of the LCLUP and
ZO and would not threaten continuation of rare and endangered species or their habitat.

9 LITERATURE CITED
Baldwin, B., D. Goldman, D. Keil, R. Patterson, T. Rosatti (Editors). 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular
Plants of California. 2nd Edition. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2013. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.
Available at: http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/. Accessed: November 2013.
California Coastal Commission. 1981. Statewide Interpretive Guideline for Wetlands and Other Wet
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas.
California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2013. Rarefind Data Output for the Marina U.S.
Geological Survey 7.5-minute Quadrangle. Accessed: November 2013.
Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2012. Technical Memorandum. Special-Status Species within
the Vicinity of the Proposed Test Well Sites Memo. Prepared for Cal Am and RBF Consulting.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Description of Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of
California: The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game.
Lichvar, R.W. 2012. National Wetland Plant List. United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Ironside and Associates. Marina Local Coastal Land Use Plan (LCLUP). Prepared for City of Marina and
California Coastal Commission.
Sibley, David Allen. 2003. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. Alfred A. Knopf,
Inc., New York, NY.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Environmental Conservation Online Service (ECOS).
Critical Habitat Portal. criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab. Accessed: November 2013.
Zander Associates. October 2013. Technical Memorandum. Biological Resources AssessmentMPWSP,
Temporary Slant Test Well Project. Prepared for RBF Consulting.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White (eds.). 1990. Californias Wildlife.
Volumes I (amphibians and reptiles), II (birds), and III (mammals). California Statewide Wildlife
Habitat Relationships System. The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game.
November 1990.]

Appendix A.
Local Coastal Land Use Plan Applicable Policies and Guidance


SWCA Environmental Consultants A-1
LOCAL COASTAL LAND USE PLAN
APPLICABLE POLICIES AND GUIDANCE
Policies
The coastal policies of the City of Marina include:
19. To promote reclamation and protection of native dune habitat and vegetation except in areas
presently being mined.
25. To protect the habitat of recognized rare and endangered species found in the Coastal dune area.
26. To regulate development in areas adjacent to recognized rare and endangered species or their
habitats so that they will not threaten continuation of the species or its habitat.
Planning Guidelines
Wetlands Protection
Despite their seasonal nature, the vernal ponds are considered to be coastal wetlands. There are several
vernal ponds remaining in Marinas Coastal Zone; all but one supports a marsh. Most of the ponds are
brackish and, except in the very wettest years, most are dry for some part of the year. The following shall
be applied when planning in or near the vernal ponds:
Because of their fragile geology, no new structures shall be allowed within the vernal pond itself.
The only new structure allowed in the wetland area should be those designed for public access for
nature observation. No access structure should be allowed without thorough investigation by a
qualified biologist and geologist. Design should include mitigation for all impacts identified by
these specialists.
New development within the drainage areas of the natural Vernal Ponds shall be regulated to
protect the vernal pond and its water quality. No development within the drainage area of a vernal
pond should be approved without investigation by a qualified biologist as well as other necessary
specialists. Grading setbacks, reduction of impervious surface coverage, siltation basins, and
other appropriate measures shall be employed to protect the ponds and their wetlands.
A 100-foot riparian setback shall be established from the edge of all wetlands.
The City should encourage State participation in the preservation and restoration of the historic
vernal ponds and their wetlands.
North of Reservation Road Planning Area
Most of the dune area north of Dunes Drive to the City limits is undeveloped. The Lone Star Lapis Sand
Plant is operating near the center of this area. A dwelling, several large structures, and dredge ponds are
associated with the sand mining operation. Lapis Road provides access to the sand plant. Between the
north side of the area disturbed by the sand mining operation and the City boundary is a large area of
virtually undisturbed dunes. This dune area is the best preserved of the Marina Dune native habitat. Its
preservation is due, in part, to its inaccessibility. Between the Lone Star Lapis Sand Plant and the
properties fronting on Dunes Drive is another undeveloped stretch of dune. The native environment of
this area has been more disturbed by unauthorized use than the northernmost dunes, but still retains much
of its original character. The future use of this entire area has environmental significance because of the
dwindling amount of the unique, undisturbed Marina Dune plant and animal habitat. In addition, there are
at the south end of this property adjacent to the Standard Resource parcel several smaller areas which are
virtually undisturbed (see Exhibit B). These areas shown on Exhibit B shall be surveyed and protected.
In terms of land use, the highest priority is placed on preserving the vegetated dunes area to the north
of the Lapis Sand Plant by public acquisition. Future development should be focused on this property on
the more disturbed area south of the sand plant. If use of the southern area is necessary to preserve the
area to the north of the sand plant, it should be carefully sited and designed to be as protective as possible
of the fragile plant and animal habitats and visual amenities from Highway 1.
In terms of coastal planning, the critical factors in the future use of this area are that the adjacent
environmentally sensitive dune habitat and agricultural resource be protected.
Environmental Capability
Biological North of Reservation Road
The least disturbed dunes of the Marina Dune Complex exist north of the Lonestar Lapis Sand Mining
operation.
On the west side of Dunes Drive north to the Lonestar Sand Plant, the vegetation is similar to that in
the State Beach area. Exposed sandy beach is backed by Coastal Flandrian foredune. Behind this is
extensive Coastal Flandrian lee dune scrub intermixed, particularly at the north end, with expanses of bare
sand. Introduced grasslands form the eastern edge of the area. A small Cypress Grove has been planted on
the south side of Lapis Road; and dredge ponds are located at the back of the exposed sandy beach
seaward of Lapis Road. North of Dunes Drive this pre-Flandrian grassland is mostly undisturbed and
represents potential Salinas Kangaroo Rat habitat; however, only a small portion lies within Marinas
Coastal Zone.
The Salinas Dunes area north of the area now being mined by Lonestar Lapis is one of the largest
unaltered coastal dune habitat areas remaining in California. The pristine condition of these dunes is best
indicated by the fact that there are fewer areas of bare sand. The vegetation character progresses logically
and naturally; exposed sandy beach, Coastal Flandrian foredune, Coastal Flandrian lee dune scrub, Pre-
Flandrian introduced annual grassland, rotational cropland.
The undeveloped areas within these dunes are all potential locales for rare and endangered plant species.
However, the area with the greatest potential within the planning area is the Salinas Dunes area. Habitat
potential for rare and endangered animals is slightly more localized. At the south end of the planning area
in the vicinity of the sewage treatment plant and Vernal Pond there is potential habitat for the Smiths
Blue Butterfly and Black Legless Lizard, as well as the Salinas Kangaroo Rat in the grassland area. The
undisturbed dune areas within and between the sand plants and the Salinas Dunes may support the
Smiths Blue Butterfly and Black Legless Lizard. The undisturbed front edge of all the dunes in this area
could support the Globose Dune Beetle. In most cases, specific site investigation will be needed to
determine the location, extent, and quality of the habitat and location of species on any specific site.
Exhibit A Habitat Definitions
Rare and Endangered Species
In Marina, this term will apply to those plant and animal species which are rare, endangered, threatened or
are necessary for the survival of such species. While future scientific studies may result in addition or
deletion of species, the list presently includes:
1. Smiths Blue Butterfly (Shijimiaeoides enoptes smithi)
2. Globose Dune Beetle (Coelus globosus)
3. Black Legless Lizard (Anniella pulchra nigra)
4. Salinas Kangaroo Ray (Dipodomys heermanni goldmani)
5. Seaside Painted Cup (Castilleja latifolia ssp. latifolia)
6. Monterey Spine Flower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens)
7. Eastwoods Ericameria (Ericameria fasciculata)
8. Coast Wallfower (Erysimum ammophilum)
9. Menzies Wallflower (Erysimum menziesii)
10. Coastal Dunes Milk Vetch (Astragalus tener var. titi)
11. Dune Gilia (Gilia tenuiflora var. arenaria)
12. Wild Buckwheat (Erigonum latifolium)*
13. Wild Buckwheat (Erigonum parvifolium)*
14. Bush Lupine (Lupinus ssp.)+

* only within the range of Smiths Blue Butterfly
+ only within the range of the Black Legless Lizard
Exhibit B LCLUP Maps
Historic maps included in the LCLUP lack sufficient detail in the area of the proposed project to
adequately delineate primary and secondary habitat boundaries, resulting in the need for more intensive
study. However, they have been included below for reference purposes with an approximate overlay of
the Project Area (shown in red).

Disturbed Vegetation Map (LCLUP Figure 5)

... -... :::... ....
1
I
l./ )
ll
f ;
/ \

0
1(.'1Q'.IK (lo<AeiT.l.TS}
or- AAK AI'IO ?!..AN'!"
0 -
01 VE.CcE.TATION 'SP ... -

...
Natural Habitats Map (LCLUP Figure 6)

Z2! c.::AST.'ol. O::U.NORWi :tJiiE.
::uNII'ItJAH
2]
B v;.JtHAI.. .... ,.,.,..
::J ::OONO
.- I 3LUE. :.OIJM
u N""OCI..I:CJ NNU.t.L
- ;"!). !"'-'f'm .10
NATURAL HA2JITATS
MARINA LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
Potential Wildlife Habitats Map (LCLUP Figure 7)

r
'J
g
JJ
f
:'!
..
:::
-.:1...,
"!-
POTENTIAL
---
--
j, 'WICo.I.RDO V.T CO- - ,__
== SMITHS !JLU.
'!:J :.c.:.uso; ("""" ,.,;uw-e

WllDUFE. HABITATS
7
. !n:)f'I!JCI! & ""UOCiUI!I

Least-Disturbed Dune Habitat Areas Map (LCLUP Figure 9)

LEAST
OUNE et!BITAT rlREi'IS
(Ai= P!":ctc Inte!.>JJ:eo.ticn By CCas'l:aJ.
Ccmnissicn sta..=-=' Octcl:er' 1981)
The Precise location and edges of
these Least Disturbed Dune Habitat
Areas shal I be determined by ground
investigation by a qualified b i olo-
gist and mapped at the ti me use is
propos ed.
DUNE. HABITAT AREAS


APPENDIX C:
CULTURAL RESOURCES BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Cultural Resources Survey Report for the California American Water Slant Test Well Project,
Marina, Monterey County, California (SWCA 2014)

Cultural Resources Survey Report
for the California American Water
Slant Test Well Project,
Prepared for:
City of Marina, Planning Services Division
Prepared by:
May 2014

CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT FOR THE
CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER
SLANT TEST WELL PROJECT,
MARINA, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for

City of Marina, Planning Services Division
209 Cypress Avenue

Prepared by

Steven Treffers, M.H.P. and
Shannon Carmack, B.A.

150 South Arroyo Parkway, 2nd Floor
Pasadena, California 91105
(626) 240-0587
www.swca.com

Contact:
Shannon Carmack Project Manager
scarmack@swca.com

USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle
Marina, California

SWCA Project No. 026292.00
SWCA Cultural Resources Report Database No. 14-177

Final
May 2014

Keywords: Intensive survey, CEQA, Section 106, Marina, Monterey County, 47.7 acres,
positive, Lapis Sand Mining Plant historic district, CRHR eligible property

Cultural Resources Survey Report for the California American Water Slant Test Well Project

i
SUMMARY
Purpose and Scope: SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) conducted this cultural resources
study, which included a records search, a Native American and historic group contact program, a survey,
and preparation of this survey report. The indirect area of potential effects (APE) consists of 47.7 acres,
including a direct APE of 5.26 acres located in the city of Marina, Monterey County, California.
Dates of Investigation: The California Historical Resources Information System records search was
conducted by staff at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University in Sonoma,
California on March 18, 2014. Cultural resources specialists conducted an intensive-level cultural
resources survey on March 4, 2014.
Survey Findings: Eighteen prior cultural resources studies have been conducted within a 1.0-mile radius
of the project area, five of which overlap at least a portion of the APE. Research also indicates that one
previously recorded cultural resource is located within 1.0 mile of the project area. No archaeological
resources were identified during the intensive-level survey of the project area. One historic district with
nine contributing built environment resources were identified, recorded, and evaluated as part of the Lapis
Sand Mining Plant as a result of the intensive-level survey. The Lapis Sand Mining Plant appears eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR) under Criteria A/1 for its associations with the events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of local and regional history of California. Further, the physical design
of the property and the resources it encompasses are specific to its function as a sand mining facility, and
the district appears eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR under Criteria C/3 for its embodiment of
the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and region of construction.
Investigation Constraints: Because the project APE is located within an active sand mining facility,
the intensive-level survey was restricted to the direct APE. A reconnaissance-level survey was performed
of the indirect APE, visually examining the area from a safe distance.
Effects and Mitigation Measures:
Archaeological Resources: No archaeological resources were identified during the intensive-level field
survey. Surface visibility was excellent (80 to 100%), except for those areas obscured by existing
buildings or pavement. The project is located on the coast, which contained numerous resources that were
commonly exploited by Native Americans throughout prehistory. Geologic mapping by Dibblee (1998)
indicates that the APE is immediately underlain by younger Quaternary alluvial deposits of Holocene age,
which have the potential to contain archaeological resources. The historic use of the Lapis Sand Mining
Plant may have generated archaeological deposits as well, including refuse pits and buried foundations.
For these reasons, and the fact that no archaeological testing or monitoring has ever occurred in the
project area, it should be treated as potentially sensitive for the presence of both prehistoric and historic
archaeological resources. The area of greatest sensitivity is the eastern end of the direct APE that contains
the buildings associated with the historic district. This area was subject to less ground disturbance related
to sand mining than was the rest of the APE, and it is more likely to contain buried historic archaeological
features due to the proximity of the extant historic buildings. Implementation of mitigation measures CR-
1, CR-2 and CR-3, would reduce both direct and cumulative impacts to any previously unrecorded
archaeological resources that may be encountered during construction. After mitigation, potential
construction and cumulative impacts would be less than significant under both the National
Environmental Policy Act and California Environmental Quality Act.


ii
Historic Architectural Resources: The project APE contains one property, the Lapis Sand Mining Plant,
which is eligible for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR under Criteria A/1 and C/3 as a historic district,
as an excellent example of a continuously operating coastal sand mining operation in the southern
Monterey Bay, an increasingly rare property type. The property retains a high level of integrity and
captures the evolution of the plant through its period of significance (1906-1960).The eastern portion of
the direct APE includes seven contributors to the historic district: Plant Superintendents Residence,
Bunkhouse, Office/Garage, Maintenance Shop, Lapis Siding, Canal Flume, and Scale House. The
proposed project includes drilling and ground disturbance using mechanical equipment. Trenching and
directional horizontal drilling is proposed in an area through which the Lapis Siding extends. As
proposed, development of the project would result in direct damage or removal of the Siding, causing a
significant impact on an historic district contributor. There is adequate room in adjacent areas to
complete all proposed construction activities and avoid direct impacts to the Siding and all other
structures.
Several other contributing resources are located in close proximity of proposed trenching and
earthmoving activities. Their proximity to the earthmoving activities associated with the project leave
them potentially vulnerable during project construction and decommissioning. Accidental contact with
mechanized equipment could cause damage to the buildings, resulting in a loss of historic integrity and an
adverse effect to historic properties. Given the industrial nature of the property, these activities would be
consistent with the ongoing operations of the property, and are not anticipated to substantially increase
existing noise or vibration levels. The project is also not anticipated to have any visual effects to the
historic district, as the slant test well and related components would largely be below ground. In order to
reduce impacts to historic properties during construction and/or decommissioning activities, CR- 4 should
be incorporated to minimize impacts to historic properties.
Disposition of Data: This report and any subsequent related reports will be filed with the City of
Marina; Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary; NWIC at Sonoma State University; and SWCAs
Pasadena office. All field notes, photographs, and records related to the current study are on file at the
SWCA Pasadena office.

iii
CONTENTS
Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Project Description .................................................................................................................................... 1
Area of Potential Effects ........................................................................................................................... 2
Regulatory Setting ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Federal ....................................................................................................................................................... 6
National Historic Preservation Act ....................................................................................................... 6
State Regulations....................................................................................................................................... 7
Local Regulations ..................................................................................................................................... 8
City of Marina General Plan ................................................................................................................. 8
Environmental Setting ................................................................................................................................ 8
Cultural Setting ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Prehistoric Overview................................................................................................................................. 9
Paleo-Indian Period (pre-8000 cal B.C.) ............................................................................................... 9
Millingstone Period (8000 to 3500 cal B.C.) ........................................................................................ 9
Early Period (3500 to 600 cal B.C.) ...................................................................................................... 9
Middle Period (600 cal B.C. to cal A.D. 1000) .................................................................................. 10
Middle-Late Transition (cal A.D. 1000 to 1250) ................................................................................ 10
Late Period (cal A.D. 1250 to 1769) ................................................................................................... 10
Ethnographic Overview .......................................................................................................................... 11
Historic Overview ................................................................................................................................... 13
Monterey County ................................................................................................................................ 14
Marina ................................................................................................................................................. 14
Background Research ............................................................................................................................... 15
Literature Search ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies within 1 Mile of the APE ................................... 16
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 1 Mile of the APE .................................................. 18
Native American Contact Program ......................................................................................................... 18
Local Historic Group/Local Government Contact Program ................................................................... 20
Additional Research ................................................................................................................................ 21
Methods ...................................................................................................................................................... 23
Cultural Resources Survey ...................................................................................................................... 23
Archaeological Survey ........................................................................................................................ 23
Historic Architectural Survey ............................................................................................................. 23
Results and Impact Considerations ......................................................................................................... 24
Cultural Resources Survey ...................................................................................................................... 24
Archaeological Survey ........................................................................................................................ 24
Architectural Survey ........................................................................................................................... 24
Evaluation ............................................................................................................................................... 34
Effects/Impacts Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 38
Archaeological Resources ................................................................................................................... 38
Archaeological Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................. 39

iv
Cultural Resource Mitigation Measure 1 (CR-1) ................................................................................ 39
Architectural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 40
References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 41
List of Preparers and Qualifications ....................................................................................................... 44
Shannon Carmack ................................................................................................................................... 44
Steven Treffers ........................................................................................................................................ 44
Leroy Laurie ............................................................................................................................................ 44

APPENDICES
Appendix A. Records Search Bibliography
Appendix B. NAHC Sacred Lands File Results and Native American Contact Program
Appendix C. Local Historic Group/Local Government Contact Program
Appendix D. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms

FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity map. ..................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2. Project location map. .................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 3. Area of Potential Effects ............................................................................................................... 5
Figure 4. Overview of the project area, looking east. ............................................................................ 24
Figure 5. A map showing all known resources within the APE. ............................................................... 26
Figure 6. Overview of the Sorting Plant; view to the northwest. ............................................................... 27
Figure 7. Overview of the Washing Plant; view to the northwest. ............................................................ 28
Figure 8. Overview of the Canal Flume; view to the northeast. ................................................................ 28
Figure 9. Overview of the Lapis Siding; view to the east. ......................................................................... 29
Figure 10. A USGS topographic map from 1947 (photo revised in 1983) depicting the historic
extent of the Lapis Siding, with the segment recorded as part of the current survey
identified. ................................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 11. Overview of the Superintendents Residence; view to the northwest. ..................................... 31
Figure 12. Overview of the Bunkhouse; view to the west. ........................................................................ 32
Figure 13. Overview of the Garage/Office; view to the north. .................................................................. 33
Figure 14. Overview of the Maintenance Shop; view to the northwest. .................................................... 33
Figure 15. View of Scale House in background with adjacent office in foreground; view to the
northeast. ................................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 16. 1925 photograph of the stationary hoist (source: California State Mining Bureau
1925:56). ................................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 17. 1946 photograph of sand removal at the Lapis Sand Mining Plant (source: Division of
Mines 1946:Plate 4). ................................................................................................................ 36
Figure 18. 1966 photograph of dredging operations at the Lapis Sand Mining Plant (source: Hart
1966:89). ................................................................................................................................. 37


v
TABLES
Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within 1 Mile of the Project APE ...................................... 16
Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 1 Mile of the Project APE ............................... 18
Table 3. Record of Native American Coordination Efforts ....................................................................... 19
Table 4. Record of Historic Group/Local Government Coordination Efforts ............................................ 20
Table 5. Individuals/Organizations Consulted ........................................................................................... 21
Table 6. Identified Built Environment Resources ...................................................................................... 25


vi



1
INTRODUCTION
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) was retained by the City of Marina to conduct cultural
resources studies for the Cal Am Temporary Slant Test Well Project (project). The project is located
within the city of Marina in Monterey County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The project area is situated on
the site of the CEMEX sand mining operation, adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and to the west of Lapis
Road and State Route 1 within the City Lands of Marina. SWCA conducted a survey of the property to
identify, evaluate, and record any historic properties that may be eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or local designation.
The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary is the federal lead agency for the proposed undertaking,
and is therefore subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as
amended, and its implementing regulation, 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part () 800. The study
also complies with California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1, Sections 21083.2 and
21084.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California PRC Section 21000 et. seq.),
and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq.).
PRC Section 5024.1 requires the identification and evaluation of historical resources that may be affected
by a proposed project.
The project team was led by SWCA Architectural History Team Lead Shannon Carmack, B.A., and
SWCA Archaeologist Leroy Laurie, B.A., conducted the archaeological field survey for the project.
SWCA Architectural Historian Steven Treffers, M.H.P., conducted the intensive-level built environment
field survey and, with Ms. Carmack, performed archival research, development of the historic context,
and preparation of this report. All figures found in this report were prepared by SWCA Geographic
Information System (GIS) Manager William Hayden, M.A. Finally, this report was reviewed for quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) by SWCA Cultural Resources Principal Investigator John Dieter,
Ph.D., and Ms. Carmack. All project personnel meet the Secretary of the Interiors Professional
Qualifications Standards.
Project Description
As defined in 36 CFR 800.16(y), an Undertaking is:
a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect
jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal
agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal
permit, license or approval.
The Cal Am Slant Test Well Project is proposed to provide testing data to evaluate the potential effects of
a future subsurface intake system and desalination plant on the site. The slant test well would operate as a
temporary testing and research facility (estimated 2 to 3-year project lifespan) to provide field data
concerning geologic, hydrogeologic, and water quality characteristics of the Dune Sand and 180-Foot
Aquifer or its equivalent unit (180-FTE) at the project site. The data obtained would be used in the design
and planning of a potential subsurface intake system and desalination plant to serve as the primary future
water supply source for the Monterey Peninsula. The project includes:
The installation of a temporary slant test well that would extend diagonally under the floor of the
Pacific Ocean through the Dune Sand Aquifer, Salinas Valley Aquitard (if present under the
project area), and 180-FTE Aquifer.

2
The installation of up to four vertical monitoring well clusters to measure changes in groundwater
levels and water quality during operation of the slant test well.
A facilities complex that would include: the slant test well, wellhead vault and submersible well
pump; test water flow measurement and sampling equipment; test water disposal facilities,
including pipeline connection to an existing ocean outfall via an existing subsurface junction
structure; temporary sedimentation tanks; and electrical facilities, including a buried 4-inch
conduit that would extend approximately 0.38 mile east of the slant test well insertion point and
connect to and existing power source near the entrance of the CEMEX site.
Area of Potential Effects
An Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an
undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties (36 CFR
800.16(d)). The proposed project is located in the city of Marina in a sand dune system and is roughly
bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, sand dunes to the north and south, and agricultural and
undeveloped land to the east (Figure 3). The project APE was established through consultation between
the lead federal agency and the City of Marina. Section 106 defines an APE as:
The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly
cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.
The area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and
may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.
The project APE was delineated to ensure identification of significant cultural resources that may be
directly or indirectly affected by the project, and are listed in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and/or
CRHR.
The direct APE boundary represents portions of the project area that will be directly affected by the
proposed undertaking and includes the proposed areas of direct ground disturbance. The direct APE also
includes areas with permanent site improvements and areas for staging and temporary construction
activities. In order to anticipate effects that may result from subterranean construction and
implementation, the proposed vertical APE extends from the surface to a depth of 325 feet below ground.
This accounts for the maximum drill depth anticipated for the slant test well and the monitoring wells.
However, the overall expected depth of ground disturbance for the development of all other project
components is anticipated to be 7 feet.
The indirect APE includes areas that may be subject to potential project-related effects, including visual
or audible effects, and settlement effects that may result from construction or implementation of the
proposed project. On March 11, 2014, the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary reviewed the APE
and concurred with its boundaries.


3

Figure 1. Project vicinity map.
Boulder Creek'
'Milpitas

.... lum Rock
Santa Clara
San Jo;e..
Caf)Jpbell
l OSGiltos_.
"64 m
17
Ben Lomond" Scotts
Valley
0
"sant a Cruz
Gilroy
GOJ m
,Wat sonville

I Project Locati on
SWCA

ISO S Aoor Q
Tei62624()..(1S67
f aA626. 2400607
0
basedata from: http:/lserver.arcgisonline.com/arcgiSiservices
.Marina Salinas.
..... ,.,"'
JIONTliiE'f
kilometers
miles
25
20 0

4

Figure 2. Project location map.
I
I
!!?
1
10
J
SWCA o
ENVI RONMENTAL. CON SULTA NTS
1SO S Arroyo Partcway, 2nd floor
..
t

0
Fn 626 2.40 0007
basedata from: http:l/server.arcgisonl i ne.com/arcgistservices
..
meters 1,500
feet
4,000

5

Figure 3. Area of Potential Effects
t,....IJONMfh'TN..<Ofi M.ollNfTS
ISQ'i
JoiiMl'(l.4)9lf
h<$1$1.00107
b41$.edit.il from hup"Jk.erver.aregisollline
meters
--
--
feet
AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
100
0
-
-
250

6
REGULATORY SETTING
This section identifies federal regulations, state legislation, and local statutes, ordinances, and guidelines
that govern the identification and treatment of cultural resources and analysis of project-related effects to
cultural resources. The lead agency must consider these requirements in making decisions on projects that
may affect cultural resources.
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The current study was completed under the provisions of the NHPA of 1966, as amended (NHPA; 16
United States Code [USC] 470f). Cultural resources are considered during federal undertakings chiefly
under Section 106 of NHPA through one of its implementing regulations, 36 CFR 800 (Protection of
Historic Properties), as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Properties of traditional
religious and cultural importance to Native Americans are considered under Section 101(d)(6)(A) of
NHPA. Other relevant federal laws include the Archaeological Data Preservation Act of 1974, American
Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978, Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) of
1979, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1989.
Section 106 requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on any district,
site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and to afford
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings (36 CFR 800.1). Under Section 106, cultural resources must be identified and evaluated;
effects to historic properties are reduced to acceptable levels through mitigation measures or agreements
among consulting and interested parties. Historic properties are those resources that are listed in or are
eligible for listing in the NRHP per the criteria listed below (36 CFR 60.4; ACHP 2000).
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is
present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that:
(A) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history; or
(B) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
(C) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of installation, or that
represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant
and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
(D) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Impacts of a project to significant cultural resources that affect the characteristics of any resource that
qualify it for the NRHP are considered a significant effect on the environment. Under 36 CFR
800.5(a)(2), adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to:
(i) Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property;
(ii) Alteration of a property;
(iii) Removal of the property from its historic location;
(iv) Change of the character of the propertys use or of physical features within the propertys
setting that contribute to its historic significance;

7
(v) Introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the
propertys significant historic features;
(vi) Neglect of a property which causes its deterioration;
(vii) Transfer, lease, or sale of property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate and
legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the propertys
historic significance.
State Regulations
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, properties defined as historical resources are those listed in
or eligible for listing in the CRHR. Properties eligible for the CRHR are those found to meet the criteria
for listing in the CRHR and NRHP or by designation under a local ordinance in a Certified Local
Government community. CEQA requires the lead agency to determine whether a project may have a
significant effect on historical resources.
Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and PRC Section 5024.1, 21083.2 and 21084.1 were used as the
framework for this cultural resources study. PRC Section 5024.1 requires evaluation of historical
resources to determine eligibility for listing in the CRHR. The CRHR was established to serve as an
authoritative guide to the states significant historical and archaeological resources (PRC Section 5024.1).
For a property to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, it must be found by the State Historical Resources
Commission to be significant under at least one of the following four criteria:
1. The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of Californias history and cultural heritage.
2. The resource is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
3. The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic
values.
4. The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
In addition to possessing one of the above-listed significance characteristics, to be eligible for listing in
the CRHR, a resource must retain integrity to its period of significance. CRHR guidance on the subject
asserts [s]imply, resources must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be
recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance (Office of Historic
Preservation 2004). Integrity, although somewhat subjective, is one of the components of professional
judgment that makes up the evaluation of a propertys historic significance. The evaluation must
determine whether a property retains its integrity, the physical and visual characteristics necessary to
convey its significance. The concept of integrity is defined in state guidelines as the authenticity of an
historical resources physical identity evidenced by the physical survival of characteristics that existed
during the resources period of significance. To retain its historic integrity, a property must possess
several, and usually most, of these aspects.

8
Local Regulations
City of Marina General Plan
Adopted in 2000 and amended through 2006, the City of Marina General Plan provides general guidance
and goals for the protection of cultural resources within the city (City of Marina 2006). As part of the
Community Design and Development Element (Chapter 4), the Scenic and Cultural Resources section
discusses polies concerning the treatment of archaeological resources and the historical significance of
Fort Ord (Section 4.126).
Scenic and Cultural Resources
4.126. The following scenic and cultural resources are deemed to be particularly
valuable, and the following policies should be pursued.
1. All archaeological resources which may be present in the Marina Planning Area shall
be protected and preserved. To this end, development proposed in areas of high
archaeological sensitivity, i.e., the terraces and benches along the Salinas River, the
peripheries of vernal ponds, and coastal beaches, shall be required to undertake a
reconnaissance by a qualified archaeologist, and, where artifacts are identified, to
protect and preserve such resources.
2. The historical significance of former Fort Ord should be reflected in new
development and/or reuse of at least a small portion of the University Village area
near the 8th Street overcrossing and at the Fort Ord State Park entrance.
While no specific historic preservation ordinances are currently in place in the City of Marina, the
Program and Implementation Element (Chapter 5) provides for the development of such policies.
Historical Resources Program
5.19. The City should undertake a survey of potential historical resources, determine if
there are adequate potential historical resources to warrant possible state recognition as a
Certified Local Government, and if so, pursue possible recognition, and consider
adoption of an historical preservation ordinance as well as policy and permitting
requirements for activities which might affect historical resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project APE is located immediately adjacent to the Monterey Bay and the Pacific Ocean, and
approximately 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) north of downtown Marina. It is located in the southern Coast
Range geomorphic province, which follows the western border of California along the Pacific Ocean
between San Francisco Bay and the southern Transverse Ranges. Elevation within the area of direct
impact ranges between 0 to 60 feet (0 to 18 meters) above mean sea level.
The climate is characterized by mild, dry summers and cool, moist winters. Because the area falls within a
coastal region, winters are typically warmer, and summers tend to be milder. Current winter temperatures
have highs around 60 degrees Fahrenheit ( F) (15.5 degrees Celsius [ C]), and current summer
temperatures have highs around 70 F (21 C). Annual precipitation ranges between 10-30 inches (25 and
76 centimeters).

9
Current land uses in the vicinity include industry, agriculture, and protected natural areas. Habitat in the
vicinity of the project APE include coastal dunes, exposed sandy beach, open water in dredge and
settlement ponds, and ruderal/landscaped/disturbed areas associated with the mining activities. A variety
of special status species occur within the project APE, including Monterey spineflower, Smiths blue
butterfly, Globose dune beetle, burrowing owl, black and silvery legless lizards, and the coast horned
lizard. With this mosaic of ecological communities, the area would have provided a very productive
environment for its prehistoric occupants, one well suited to a hunting-gathering economy with a variety
of birds, small and large mammals, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and edible plant species.
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Overview
Understanding the prehistoric setting of the region helps predict the frequency and types of archaeological
resources that may be identified. Knowing each periods characteristic artifact types allows one to assign
an age to and interpret newly discovered resources. Based on geologic setting, biological setting, and
geographic locations of previously recorded cultural resources, many areas are sensitive for the discovery
of prehistoric archaeological resources. The six prehistoric periods of Central Coast occupation and
cultural development are Paleo-Indian, Millingstone, Early, Middle, Middle-Late Transition, and Late
(Jones et al. 2007:134).
Paleo-Indian Period (pre-8000 cal B.C.)
To date, sites or isolated artifacts that confirm habitation of the Central Coast region before 8000 cal
(calibrated radiocarbon date) before Christ (B.C.) (during the end of the Pleistocene) have not been
identified. However, human presence in the Central Coast region before 8000 cal B.C. (perhaps as long as
13,000 years ago) is suggested by discoveries of fluted projectile points from the southern portion of the
Central Coast at Nipomo and at CA-SLO-1429 near Santa Margarita (Jones et al. 2007:135). While
undated, the style of these points suggests a Paleo-Indian age.
Millingstone Period (8000 to 3500 cal B.C.)
Millingstone period deposits of the Early Holocene are characterized by the initial appearance of
handstones and milling slabs (milling stones), which are associated with seed processing. Flaked tools
are also apparent in these assemblages, including large side-notched points and cobble-core tools. Faunal
remains suggest that Millingstone subsistence featured a wide range of animals such as shellfish, fish,
birds, and land mammals including deer and rabbits, but in terms of volume, Millingstone diets consisted
of 70 to 84 percent marine-derived food, particularly shellfish. At least 42 Central Coast sites feature a
Millingstone period occupation. Although these are found over a wide range of geographical settings
(open rocky coasts, sloughs, bays, and the interior valleys of the Coast Ranges), most known Millingstone
occupations in the region occur on the coast (Jones et al. 2007:136).
Early Period (3500 to 600 cal B.C.)
The Early period of the Middle Holocene reflects new settlements that began circa 3500 to 3000 cal B.C.
Breschini and Haversat (2004) have suggested that the Early period begins in 4000 cal B.C. and should be
divided into two subphases. Phase I features the retention of Millingstone characteristics, while Phase II
(2000 cal B.C. to 600 cal B.C.) features a pronounced increase in stemmed points and the introduction of
mortars and pestles and Class L beads (rectangular Olivella beads). This split is supported by the

10
assemblages of at least four Monterey County sites and may be supported as more post-2000 cal B.C.
deposits are discovered.
The Early period is characterized by a great frequency of large projectile points and other bifaces,
including relatively narrow contracting-stemmed points, wider Rossi square-stemmed points, and side-
notched points of the type found in Millingstone deposits. The use of cobble-core tools continues through
this period but in lower frequencies. Portable mortar and pestles appear in Early period assemblages, but
are infrequent. Burials from site CA-MNT-391 show a preference for flexed (bent) position and contained
Rossi square-stemmed projectile points, fish gorges, and Class L beads. Bipointed bone gorges associated
with line fishing appear during the Early period, and fish remains are more apparent in Early period
assemblages than in Millingstone assemblages (Jones et al. 2007:138). Most Early period faunal
assemblages feature deer, although a site at Morro Bay (CA-SLO-165) contains a large number of rabbit
bones and site CA-MNT-391 has a preponderance of sea otters.
Middle Period (600 cal B.C. to cal A.D. 1000)
The Middle period of the Early Holocene manifestation of the Hunting Culture features the continuation
of the contracting-stemmed points and the disappearance of the square-stemmed and large-notched types.
The Olivella bead type G2 (a saucer type) outnumbers the L type during this period. Ground stone
features both handstones and milling slabs and mortar and pestles. Bone gorges are still apparent, and
circular shell fishhooks appear for the first time. Fish remains are markedly more apparent in Middle
period assemblages than in Early period ones. Mammal remains from Middle period sites vary from site
to site and include northern fur seals and sea otters. In some Middle period sites rabbit remains
predominate, while in others, deer remains prevail. Grooved stone net weights are seen in Middle period
assemblages. Burials continue to show the flexed position and are sometimes accompanied by bone flutes.
Bone tubes and large quantities of G2 type beads are present in burials of this period. G1 type Olivella
saucer beads also appear. Shell bead types can be chronological indicators when types are compared
within a region. At the end of this period, small leaf-shaped projectile points appear, indicating the advent
of bow and arrow use (Bennyhoff and Hughes 1987).
Middle-Late Transition (cal A.D. 1000 to 1250)
Marked changes in Central Coast assemblage and settlement patterns occur after circa Anno Domini
(A.D.) 1000, at the beginning of the Late Holocene. Assemblages feature a large number of the arrow
points that appear at the end of the Middle period, as well as a new bead type, the Class K cupped
Olivella bead. These developments help identify assemblages from this period. Fewer stemmed points
appear in assemblages, but Class G1 and G2 beads are still found in assemblages of this period. Overall,
the Hunting Culture that includes the Early, Middle, and Middle-Late Transition periods sees an increase
in the exploitation of fish. The exploitation of shellfish is apparent at all coastal sites but seems to
decrease, while the hunting of vertebrates increases. Radiocarbon dates indicate that the exploitation of
acorns may have occurred during the Hunting Culture (Jones et al. 2007:138).
Late Period (cal A.D. 1250 to 1769)
Late period assemblages are distinct from those of previous periods because of a preponderance of Desert
side-notched and Cottonwood projectile points, small bifacial bead drills, bedrock mortars, hopper
mortars, Class E lipped Olivella beads and Class K beads, and steatite disk beads. However, Breschini
and Haversat put forth that Desert side-notched points appeared after contact in the Monterey Peninsula
area. Sites in the Santa Cruz area and the Monterey Peninsula feature thin, rectangular Class M beads and
small, serrated arrow points. Circular shell fishhooks persist through the Late period (Breschini and
Haversat 2004; Jones et al. 2007:140)

11
Inland Late period sites are more prevalent in the archaeological record than coastal Late period sites.
Many Late period sites that have been recorded feature bedrock mortars and associated middens, which
may indicate a greater reliance on plant-based foods. Prehistoric inhabitants of California processed plant-
based foods such as seeds (including acorns) in bedrock mortars. However, the Monterey Peninsula
features dense deposits of whole abalone shells from this period that have been interpreted as abalone
collecting and processing sites used by inland inhabitants (Jones et al. 2007:140). Residential features
(circular house floors approximately 3 to 4 meters in diameter) have been recorded on the coast and
inland.
Ethnographic Overview
The numerous Costonoan social groups in this region were organized by tribelets, each of which could
have several villages or a main village with a number of camps (Levy 1978:487). Tribelets were also
political units that were structured by similarities in language and ethnicity, each holding claim to a
designated portion of territory. Topographic features, such as rivers, watersheds, and ridgelines, defined
tribelet territories and the boundaries were strictly respected.
The APE was historically occupied by the tribelets of the Costonoan linguistic group (Levy 1978).
Descendants of Costonoan speakers prefer to be called by the name of the tribelet from which they are
descended, such as Mutsun or Rumsen. When their heritage is mixed or the specifics have been lost over
generations, they prefer the use of a native term, Ohlone, rather than the European-imposed term
Costonoan (coastal dwellers) (Margolin 1978).
Costonoan territory extended between the Carquinez Strait and San Pablo Bay on the north, southward
along the coast beyond Monterey Bay to Carmel Valley, and inland to the coast range (Levy 1978:485).
Neighboring groups included the Coast Miwok north across the Carquinez Strait, the Miwok and
Northern Valley Yokuts to the east, and the Salinan and Esselen to the south.
Spanish mission records, diaries, and journals provide most of the information about the Costanoans,
because little ethnographical research has been conducted in the twentieth century (Levy 1978:495). The
most thorough study, by Milliken (1995), used mission records, and Margolin (1978) reconstructed
Native American life in the Bay Area.
Linguistically, these tribelets belong to the Utian, or Miwok-Costonoan language family, part of a
hypothesized larger Penutian linguistic stock (Mithun 2001:309). The Costonoan family is broken down
into four branches: the Karkin, in the Carquinez Strait area; the Northern Costonoan, consisting of the
Chocheno (with four dialects), Ramaytush, Tamyen, and Awaswas languages; the Soledad, seen only in
Cholon; and the Southern Costonoan branch, consisting of Rumsen (with Carmel and Monterey dialects)
and Mutsun (Mithun 2001:L535). Speakers of these languages and dialects, in various configurations,
have been treated as tribes in the past (Levy 1978:Figure 1) in accordance with anecdotal reports.
Through detailed examination of mission records, marriage patterns, and dialect variation seen in personal
names, Milliken (1995:229) delineated 43 separate political entities (tribelets) in the San Francisco Bay,
Santa Cruz, and inland area, with another six or so tribelets in the south Monterey Bay and Carmel Valley
region.
According to historic accounts, the kalenta ruk tribelet of the Mutsun branch occupied the Monterey
Peninsula near the APE (Levy 1978:485). The Spanish designation for this tribelet was San Carlos.
Mutsun speakers occupied the lands inland from the coast around the Pajaro and upper Salinas rivers, and
numbered approximately 2,700 in 1770.
Each tribelets territory contained a main village and smaller satellite villages. The villages were typically
situated along a river or stream for easy access to water (Levy 1978:487). Coastal people did not build

12
right on the shoreline, but usually on an overlooking bluff. Dwellings were domed structures consisting of
a tule- or grass-covered framework of poles, with a rectangular doorway and central hearth (Levy
1978:492). The forest-dwelling Rumsen group also constructed conical houses of split redwood and
redwood bark. Villages often contained specific enclosures for dancing. Assembly halls in the center of
the settlement were common; some halls were large enough to contain the entire village population of 200
people. Each community had a sweat lodge, placed near a stream. The Costanoans either buried or
cremated the deceased, sometimes depending on firewood availability. There is no mention of cemeteries
associated with villages (Levy 1978:490491).
The rich resources of the ocean, bays, valleys, and mountains provided Ohlone-speaking peoples with
food and all their material needs (Levy 1978:491492). The primary food staple was the acorn,
supplemented by a great variety of animal and plant resources. Depending on species availability and
desirability, Costanoans used four oak species, including coast live, valley, tanbark, and black. Collected
nuts included buckeye, laurel, pine nuts, and hazelnuts. Seeds from dock, chia and other salvias, tarweed,
and holly-leaf cherry were collected and ground into meal. Vegetal resources also included several berry-
producing plants, wild onions, carrots, tule roots, and greens of clover and other annuals. Large and small
game, including deer, elk, antelope, bear, mountain lion, raccoon, ground squirrels, woodrat, mouse,
mole, dog, rabbit, and jackrabbit, plus seals and stranded whales were part of their diet. Migrating
waterfowl were an important resource, and included geese, ducks, and coots. Pigeons, quails, and hawks
were also consumed, but not eagles, owls, ravens, or turkey vultures. Rivers and streams provided
freshwater fish, including steelhead, salmon, and sturgeon, while the ocean provided shark, sardine, and
lampreys. Costonoan diet also included a variety of insects and reptiles, but not amphibians.
For hunting and gathering natural resources, Costanoans used a wide array of tools, implements, and
enclosures. Among those used for hunting land mammals and birds were bows and arrows, traps and
snares, deer-head disguises, bolas, nets and net sinkers, and enclosures/blinds. Communal hunting drives
were used to catch rabbits, whereas nets and poisons were used to harvest fish. Tule watercraft were used
for transportation and for hunting fish and waterfowl on enclosed bays and marshes. Many plants were
collected using wooden tools: long poles for dislodging acorns and pinecones, fire-hardened digging
sticks for obtaining roots, and beaters for dislodging seeds. Once collected, seeds, roots, and nuts were
placed in burden baskets and transported for processing or storage (Levy 1978:491).
Costanoans used a variety of tools to process food resources. These tools included portable stone mortars
and pestles, bedrock mortars, hopper mortars, anvils, woven strainers and winnowers, leaching and
boiling baskets, woven drying trays, and knives. Various foods were baked in earthen ovens. Wooden
paddles were carved for stirring food in the boiling baskets. There were shell spoons, basket dippers, and
mush bowls for serving food, and woven water jugs and storage containers for keeping food afterwards.
The presence of exotic items such as obsidian, steatite, and shell indicates Costonoan tribelets traded with
coastal groups and mountain tribes (Levy 1978:493). Dietary items were also traded with the Plains
Miwok, Sierra Miwok, and Yokuts. Costanoans provided mussels, abalone shells, dried abalone, and salt
to the Yokuts and Olivella shells to the Miwok. They received pine nuts from the Yokuts, but other food
resources received by the Costonoan tribelets are unrecorded.
The Native American population in this region came into contact with European culture at the beginning
of Spains land exploration and settlement in A.D. 1769. Traditional lifeways were altered drastically
during the late 1700s to early 1800s when the Spanish placed their capital at Monterey, built forts at
Monterey and San Francisco, and established seven Franciscan missions to convert native peoples to
Christianity and the European way of life. Large-scale epidemics soon swept through the mission
population and remaining villages (Milliken 1995). Subsequent Spanish colonial towns at Santa Cruz and
Yerba Buena (San Francisco), followed by large Mexican land grants, separated Costanoans from their
harvesting grounds and hunting parks. Many surviving Native Americans were pulled away from their

13
own villages to the new Euro-American settlements. It is estimated that the combined Costonoan
population fell from a pre-contact total of 10,000 down to 2,000 by the end of the mission period in 1834
(Levy 1978:486). During the mission period, the dwindling Costonoan population also intermarried with
other interior tribes at the missions, mixing their cultural identities.
During the late 1800s, several Native American communities of mixed heritage remained in rural areas,
with Pleasanton, Monterey, and San Juan Bautista the best known (Levy 1978:487). Even these groups
continued to shrink as young people married into other groups and moved away. Estimates of the total
remaining population of people with recognizable Costonoan descent were fewer than 300 in 1973 (Levy
1978:487). According to Levy:
In 1971 descendants of the Costonoan united in a corporate entity, the Ohlone Indian
Tribe, and received title to the Ohlone Indian Cemetery where their ancestors who died at
Mission San Jos are buried [Levy 1978:487].
Since that time, other descendants of Costonoan tribelets, notably the Rumsen and Mutsun groups, have
organized political and cultural heritage organizations that are active locally and statewide. All are
concerned with revitalizing aspects of their culture, learning the language through notes collected by
anthropologist John Harrington, and preserving the natural resources that played a vital role in traditional
culture. Some Costonoan groups also are seeking federal recognition of their tribe, petitioning the Bureau
of Indian Affairs with reconstructed tribal histories and genealogies, records that will be a great resource
for future generations of Costanoans. These groups include the Amah-Mutsun Band of Mission Indians,
Costonoan Band of Carmel Mission Indians, Costonoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe, the Indian Canyon
Mutsun Band of Costonoan, and the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe.
Historic Overview
Post-contact history for the state of California generally is divided into three periods: the Spanish period
(17691822), the Mexican period (18221848), and the American period (1848present). Although there
were brief visits by Spanish, Russian, and British explorers between 1529 and1769, the beginning of
Spanish settlement in California occurred in 1769 with the establishment of Mission San Diego de Alcal.
This was the first of 21 missions established between 1769 and 1823. After the end of the Mexican
Revolution against the Spanish crown (18101821), all Spanish holdings in North America (including
both Alta and Baja California) became part of the newly formed Mexican Empire, and shortly thereafter,
a constitutionally based United Mexican States. Under Mexican rule, the authority of the California
missions gradually declined, culminating with their secularization. The Mexican period is marked by an
extensive era of land grants, most of which were in the interior of the state, and by exploration by
American fur trappers west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
With the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, ending the MexicanAmerican War,
California became a territory of the United States. The discovery of gold in 1848 at Sutters Mill near
Sacramento and the resulting Gold Rush era influenced the history of the state and the nation. The rush of
tens of thousands of people to the gold fields also had a devastating impact on the lives of indigenous
Californians, with the introduction and concentration of diseases, the loss of land and territory (including
traditional hunting and gathering locales), violence, malnutrition, and starvation. Thousands of settlers
and immigrants continued to pour into the state, particularly after the completion of the transcontinental
railroad in 1869.
With continued growth, California continues to be a national leader in agriculture and poultry production,
ranching (cattle and sheep), aerospace and communications industries, as well as the film and

14
entertainment business. The wealth of Californias natural resources (e.g., lumber, petroleum deposits,
minerals, fish) also continues to contribute to its growth and development.
Monterey County
Juan Rodrguez Cabrillo was the first European to sail along todays Monterey County coast in 1542
(Hoover et al. 2002:225; Gudde 1998:246). Sixty years passed after Cabrillos 1542 voyage, before
Sebastin Vizcano harbored in the bay in 1602 near the present city of Monterey. In 1769, Gaspar de
Portol was sent from Mexico City to locate the port described by Vizcano, and the Spanish presidio and
mission (San Carlos de Monterey) were established in 1770. The mission was the second established in
California, after San Diego de Alcal in 1769, but the following year it was moved south to its present site
in Carmel. Renamed San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo, it served as headquarters for the mission chain
from 1770 until 1803. It is also the resting place for Father Junpero Serra, founder of the California
missions (Johnson 1979:83).
Monterey County was one of Californias original 27 counties, established in 1850. The governmental
seat was initially was located in the town Monterey, but was relocated to Salinas in 1873, where it has
remained. The town of Monterey was named the capital of Las Californias (upper and lower California)
in 1774, and 3 years later became the official capital of Alta (upper) California. The city remained the
capital during Spanish and Mexican rule. Many of the Spanish colonial structures built around
Montereys Old Town Historic District are listed on the NRHP. The Larkin House, built in 1834, is a
National Historic Landmark; the Cooper-Molera adobe, built in 1826, is one of the largest extant adobe
buildings remaining in northern California. Several other historic buildings give the town an old
Spanish/Mexican appearance.
There are two Franciscan missions in the Salinas Valley area: Mission San Antonio de Padua in Jolon and
Mission Nuestra Seora de la Soledad. Mission San Antonio is now within the Fort Hunter Liggett
Military Installation, southwest of King City in southern Monterey County. It was established in 1771, the
third mission to be founded after those at San Diego and Monterey. Mission San Antonio was moved to
its present location in 1773. The mission in the town of Soledad was founded in 1791, the thirteenth of the
21 missions established by the Spanish.
Monterey Bay has a long history as a military focus, fishery, and seaside resort. Although the Spanish
Presidio is long gone, the Naval Postgraduate School, a Coast Guard station, and the Defense Language
Institute now grace its shores. Slightly east of the bay, the U.S. Army established Ford Ord in 1917 as a
maneuver and field artillery target range. The base was closed in 1994, and is now the home of the
California State University at Monterey Bay.
Cannery Row was a fish-packing center, producing the worlds third largest port for fish tonnage in the
1920s and 1930s. By 1948, the local sardine population had been decimated and the last of the canneries
closed (Hoover et al. 2002:234). The Row is now an international tourist destination, made famous by
local author John Steinbeck. Nearby Carmel-By-The-Sea began as a seaside retreat for artists, musicians,
actors, and writers in the early 1900s, many escaping the devastation of the 1906 San Francisco
earthquake (City of Carmel-By-The-Sea 2014). The city was incorporated in 1916 and today tourism
draws thousands to the Monterey Bay areas famous golf courses, seaside resorts, and diverse shopping.
Some of the many attractions include monarch butterfly migrations in Pacific Grove, the Monterey Bay
Aquarium, Cannery Row, and Carmel.
Marina
By the 1880s, the area now known as Marina was part of land holding owned by David Jacks and James
Bardin. Following the death of Bardin in 1888, his heirs began to sell of portions of the property to a

15
growing number of settlers who began to arrive in the area. The first significant subdivision was sold to
John Armstrong, who purchased 1,372.5 acres for agricultural purposes and developed the Armstrong
Ranch (Armstrong 2014). An additional 1,450 acres were soon sold off in an area that would eventually
become known as Sand Hill Ranch (City of Marina 2005).
Development and interest in the area was largely prompted by the arrival of the Southern Pacific (SP)
Railroads Monterey Branch in 1879. Branching off from the SPs main line at Castroville, the Monterey
Branch linked San Francisco to the Hotel Del Monte and Pebble Beach (Dill 2003). William Lock-
Paddon was one passenger from San Francisco who recognized opportunity in the open landscape as he
traveled south to Monterey. In 1915 he purchased 1,500 acres of land south of Sand Hill Ranch and
designated the tract as Pueblo Tract No. 1, City Land of Monterey (City of Marina 2005). In an effort to
make his land more available to potential buyers, Lock-Paddon was able to convince the SP to make a
flag stop on the Monterey Branch. First named Mile Post 117, the stop was renamed Paddonville and
eventually Marina in 1918, a name Lock-Paddon himself selected (Hathaway 2014).
A post office was established the following year in 1919 and the community soon began to expand. By
1926, there were approximately 70 families, as well as a school, church, and other organizations.
Additional growth resulted from the U.S. Armys development of nearby Fort Ord. Originally named
Camp Gigling, what would eventually become known as Fort Ord became highly active as a training
facility during World War II and Marina became a popular destination for troops on leave (City of Marina
2005). Marina continued to grow in the decades after World War II and the city incorporated in 1975.
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Literature Search
On February 27, 2014, a search was requested of the California Historical Resources Information System
(CHRIS) at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), located at Sonoma State University, Sonoma,
California. The search included any previously recorded cultural resources and investigations within a
1-mile radius of the APE. The CHRIS search also included a review of the NRHP, the CRHR, the
California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) list, the California Historical Landmarks (CHL) list, the
Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility (ADOE) list, and the California State Historic Resources
Inventory (HRI) list. The records search also included a review of all available historic U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) 7.5- and 15-minute quadrangle maps. A letter dated March 18, 2014, from the NWIC
summarizing the results of the records search, and a bibliography of prior cultural resources studies is
provided in Appendix A of this report.
In addition to official maps and records, the following sources of information were consulted as part of
the record search:
National Register of Historic Places
California State Historic Property Data Files
California State Historic Resources Inventory
California Register of Historical Resources
California State Historical Landmarks
California Points of Historical Interest
Office of Historic Preservation Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility

16
Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies within 1 Mile of the
APE
Eighteen cultural resources studies have been previously conducted within 1 mile of the APE (Table 1).
Of this total, five studies (S-003345, S-003704, S-005439, S-009552, and S-012218) overlap at least a
portion of the APE. A brief summary of each of these five studies is provided in the paragraphs that
follow. Appendix A provides a complete bibliography from the NWIC for all studies listed in Table 1
Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within 1 Mile of the Project APE
NCIC Report
Number
Title of Study Author Year Proximity
to Project APE
S-003345 Monterey Peninsula Regional Wastewater Treatment
System Expansion Project
Weber, T.F.
and A.S. Peak
1976
Within
S-003427
Archaeological Reconnaissance of two parcels in Marina,
California: (A) Drive-In Theatre, Cardoza Avenue, Abdy
Way near Beach Road; (B) Sand Hill Nursery, Beach Road
near Cardoza
Flynn, K. 1978
Outside
S-003704
Backhoe Testing of Point A, Monterey Regional
Wastewater Treatment System Outfall, Monterey County,
California
Peak, A.S. &
Associates
1981
Within
S-005439
Cultural Resource Assessment of the Selected Alternative
of the Monterey Regional Wastewater Treatment System,
Monterey County, California.
Peak, A.S. &
Associates
1978
Within
S-009552
Cultural Resource Assessment of the Marina County Water
District's Wastewater Facilities, Monterey County, California
Peak &
Associates
1987
Within
S-012218
Archaeological Assessment for the RMC Lonestar Lapis
Sand Plant Reclamation Project, Marina, Monterey County,
California
Hylkema, M.
and R.I. Orlins
1990
Within
S-014001
Preliminary Cultural Resources Reconnaissance for the
MPWMD Desalination Pipeline, Monterey County,
California
Runnings, A.
and G.
Breschini
1992
Outside
S-016462
Addendum 2 to the Archaeological Reconnaissance of the
Salinas Valley Seawater Intrusion Project
Jones & Stokes 1994
Outside
S-017494
Archaeological Reconnaissance, Gullwing Properties (letter
report)
Dietz, S.A. 1983
Outside
S-022657
Archaeological Survey Along Onshore Portions of the
Global West Fiber Optic Cable Project
Sawyer, I., et
al.
2000
Outside
S-023937
Proposed Construction of Bike Lane and Sidewalks on
Reservation Road from State Route 1 to Marina State
Beach, 05-MNT-CU05-168
Wilson, K. 2001
Outside
S-030832
Preliminary Archaeological Archival Research for the
Marina Station Project, in Marina, Monterey County,
California
Doane, M. and
G.S. Breschini
2005
Outside
S-031328
AC 3791 Marina Station Project (letter report) Doane, M. 2006
Outside
S-031346
Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Marina
Station Project, in Marina, Monterey County, California.
Doane, M. and
G.S. Breschini
2006
Outside
S-032385
Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance for the Marina
Coast Water District Regional Urban Water Augmentation
Project, Recycled Water Component, Northern Segment, in
Marina and Seaside, Monterey County, California
Doane, M. and
T. Haversat
2006
Outside

17
Table 1. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within 1 Mile of the Project APE
NCIC Report
Number
Title of Study Author Year Proximity
to Project APE
S-032920
AC 3791, Marina Station, Cultural Resource P-27-2417
(CA-MNT-2080H) (letter report)
Breschini, G.S. 2006
Outside
S-036240
Archaeological Survey for the Cal-Am Coastal Water
Project, Monterey County, California
Jones, K. and
J. Holson
2009
Outside
S-037725
Archaeological Survey Report for the Monterey Light Rail
Transit Project
Ruby, A. 2010
Outside
S-003345
In 1976, Tony F. Weber and Ann S. Peak prepared Monterey Peninsula Regional Wastewater Treatment
System Expansion Project. The cultural resources assessment included a reconnaissance-level survey and
cultural history of the region. As a result of the field survey, a probable prehistoric site was identified
(identified in the report as JS-MP-1). Recommendations included further field reconnaissance in areas not
surveyed and archaeological monitoring for all excavations near the recorded locations of JS-MP-1.
S-003704
Ann S. Peak & Associates prepared Backhoe Testing of Point A, Monterey Regional Wastewater
Treatment System Outfall, Monterey County, California in 1981. The report documented the results of a
field reconnaissance survey that identified several possible prehistoric artifacts and several pieces of
historic glass that not were recorded. In order to test for the presence of more extensive subsurface
cultural materials it was determined that backhoe testing should be done. The findings of the test digging
revealed no further cultural resources.
S-005439
In 1978, Ann S. Peaks & Associates prepared Cultural Resource Assessment of the Selected Alternative of
the Monterey Regional Wastewater Treatment System, Monterey County, California. The report
documented the results of an archaeological investigation prior to the construction of the Monterey
Regional Wastewater Treatment System. Investigation methods included a reconnaissance level survey
and historical research. No archaeological sites were identified as a result of the study. Recommendations
included the use of an archaeological monitor during all construction activities in areas that showed
potential for uncovering concealed archaeological sites.
S-009552
Peak & Associates authored Cultural Resource Assessment of the Marina County Water Districts
Wastewater Facilities, Monterey County, California in 1987 for Jones & Stokes Associates. The report
was prepared to identify any cultural resources within the current wastewater facilities. In addition to
archival research, a records information search was conducted at the NWIC at Sonoma State University.
No evidence of historic or prehistoric cultural resources was found during field surveys along the pipeline
alignments and previously unsurveyed portions of the wastewater facilities. Recommendations included
the use of a qualified archaeologist to monitor construction activities.

18
S-012218
In 1990, Mark Hylkema and Robert I. Orlins authored Archaeological Assessment for the RMC Lapis
Sand Plant Reclamation Project, Marina, Monterey County, California. The report was prepared for
Thomas Reid Associates in support of an EIR for the Sand Plant Reclamation Plan. In addition to pre-
field research, a records information search was conducted, which failed to identify any cultural
resources. During the field survey, no cultural resources were identified and it was determined that the
potential for finding cultural resources during any future reclamation activities was low.
Recommendations included monitoring reclamation activities and employing a qualified archaeologist to
identify any finds before resuming work.
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 1 Mile of the APE
The NWIC records search conducted for this project identified one previously recorded historic resource
within a 1-mile radius of the project APE (Table 2). The single identified resource is a railroad grade
segment that runs approximately parallel to State Route 1. No cultural resources were identified in the
APE.
Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 1 Mile of the Project APE
Primary
Number
Trinomial Resource Description California
Historical
Resource
Status
Codes
Recorded by and Year Proximity to
Project APE
(Township,
Range, and
Section)
P-27-002417 CA-MNT-2080H Historic site: Old Railroad
Grade
N/A Jones and Arrellano 2009;
Morgan, Dalldorf and Wear
1998
Outside
Native American Contact Program
Native American coordination was initiated for this project on February 28, 2014. As part of the process
of identifying cultural resources in or near the APE, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
was contacted to request a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF). The NAHC faxed a response on March
11, 2014 (Appendix B), and stated that Native American cultural resources were not identified within 1
mile of the APE, but noted that it is always possible for cultural resources to be unearthed during
construction activities. The NAHC also provided a contact list of nine Native American individuals or
tribal organizations that may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the APE. Letters were
prepared and mailed to each of the NAHC-listed contacts on March 12, 2014, requesting information
regarding any Native American cultural resources in or immediately adjacent to the APE.
One of the contacts recommended a no disturbance alternative, survey, subsurface testing,
presence/absence testing, mitigation and recovery programs, reburial of any ancestral remains,
replacement of all cultural remains, and Native American monitoring. Another contact recommended
cultural training, archaeological monitoring, and Native American monitoring. Two contacts stated that
they had no comment regarding the project. Two follow-up efforts were made to the remaining eight
Native American contacts on March 26, 2014, and April 8, 2014. No additional responses have been
received to date. A complete record of Native American coordination to date is provided in Table 3 and
Appendix B.

19
Table 3. Record of Native American Coordination Efforts
NAHC-provided Contact Coordination Efforts
Results of
Coordination Efforts
Ohlone/Coastanoan
720 North 2
nd
Street
Patterson, California 95363

Contact: Jakki Kehl
03/12/14: Letter sent via U.S. Mail.
03/26/14: Follow-up call placed. Voicemail
mailbox full; unable to leave message.
No response to date.
Coastanoan Rumsen Carmel Tribe
240 E. 1
st
Street
Pomona, California 91766

Contact: Tony Cerda, Chairperson
Ohlone/Coastanoan-Esselen Nation
P.O. Box 1301
Monterey, California 93942

Contact: Louise Miranda-Ramirez,
Chairperson
03/26/14: Follow-up call placed. Ms. Miranda-
Ramirez indicated that she had not received the
letter, and requested a PDF copy of letter and
attachments sent via e-mail; Ms. Miranda-
Ramirez responded to aforementioned e-mail with
a letter response recommending a no-disturbance
alternative.
Recommendation of a no-
disturbance alternative,
survey, subsurface testing,
presence/ absence testing,
mitigation and recovery
programs, reburial of any
ancestral remains,
replacement of all cultural
remains, and Native
American monitoring.
Trina Marine Ruano Family
30940 Watkins Street
Union City, California 94587

Contact: Ramona Garibay, Representative
03/26/14: Follow-up call placed, voicemail left.
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band
P.O. Box 5272
Galt, California 95632

Contact: Valentin Lopez, Chairperson
03/26/14: Follow-up call placed. Mr. Lopez
indicated that the project area was out of his
range and thus had no information to provide.
No further action required
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San
Juan Bautista
789 Canada Road
Woodside, California 94062

Contact: Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson
03/26/14: Ms. Zwierlein advised a one-hour
cultural training for all project staff in order to
prepare them for potential encounters with
cultural resources. She also stressed the
importance of having qualified archaeologists on
hand and securing a qualified Native American
monitor.
Recommendation of cultural
training, archaeological
monitoring, and Native
American monitoring.
P.O. Box 552
Soledad, California 93960

Contact: Christianne Arias, Vice Chairperson
35867 Yosemite Avenue
Davis, California 95616

Contact: Edward Ketchum
03/26/14: No phone number provided by NAHC;
Follow-up email sent.
04/08/14: Follow-up e-mail sent.
1116 Merlot Way
Gonzales, California 93926

Contact: Pauline Martinez-Arias, Tribal
Councilwoman
03/26/14: Follow-up call placed. Ms. Martinez-
Arias indicated that she had not received the
letter, and requested a PDF copy of letter and
attachments sent via e-mail. Follow-up email
sent.

20
Table 3. Record of Native American Coordination Efforts
NAHC-provided Contact Coordination Efforts
Results of
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of
Coastanoan
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, California 95024

Contact: Anne Marie Sayers, Chairperson
03/26/14: Follow-up call placed, voicemail left;
Ms. Sayers returned the call soliciting an opinion
on the likelihood of the presence of unidentified
cultural resources; it was indicated to her that the
likelihood was low based on our survey.
No further action required.
Ohlone/Coastanoan
1585 Mira Mar Avenue
Seaside, California 93955

Contact: Linda Yamane
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San
Juan Bautista
789 Canada Road
Woodside, California 94062

Contact: Michelle Zimmer
03/26/14: Follow-up call placed, message left with
household member.
04/08/14: Follow-up call placed, no voicemail
option available.
Local Historic Group/Local Government Contact Program
As part of the process of identifying historic resources in or near the APE, letters were prepared and
mailed to four local historic groups/local governments on March 12, 2014, requesting information on
potential or known historic resources in and around the project APE (Appendix C). Two of the contacts
were reached via telephone and stated that they did not have any comments on the proposed project.
Follow-up phone calls were made to the remaining two historic group contacts on March 26, 2014 and
April 8, 2014. No additional responses have been received to date. A complete record of historic
group/government coordination to date is provided in Table 4.
Table 4. Record of Historic Group/Local Government Coordination Efforts
Historic Group/Local
Government Contact
SWCA Coordination Efforts
Results of
Monterey County Historical Society
(MCHS)
Boronda Adobe History Center
333 Boronda Road
Salinas, California 93907

Contact: James Perry
03/26/14: Mr. Perry informed SWCA that the
MCHS were unable to locate any information
regarding the Lapis Sand Plant or sand mining in
the Monterey area.
No further reaction required.
Marina Branch Library
190 Seaside Circle

Contact: Sam Shields, Branch Librarian
03/26/14: Mr. Shields informed SWCA that he
had no knowledge of any cultural resources in or
near the project area.
No further reaction required.
The Monterey Salinas Valley Railroad
(MSVRR) Historical Society
26 Station Place

21
Table 4. Record of Historic Group/Local Government Coordination Efforts
Historic Group/Local
Government Contact
SWCA Coordination Efforts
Results of
Monterey County Resource Management
Agency, Department of Building Services,
Department of Planning
168 West Alisal Street, Second Floor
option available.
option available.
Additional Research
SWCA consulted with a number of archives, local governmental agencies, and individuals to identify
relevant information regarding the historical development of the Lapis Sand Plant and sand mining in the
Monterey Bay area. A complete record of these research efforts is outlined below in Table 5.
Table 5. Individuals/Organizations Consulted
Organization/Agency/Archive Individual Date Results Notes
Armstrong Family Jack Armstrong 04/07/14 Mr. Armstrong is the great-
grandson of John G.
Armstrong, the namesake
of the Armstrong Ranch.
He provided information
regarding the initial
purchase of the land on
which the project area is
located and its early
development.

Brian Finegan, Attorney Receptionist 03/11/14;
04/01/14
Provided information for
client, Jack Armstrong.

Burns Family Kenneth L. Burns 03/11/14 Mr. Burns is the son of
plant superintendent, Louis
Burns, and lived at the
property until he was 19.
He was able to provide
extensive background
information on the
developmental history of
the plant and its
operations.

California Geological Survey
Library
David Lushbaugh 03/06/14 Emailed relevant copies of
California State Mining
Bureau reports, dating
from 1920s through 1960s.

California Views Historical Photo
Collection
Pat Hatheway 03/18/14;
04/02/14
Negative. Mr. Hathaway was unable
to locate any relevant
materials.
City of Marina, Community
Development Department,
Building Services
N/A 03/05/14 Inconclusive. Office was closed at time
of visit.
City of Monterey, Planning Office Christine Hopper,
Senior Associate
Planner
04/01/14 Negative. No relevant information
was provided.

22
Table 5. Individuals/Organizations Consulted
Organization/Agency/Archive Individual Date Results Notes
Environmental Data Resources,
Inc. (EDR)
N/A 03/11/14;
03/12/14
Inconclusive aerial
photographs dating to
1956; and topographic
maps dating to 1913.
No Sanborn maps or
building permits were
identified as part of the
search.
Marina Historical Society Steve Emerson 03/11/14;
04/02/14
Inconclusive. No response.
Monterey County, Resource
Management Agency, Building
Services
Receptionist 03/05/14 Negative. No building permits prior to
1955 on file for
unincorporated areas of
Monterey County.
Monterey County Historical
Society
James Perry,
Archivist
03/04/14;
03/05/14
Negative. Perry and a group of
volunteers were unable to
locate any relevant
information.
Monterey County Library, Marina
Branch
Sam Shields,
Branch Manager
03/04/14 Monterey County Place
Names book describing
background of Lapis name
and confirming plant
manager Louis Burns.
Spoke with Mr. Shields
prior to visit. The book on
place names was the only
reference material he was
able to locate relating to
the subject property.
Monterey County Library,
Seaside Branch
Reference
Librarian
03/03/14 Negative. Examined vertical files,
local city directories, and
Marina newspapers on
microfiche, which only
dated to circa 1990s.
Monterey County Parks Meg Clovis,
Cultural Affairs
Manager
03/20/14 Emailed a copy of Hart
1966.

Monterey Public Library,
California History Room
Dennis Copeland;
Jeanne McCombs
03/04/14;
03/05/14
Various newspaper articles
relating to Lapis plant and
sand mining in the
Monterey area; and pages
from 1961 Mines and
Mineral Resources of
Monterey County.

University of California, Santa
Cruz, Library
Laura
McCIanathan
03/05/14 Inconclusive. Maps were in the process
of being moved and
required more notice than
was possible given time
constraints.

In addition SWCA consulted a number of online archives, including:
Proquest (San Francisco Chronicle)
Calishpere
Online Archive of California
David Rumsey Historical Map Collection
California Digital Newspaper Collection
NETR Online Historical Aerials
USGS US Topo and Historical Map Collection

23
Office of Coast Survey Historical Map Chart Image Catalog
University of Southern California, Santa Cruz library Aerial Photographs
JSTOR
Google Books
San Francisco Historical Photograph Collection, San Francisco Public Library
The Internet Archive
METHODS
Cultural Resources Survey
An intensive-level pedestrian survey of the project APE was conducted by archaeologist Leroy Laurie and
architectural historian Steven Treffers, on March 4, 2013 to identify and record any archaeological or
historic architectural resources (i.e., buildings, structures, objects, landscapes) that may be impacted by
the proposed undertaking. Because the project APE is located within an active sand mining facility, the
intensive-level survey was restricted to the direct APE. A reconnaissance-level survey was performed of
the indirect APE, visually examining the area from a safe distance. Some areas to the far north of the
indirect APE could not be safely seen from the direct APE and were therefore not surveyed. Notes and
photographs of each resource were taken to detail alterations, improvements, conditions, and setting. All
fieldwork was documented using field notes, digital photography, close-scale field maps, and aerial
photographs.
Archaeological Survey
The methods used for the intensive-level archaeological survey consisted of a pedestrian survey in linear
transects spaced no more than 5 meters apart. Within each transect, the ground surface was examined for
artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool-making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock
[FAR]), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and
features indicative of the current or former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., standing exterior
walls, postholes, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). At the time of the field
survey, ground surface visibility of the direct APE was excellent (80-100%), except for those areas
obscured by existing buildings or pavement.
Historic Architectural Survey
The intensive-level survey of the built environment APE included an examination of all buildings,
structures, and objects located in the APE. The intensive-level survey consisted of a visual inspection of
each building and any associated features. The survey included a review of all exterior elevations that
were observable from with the within the direct APE, and did not include any review of building interiors.
Each building or structure was photographed from all accessible elevations, and detailed notes were taken
to document their current condition, architectural details, observed alterations, and character-defining
features.

24
RESULTS AND IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS
Cultural Resources Survey
Archaeological Survey
No archaeological materials or evidence of subsurface archaeological deposits were identified during the
pedestrian survey. The direct APE has been subject to extensive development and ground disturbance
from historical and modern activities associated with the sand mining operation and on-site residences.
The portion of the direct APE west of the existing buildings and facilities (see Figure 4) is currently
subject to heavy equipment and light vehicle traffic and is comprised of numerous push-piles and sand
mining spoils. As such, this portion of the APE is considered to be highly disturbed. Cut banks associated
with the unpaved access road that bisects the western portion of the APE revealed disturbance to at least
3 feet below ground surface throughout.

Figure 4. Overview of the project area, looking east.
Architectural Survey
As a result of the intensive-level field survey, one historic district with nine contributing built
environment resources was identified, recorded, and evaluated (Figure 5). The Lapis Sand Mining Plant
historic district includes the following contributors: Sorting Plant, Washing Plant, Canal Flume, Lapis
Siding, Superintendents Residence, Bunkhouse, Garage/Office, Maintenance Shop, and Scale House and
Office (Table 6). There are a number of small ancillary buildings spread throughout the property that are
associated with the above-mentioned resources. In addition there are a number of settling ponds and a
dredging pond that were initially developed as part of the modernization of the facility in 1959-60. The
geographic boundaries and location of these features have frequently shifted since their initial
development. According to historic photographs, the current dredging boat and crane that floats atop the
dredging pond was put into operation sometime after 1966.
The eastern boundary of the historic district runs north from its southeastern terminus along the eastern
side of the Superintendents Residence before turning to the northwest to include the Scale House and

25
Office, and the Sorting Plant. The boundary then heads along a northwestern course to a point just east of
the Pacific Ocean. From this point, the boundary runs south and then southeast back to the southeastern
terminus to include the Canal Flume, associated ancillary buildings, and Lapis Siding. The boundary of
the Lapis Sand Mining Plant historic district is defined by the propertys historic built environment
elements, setting and property lines. The eastern boundary corresponds with the propertys historic
property line and is clearly defined by the location of the Plant Superintendents Residence. The northern,
western, and southern boundaries are delineated to include the propertys historic operations and
resources that contribute to the propertys historical significance. The complete set of State of California
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms prepared can be found in Appendix D of this report.
Table 6. Identified Built Environment Resources
Name
Date
Constructed
Status Integrity
Significance
Sorting Plant
1959-60 Contributor
High alterations appear limited to
window replacements.
A distinct mining structure that is
representative of the modernization of
the Lapis Plant in the post-World War II
era.
Washing Plant
1959 Contributor
High no known alterations. A distinct mining structure that is
representative of the modernization of
era.
Canal Flume
1959 Contributor
Medium the western portion has
been realigned since its initial
construction.
A structure that is representative of the
modernization of the Lapis Plant in the
post-World War II era.
Lapis Siding
Segment
Ca. 1906 Contributor
Medium the segment retains its
original alignment but the ballast and
ties are not visible. Further, the linear
feature extended much further west
than was observed during the course
of the current survey.
An essential element in the success
and growth of the Lapis Plant from its
establishment through the 1960s.
Superintendents
Residence
Medium although alterations to the
building occurred within the period of
significance, the property has been
vacant for nearly 15 years and some
of the materials have degraded since
this time.
Representative of the development of
necessary residential infrastructure that
contributed to the early growth of the
Lapis Plant.
Bunkhouse Ca. 1910s Contributor
High no known alterations. Representative of the development of
necessary residential infrastructure that
Lapis Plant.
Garage/Office Ca. 1906 Contributor
High additions occurred within the
period of significance and other
alterations are limited to the partial
replacement of doors.
necessary infrastructure that
Lapis Plant.
Maintenance
Shop
Medium although some additions
occurred within the period of
significance, some occurred after.
Nonetheless, it retains integrity of
location, setting, feeling, and
association and continues to convey
its historical function
necessary infrastructure that
contributed to the early and continued
growth of the Lapis Plant.
Scale House Ca. 1959 Contributor
Medium an addition occurred
outside of the period of significance,
but it still retains integrity of location,
setting, feeling, and association and
continues to convey its historical
function
Representative of the modernization of
era and the move towards an increased
reliance on shipping via cargo trucks.

26

Figure 5. A map showing all known resources within the APE.


27
SORTING PLANT
Constructed in 1959-60, the Sorting Plant is a large industrial facility composed of a series of connected
buildings that are arranged in a long linear plan and house various functions related to the sorting and
storage of sand (Figure 6). Characteristic of its industrial design, all of the buildings are sheathed almost
entirely in corrugated metal. The central feature is the sorting building, which is approximately six stories
in height and rectangular in plan. Capped by a gable roof, the building rests on an approximately two-
story tall concrete foundation and features replacement vinyl windows sporadically located across the
upper floors. The building features a large projection with a half-gable roof that extends outward and
down from the northeast elevation. In addition, various infrastructural elements such as large silos and
exhaust pipes, are located across the exterior of the building. An approximately two-story building to the
southeast is also rectangular in plan with a gable roof. This structure houses equipment that feeds sand to
the sorting building, including machinery, large pipes, and conveyor belts. Extending northwest from the
sorting building are two large storage buildings. Both of these feature gable roofs and have fenestration
that is limited to large open doors on various elevations. There are presently two non-operational rail cars
located along the northeast side of the subject property. With the exception of the replaced windows, the
Sorting Plant retains its integrity and is in overall good condition.

Figure 6. Overview of the Sorting Plant; view to the northwest.
WASHING PLANT
The Washing Plant was developed in support of dredging operations in 1959 (Figure 7). Also known as a
Dorr Oliver Jet Sizer, the industrial structure is approximately two stories in height and is constructed
of exposed structural metal posts and beams with a metal staircase that wraps around the exterior. Sand
and water are pumped through tubing from a dredging pond that is located near the coastline
approximately 0.25 mile to the west, and then fed to the top of the structure and into washing and
classifying machinery below. Once the clean sand reaches the bottom of the machinery, it is fed into piles
via three conveyor belts that extend outwards from the structure. The waste water is then pumped into a
canal flume that leads to settling ponds approximately 0.25 mile to the west. Two small ancillary
buildings are associated with the washing plant. Both house pumping equipment and are square in plan,
sheathed in vertical wood siding, and capped by a flat roof. One is located immediately west of the
subject structure and pumps water into the canal flume, and the other is located approximately 900 feet to
the northwest and pumps sand and water to the washing plant from the dredging pond. The Washing Plant
is in good overall condition and retains its integrity.

28

Figure 7. Overview of the Washing Plant; view to the northwest.
CANAL FLUME
The Canal Flume was constructed in 1959 to support the commencement of dredging operations at the
Lapis Sand Mining Plant (Figure 8). Approximately 1,250 feet in length, the flume directs wastewater
west from the sand washing plant to settling ponds near the coastline. The narrow flume is lined with
wood siding and braced by horizontal wood boards that intermittently span the open-air trench. A dirt
road crosses over the flume approximately 410 feet from the eastern terminus at the sand washing plant.
Historic aerial photographs suggest that since the flume was initially constructed, the western portion has
been realigned multiple times to connect to the frequently shifting settling ponds. The majority of the
flume appears to have remained in its original alignment, however. Although this has affected some
aspects of the flumes design, materials, and workmanship, it strongly retains integrity of location, setting,
feeling, and association.

Figure 8. Overview of the Canal Flume; view to the northeast.

29
LAPIS SIDING
The intensive-level survey identified and recorded an approximately 420-foot-long segment of the Lapis
Siding (Figure 9), a rail siding that was constructed circa 1906 to connect the concurrently developed
Lapis Sand Mining Plant with the former SP Monterey Branch to the east. From its eastern terminus at the
eastern boundary of the Lapis Sand Mining Plant, the segment consists of two parallel metal rail lines that
merge into one line at a rail switch approximately 135 feet to the west. The segment continues along a
general northwesterly course for approximately 285 feet before it becomes covered by sand and dirt.
Since its decommissioning in the late 1980s, the recorded segment has been partially infilled and as a
result, no ballast or ties are currently visible. The recorded segment of the Lapis Siding retains integrity of
location, design, setting, feeling, and association. Since the siding was decommissioned, much of the line
has been infilled with dirt and sand, and the ballast and ties were not clearly evident within the recorded
segment. Further, historic topographic maps indicate that the Lapis Siding extended much further west
and north than was observed during the course of the current survey (Figure 10). Archival research was
unable to determine if the rails, ties, and/or any associated infrastructure of the larger rail siding were
removed. Because of the constantly shifting sand dunes, there is potential that other intact segments may
be buried underneath the changing landscape.

Figure 9. Overview of the Lapis Siding; view to the east.

30

Figure 10. A USGS topographic map from 1947 (photo revised in 1983) depicting the historic extent of
the Lapis Siding, with the segment recorded as part of the current survey identified.
10
1
1

31
SUPERINTENDENTS RESIDENCE
The former residence of the plant superintendent is a two- and one-story building located towards the
eastern boundary of the Lapis Sand Plant (Figure 11). Constructed circa 1920, the two-story main unit of
the building was expanded to the north in 1955-56 with a single-story addition that resulted in the current
rectangular plan. The roof features exposed rafters and asphalt composition shingles, and is hipped on the
main two-story unit and gabled on the single-story addition. Primarily vernacular in its design, the
building is sheathed in wood simple-drop and clapboard siding, and incorporates an original concrete
chimney on the west elevation of the main unit and a later brick-masonry chimney on the east elevation of
the northern addition. Most notable among its design accents is an Asian-influenced railing that encloses a
balcony on the southeast corner of the second floor, which is accessed via an exterior wood stairway on
the eastern elevation. The balcony originally extended the entire length of the second floor but was
partially filled in 1955-56 to create an additional interior room. Many of the main units original wood
casement windows were replaced in 1955-56 with the same aluminum slider type windows that are
present on the northern addition. Additional fenestration includes entryways on the eastern and western
elevations that feature various door types. The building is currently vacant and in moderate condition.
Although the above-mentioned alterations affected aspects of the original 1920s design, they are
representative of the continuing development of the Lapis Sand Mining Plant and therefore the building
retains integrity.

Figure 11. Overview of the Superintendents Residence; view to the northwest.
BUNKHOUSE
The Bunkhouse is a small, single-story residential building on a concrete foundation located immediately
west of the Superintendents residence at the Lapis Sand Mining Plant and constructed circa the 1910s
(Figure 12). Centered on a small central courtyard, it is a front-facing U-shape in plan with a rounded bay
extending slightly out from the northern elevation and a small shed extension from the western elevation.
Designed in a Minimal Traditional style with Craftsman influences, the building is capped by a
composition asphalt shingle roof that is gabled at the front (east) and hipped at the rear (west) with
exposed rafters, and partially extends outward over the courtyard via diagonal wood posts. The wood
frame structural system is clad in simple-drop wood siding and is punctuated by a concrete chimney with
a missing flue on the western elevation. Primary access is granted from the courtyard via various wood

32
paneled and French doors, with a secondary wood and glass paneled-door located on the western
elevation. Additional fenestration includes double hung, fixed, and casement windows, all of which are
set in wood frames. Located in the center of the courtyard is a concrete rafter pergola that has spalled,
resulting in the exposure and rusting of the interior structural metal beams. Although the spalling concrete
and missing flue have affected the aspects of the buildings materials and workmanship, it is in good
overall condition and retains much of its integrity.

Figure 12. Overview of the Bunkhouse; view to the west.
GARAGE/OFFICE
The Garage/Office consists of three adjoining but distinct units, resulting in an irregular U-shaped plan
(Figure 13). The eastern most unit was constructed circa 1906 and was initially the residence of the plant
superintendent. Currently housing office space, this section is square in plan and capped by a moderately-
pitched hipped roof with exposed rafters and sheathed in composition asphalt shingles. Its wood frame
structural system is clad in stucco. There is a recessed entryway on the southern elevation and a covered
porch area on the northern elevation supported by wood columns. Fenestration includes original wood-
framed casement windows and wood- and glass-paneled doors. Limited but distinctive design features
include concrete planters on the south and east elevations that are currently spalling. The large central unit
is a garage addition that was constructed circa 1910s and extends west from the southeastern corner of the
former residence unit. Rectangular in plan, the garage is sheathed in stucco and metal siding and features
a hipped roof that is sheathed in composition asphalt shingles. The central garage unit features large
original and replacement wood doors across the northern elevation, with additional access granted via
wood- and glass-paneled doors off the covered porch of the eastern unit. Windows are limited to wood-
framed windows on the northern and southern elevations. Attached to the southern elevation of the garage
is a shed extension that was constructed at an unknown date. The shed features a flat roof and is sheathed
entirely in corrugated metal with the exception of large plywood doors that comprise the southern
elevation. Currently used as an office and storage space, the subject property remains in overall good
condition and continues to convey its historical function.

33

Figure 13. Overview of the Garage/Office; view to the north.
MAINTENANCE SHOP
The Maintenance Shop is a single-story Utilitarian-style maintenance building (Figure 14). Initially
constructed circa 1906, the wood-framed building is sheathed in corrugated metal and wood paneling, and
is irregular in plan following the addition of multiple shed extensions. The building consists of two
primary units that step down to the southeast and feature moderately pitched front-gabled roofs. Visual
inspection and archival research indicate that three shed extensions were added to the building in the late
1950s or early 1960s: first to the northeastern elevation, and subsequently to the southwest and northwest
elevations. The building features sliding corrugated metal doors at each end of the primary sections
(northwest and southeast), as well as additional corrugated metal and metal doors on the shed extensions.
Windows on the southwest elevation are currently boarded with plywood, and there is a replacement
aluminum-sliding window located on the northeast elevation. There are numerous ancillary buildings
associated with the subject property, all of which house various materials and equipment used in the
maintenance of the overall sand mining facility. The small, one-story buildings share common design
features and are located primarily to the south of the maintenance shop. They are rectangular in plan, with
flat or gabled roofs, and sheathed in wood siding or corrugated metal. In addition there is a small, wood
water tank that is circular in plan and sheathed in vertical wood siding. The Maintenance Shop remains in
overall good condition and continues to convey its historical function.

Figure 14. Overview of the Maintenance Shop; view to the northwest.

34
SCALE HOUSE
Located at the Lapis Sand Mining Plant, this small one-story Scale House was initially constructed circa
1959 (Figure 15). The concrete-masonry unit Scale House is rectangular in plan and capped by a flat roof
with a fascia board. Comprised of two bays, the eastern bay was constructed in 1997 and is slightly taller
than the western bay; it features a large window on the south elevation that allows employees to interact
with truck drivers as they pull up to the building. Additional fenestration includes steel casement
windows and a single metal and glass door on the east elevation. There is a prefabricated office building
situated immediately east of the Scale House and sits above the ground on a raised trailer. In addition to a
flagpole at the eastern boundary of the subject property, bollards direct outgoing trucks onto underground
scales located immediately south of the Scale House. The subject property remains in good overall
condition and although the 1997 addition affected some aspects of the buildings original design, it retains
integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association, and continues to convey its historical function as a
Scale House.

Figure 15. View of Scale House in background with adjacent office in
foreground; view to the northeast.
Evaluation
The Lapis Sand Mining Plant was established in 1906 by the E.B. and A.L. Stone Company. The
Oakland, California based construction firm believed the sand from the surrounding dunes to be ideal for
concrete production and needed a steady supply of the building material in the aftermath of the 1906 San
Francisco earthquake and subsequent fires (Armstrong 2014). The Stone Company purchased the land
from John A. Armstrong, an early settler and rancher who sold the company 400 acres at $2 per acre with
the stipulation that a fence be built to keep his cattle out of the sand dunes (Armstrong 2014). Initial
development of the plant included the construction of a small superintendents residence and the Lapis
Siding, a rail line which connected to the SP Monterey Branch (Burns 2014). Using a locomotive crane,
sand was scooped by dragline or crane directly into railroad cars and shipped to the San Francisco Bay
Area with little or no processing (Hart 1966:88).
Sand mining has a long history in the United States. While the practice along the northern California coast
dates to at least 1865, it didnt begin in earnest in the southern Monterey Bay until 1889 with the
completion of the SP Monterey Branch. The earliest operation appears to be related to the later-named

35
Del Monte Sand Plant, which was located in Asilomar and exported sand largely for use in bottle glass
production (Seavey and the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove 2005:101). The Lapis Sand Mining Plant,
however, appears to be the first large-scale endeavor to produce sand for use as a building material.
Historic maps from 1910 and 1913 indicate the Lapis Siding was the only rail siding connected to SPs
Monterey Line by this time (Coast and Geodetic Survey 1910; USGS 1913). According to the California
State Mineralogists annual report, the Lapis Plant remained the only building material-specific sand mine
in Monterey County until 1916, by which time the Stone Company was outputting nearly 1,000 to 1,200
tons of sand per day (California State Mining Bureau 1916:615). Contributing to this increased
productivity was a larger, permanent on-site staff, which was housed in a new bunkhouse that was
constructed during the 1910s (Burns 2014).

This staff had reached a total of eight men when the Bay Development Company took over operations in
1918. Based out of San Francisco, the company expanded the facility over the following decade through
the construction of a larger plant superintendents residence and possibly a garage addition to the old
residence (Burns 2014). Other improvements to the property included the development of wells and the
installation of a stationary hoist (Figure 16). Although the sand continued to be transported directly into
railroad cars, the Bay Development Company began to obtain sand from the beach in addition to the
dunes and therefore diversified their output. The coarser dune sand continued to be used primarily in
building and construction work for concrete and mortar, while the finer sand from the beach working
resulted in a new product that was well suited for sand blasting and marble cutting, and as locomotive
sand (California State Mining Bureau 1925:55).

Figure 16. 1925 photograph of the stationary hoist (source: California State Mining Bureau
1925:56).
In 1929, the recently formed Pacific Coast Aggregates assumed operation of the Lapis Sand Mining Plant.
The recently formed company made no significant changes to the property over the following decade, and
production at the plant appears to have held steady through the Great Depression. Production soon
increased with the onset of World War II, with much of the sand exported to northern California foundries
for use as a core material for heavy gray iron castings (Division of Mines 1948:45). As a result of the war
effort and the prosperous years that followed, a number of new sand mining operations opened along the

36
Monterey Bay Coast and were soon in direct competition with Pacific Coast Aggregates, including the
Granite Construction Company in Sand City, Monterey Sand Company in Marina, Seaside Sand and
Gravel Company in Marina, and Owens-Illinois Company in Moss Beach (Hart 1966). While the Lapis
Sand Mining Plant continued to produce sand much as it had since 1906, many of these new operations
developed modern facilities that allowed for the efficient washing, sorting, and packaging of sand (Figure
17).

Figure 17. 1946 photograph of sand removal at the Lapis Sand Mining Plant (source: Division of
Mines 1946:Plate 4).
Pacific Coast Aggregates reorganized as Pacific Cement and Aggregates in 1958 and quickly set to
modernizing its facilities to provide for increased production. Settling ponds and a dredging pond were
easily developed because of the abundant ground water and allowed the company to access coarser sand
from older deposits beneath the dunes (Figure 18). To wash and classify the sand, a Dorr Oliver Jet
Sizer was installed in 1959. Commonly known as the washing plant, dredged sand was pumped to the
structure from a dredging boat and crane and hydraulically sorted into 8 size ranges (Hart 1966:89). A
canal flume was constructed in support of the washing plant to direct wastewater to settling ponds in the
west. In 1960, a large sorting plant was constructed to the north of the washing plant. This large structure
was similar to those constructed at surrounding sand mining plants and allowed the company to not only
further sort sand, but also dry it and blend it to a customers specifications (Hart 1966:90).


37

Figure 18. 1966 photograph of dredging operations at the Lapis Sand Mining Plant
(source: Hart 1966:89).
Over the following decade, new technology drove sand to become one of the most important mineral
commodity groups in Monterey County. From 1901 through 1964, recorded production totals were close
to $50,000,000, with the value of sand and gravel in the two decades after 1945 exceeding $1,000,000
annually (Hart 1966:84). At the peak of the industry, there appear to have been six major sand mining
plants (including the Lapis Sand Mining Plant) operating along the coast in Monterey County. Sand
mining operated unregulated until 1968 when the State Lands Commission issued and began to manage
leases of the coastal land. Because of ongoing erosion, additional regulations were put into effect in 1974
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers further restricting mining activities along the coast (Berner 2008).
As sand mining leases expired over the following decade, nearly all of the sand mining plants were forced
to shut down operations by the late 1980s. The buildings and structures of these facilities were
subsequently demolished in response to community concerns regarding safety and viewsheds. The Lapis
Sand Mining Plant changed ownership to RMC Lonestar in the 1970s and eventually to CEMEX in 2005,
and remains as the last extant facility of a once prevalent industry in Monterey Bay.
The Lapis Sand Mining Plant represents one of the earliest and largest sand mining operations in the
southern Monterey Bay. The property consists of a variety of industrial, commercial, and residential
resources that characterize the establishment and growth of both the facility and the sand mining industry
in California as a whole.
All of these functionally-related resources collectively contribute to the significance of the property; and
result in a historic district that appears eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) and the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) under Criteria A/1 for its associations
with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patters of local and regional history
of California. Further, the physical design of the property and the resources it encompasses are specific to
its function as a sand mining facility. This distinct and identifiable entity has continually developed

38
throughout the districts period of significance, which begins in 1906 with the establishment of the
facility and ends with the completion of modernization efforts in 1960. The alterations and additions to
the larger property and the resources it encompasses experienced during this period are representative of
the ongoing growth of the sand mining industry through the post-World War II era. The Lapis Sand
Mining Plant therefore retains integrity, and as a rare intact example of a continuously operating coastal
sand mining plant property in California, it also appears eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criteria
C/3 for its embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, and region of construction. The
property as a whole retains a high degree of integrity of design, materials, association, location, feeling,
workmanship, and setting to accurately convey the period of significance. Because the built environment
resources located within the district are not associated with the productive lives of members of the
Armstrong facility or any other notable individuals, the subject property does not appear eligible for
listing in the NRHP or CRHR under Criteria B/2. Further, no evidence was identified that suggests the
built environment resources have the potential to yield information and the property does not appear
eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR under Criteria D/4.
Effects/Impacts Analysis
In accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.5[a](1), adverse effects occur when an undertaking may directly or
indirectly alter characteristics of a historic property that qualify it for inclusion in the NRHP. CEQA also
requires a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical resources
(PRC Section 21084.1).
Examples of adverse effects include physical destruction or damage; alteration not consistent with the
Secretary of the Interiors Standards; relocation of a property; change of use or physical features of a
propertys setting; visual, atmospheric, or audible intrusions; neglect resulting in deterioration; or transfer,
lease, or sale of a property out of Federal ownership or control without adequate protections. Reasonably
foreseeable effects caused by the project that may occur later in time, be farther removed in distance, or
be cumulative also need to be considered.
Archaeological Resources
No archaeological resources were identified during the intensive-level field survey. Surface visibility was
excellent (80 to 100%). The project is located on the coast, which contained numerous resources that were
commonly exploited by Native Americans throughout prehistory. Geologic mapping by Dibblee (1998)
indicates that the APE is immediately underlain by younger Quaternary alluvial deposits of Holocene age,
which have the potential to contain archaeological resources. The historic use of the Lapis Sand Mining
Plant may have generated archaeological deposits as well, including refuse pits and buried foundations.
For these reasons, and the fact that no archaeological testing or monitoring has ever occurred in the
project area, it should be treated as potentially sensitive for the presence of both prehistoric and historic
archaeological resources. The area of greatest sensitivity is the eastern end of the direct APE that contains
the buildings associated with the historic district. This area was subject to less ground disturbance related
to sand mining than was the rest of the APE, and it is more likely to contain buried historic archaeological
features due to the proximity of the extant historic buildings.
Prehistoric materials in the project area might include flaked or ground stone tools, tool-making debris,
pottery, culturally modified animal bone, fire-affected rock, or soil darkened by cultural activities
(midden). Historic materials might include building or railroad remains, metal, glass, ceramic artifacts, or
other debris greater than 45 years old.

39
Archaeological Mitigation Measures
Implementation of the following mitigation measures should occur in the event that unanticipated
belowground cultural resources are identified during construction activities. These measures would
reduce the level of impacts to less than significant.
Cultural Resource Mitigation Measure 1 (CR-1)
A qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interiors professional qualifications standards in
archaeology (National Park Service 1983) shall be retained to provide archaeological services for the
project.
Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, an archaeological monitor working under the direction
of the qualified archaeologist shall conduct a brief awareness training session for all construction workers
and supervisory personnel. The training shall explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection
of significant archaeological resources. Each worker should learn the proper procedures to follow in the
event that cultural resources or human remains/burials are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities,
including those that occur when an archaeological monitor is not present. These procedures include work
curtailment or redirection and the immediate contact of the site supervisor and the archaeological monitor.
It is recommended that this worker education session include visual images or samples of artifacts that
might be found in the project vicinity, and that the session take place on-site immediately prior to the start
of ground-disturbing activities.
An archaeological monitor working under the direction of the qualified archaeologist shall monitor all
ground disturbance in areas within 100 feet of the historic buildings within the direct APE. These include
the Superintendents Residence, Bunkhouse, Garage/Office, Maintenance Shop, and Scale House and
Office. The timing and duration of the monitoring may be adjusted during project implementation by the
qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the lead agency (City of Marina and Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary), whose decision shall be informed by the apparent sensitivity of the sediments in the
project area once they are exposed.
In the event that archaeological resources (artifacts or features) are exposed during ground-disturbing
activities, construction activities in the immediate vicinity (25 feet) of the discovery shall be halted while
the resources are evaluated for significance by the qualified archaeologist. Construction activities could
continue in other areas. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional work, such as archaeological
data recovery or project redesign, may be warranted and would be discussed in consultation with the lead
agency.
The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during construction activities and California
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 addresses this issue. This code section states that, in the event of
inadvertent discovery of human remains, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner
shall be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the
coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The
MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification, and may recommend
scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native
American burials. The California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 process shall be noted on

40
project grading and construction plans and reviewed during the construction worker awareness training
session.
Architectural Resources
The project APE contains one property, the Lapis Sand Mining Plant, which is eligible for listing in the
NRHP and the CRHR as a historic district, as one of the earliest and remaining sand mining operations in
the southern Monterey Bay. The eastern portion of the direct APE includes seven contributors to the
historic district: Plant Superintendents Residence, Bunkhouse, Office/Garage, Maintenance Shop, Lapis
Siding, Canal Flume, and Scale House. The proposed project includes ground disturbance using
mechanical equipment. Trenching and directional horizontal drilling for electrical conduit installation is
proposed in an area through which the Lapis Siding extends. As currently proposed, development of the
project would result in direct damage and/or removal of the Siding, causing a significant impact on an
historic district contributor. There is adequate room in adjacent areas to complete all proposed
construction activities and avoid direct impacts to the Siding and all other structures.
The proximity of additional contributing structures (the Lapis Siding and Canal Flume in particular) to
proposed construction activities would leave them potentially vulnerable during project construction.
Accidental contact with mechanized equipment could cause damage to the resources, resulting in a loss of
historic integrity and an adverse effect to historic properties. Given the industrial nature of the property,
construction activities would be generally consistent with the ongoing operations of the property, and
would not be expected to substantially increase existing noise or vibration levels. The project is also not
anticipated to have any visual effects to the historic district, as the proposed project components would
largely be below ground.
In order to avoid and reduce impacts to historic properties during construction activities, Cultural
Resource Mitigation Measure 4 should be incorporated to minimize impacts to historic resources.
The project area shall be redesigned to avoid significant adverse effects to historic resources; in particular,
direct impacts to the Lapis Siding that is identified as a contributor to the Lapis Sand Mining Plant
Historic District shall be avoided. Because the Siding extends through the eastern portion of the
construction footprint, the construction plans should be redesigned to locate all project components and
construction activities in adjacent areas that do not contain structures associated with the Lapis Sand
Mining Plant. Avoidance of impacts to historic district contributors in close proximity to construction
activities shall be accomplished by installing flagging or safety fencing around, or covering with
plywood, any adjacent buildings or structures that would be within 5 feet of mechanized equipment.


41
REFERENCES CITED
Armstrong, Jack
2014 Personal communication with Steven Treffers. April 7.
Bennyhoff, James A., and Richard E. Hughes
1987 Shell Bead and Ornament Exchange Networks Between California and the Western Great
Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Vol. 64, Pt. 2.
American Museum of Natural History, New York.
Berner, Andrew D.
2008 Sand Mining on the Monterey Bay. Memorandum to Steve Zmak. Sierra Club, Ventana
Chapter. July 18.
Burns, Kenneth L.
2014 Personal communication with Steven Treffers. April 2.
Breschini, Gary S., and Trudy Haversat
2004 The Esselen Indians of the Big Sur Country. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.
California State Mining Bureau
1916 Report XV of the State Mineralogist. California State Printing Office. Sacramento,
California.
1925 Report XXI of the State Mineralogist. California State Printing Office. Sacramento,
California.
City of Carmel-By-The-Sea
2014 History Sections. Carmel Chamber of Commerce. Electronic document,
http://www.carmelcalifornia.com/. Accessed March 12, 2014.
City of Marina
2005 Marinas History. City of Marina. Available at
http://www.ci.marina.ca.us/documents/8/Marina%20History.PDF. Accessed March 12,
2014.
2006 Marina General Plan. Marina.
Coast and Geodetic Survey
1910 Pacific Coast from Point Pinos to Bodega Head [map; 1:200,000]. Coast and Geodetic
Survey, Washington D.C.
Dill, Tom
2003 Southern Pacifics Scenic Coast Line: A Color Pictorial. Four Way West Publications, La
Mirada, California.

42
Division of Mines
1946 California Mineral Production for 1946. Bulletin 139. Division of Mines. San Francisco,
California.
1948 California Journal of Mines and Geology. Volume 48. Division of Mines. San Francisco,
California. 1948.
Gudde, Erwin G.
1998 California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names.
University of California Press, Berkeley.
Hathaway, Pat
2014 City of Marina, Monterey Co. California Views: The Pat Hathaway Photo Collection.
Available at http://caviews.com/Marina.html. Accessed March 12, 2014.
Hart, Earl W.
1966 Mines and Mineral Resource of Monterey, California. County Report 5, California Division
of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, California.
Hoover, Mildred B., Hero E. Rensch, Ethel G. Rensch, and William N. Abeloe
2002 Historic Spots in California. 5th ed. Revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press,
Palo Alto, California.
Johnson, Paul C. (editor)
1979 The California Missions, a Pictorial History. Sunset Publishing Corporation, Menlo Park,
California.
Jones, Terry L., Nathan E. Stevens, Deborah A. Jones, Richard T. Fitzgerald, and Mark G. Hylkema
2007 The Central Coast: A Midaltitude Milieu. In California History: Colonization, Culture, and
Complexity, pp. 125-146.
Levy, Richard
1978 Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp.485495. Handbook of North
American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C.
Margolin, Malcolm
1978 The Ohlone Way: Indian Life in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area. Heyday Books, San
Francisco.
Milliken, Randall
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area
17691810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers, No. 43. Ballena Press, Menlo Park,
California.
Mithun, Marianne
2001 The Languages of Native North America. Reprinted. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts. Originally published 1999, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

43
Seavey, Kent and the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove
2005 Pacific Grove. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.
U.S. Geological Survey
1913 Monterey Quadrangle [map; 1:62,500]. United States Geological Survey, Washington D.C.

44
LIST OF PREPARERS AND QUALIFICATIONS
Shannon Carmack
Architectural Historian Shannon Carmack served as project manager and lead author on this report. Ms.
Carmack meets the qualifications as an architectural historian and historian under the Secretary of the
Interiors Professional Qualification Standards. Ms. Carmack has a B.A. in History from California State
University, Long Beach and more than 14 years of professional experience as an architectural historian
and historian, conducting historic resource surveys and evaluations in California, in compliance with
NEPA and CEQA. This work includes various built environment assessments for numerous agencies to
fulfill NEPA, NHPA Section 106, and CEQA requirements.
Steven Treffers
Architectural Historian Steven Treffers conducted the field survey, Section 106 consultation, and
authored this report. Mr. Treffers meets the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualification
Standards in Architectural History. Mr. Treffers has a Master of Historic Preservation from the University
of Southern California and has completed over 4 years of work experience in historic preservation
throughout the West. He has conducted field surveys and historic research, and prepared technical reports
in compliance with NHPA Section 106, CEQA, and numerous local ordinances.
Leroy Laurie
Cultural Resources Specialist Leroy Laurie conducted the field survey. Mr. Laurie meets the
qualifications as an archaeologist under the Secretary of the Interiors Professional Qualification
Standards (36 CFR Part 61). Mr. Laurie has a B.S. in Social Sciences from California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo and more than 12 years of professional experience in archaeology,
conducting cultural resource surveys and evaluations in California, in compliance with NEPA, NHPA
Section 106, and CEQA.


Appendix A

Records Search Results


CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
I NFORMATION
S YSTEM
DATE: March 18, 2014
TO: Shannon Carmack
ALAMEDA
COLUSA
CONTilA CO:.TA
DEL NORTE
HUMBOLDT SAN fRANCISCO
LAKE SAN MATEO
MARIN SANTA CLATA
MENDOCINO SANTA CRUZ
MONTEREY SOLANO
NAPA SONOMA
SAN BENITO YOLO
Northwest Information Center
Sonoma State University
150 Professional Center Drive, Suite E
Rohnert Park, California 94928-3609
Tel: 707.588.8455
nwic@sonoma.edu
http://www .sonoma.edu/nwic
NWIC File No.: 13-1317
FROM: Charles Mikulik l t ~
Re: 26292 Marina Slant
Marina 7.5' Quad
Resources In None.
Resources within .1-mile P-27 -002417
radius
Reports In S-003345, S-003704, S-005439, S-009552, S-012218
Reports within .1-mile radius S-003427, S-014001 , S-016462, s-017494, S-022657, S-023937,
S-030832, S-031328,S-031346, S-032385,S-032920, S-036240,
S-037725
Other Reports Two (2) reports are classified as "Other Reports" (reports with little
or no field work, missing maps, or inadequate locational
information) that cover your search area: S-000848, S-015529.
The report map does not depict a study area for this report
because the shape is either not representable or would be shown
at a very large scale (i.e., all of Monterey County). In addition,
you have not been charged the digitized shape fee for the study
area. The reference for this report is provided in a separate PDF,
and should you decide you want a copy let us know.
OHP HPD Marina and vicinity provided.
OHPADOE None.
California Inventory Marina.
Local Inventories None.
Historic Maps None.
GLO or Rancho Maps City Lands of Monterey Rancho Plats provided.
Northwest Information Center Report Listing
S-number Year Title Affiliation Author(s)
S-003345 1976 Monterey Peninsula Regional Wastewater
Treatment System Expansion Project
Ann S. Peak & Associates Tony F. Weber and Ann S.
Peak
S-003427 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance of two parcels in
Marina, California: (A) Drive-In Theatre, Cardoza
Avenue, Abdy Way, near Beach Road; (B) Sand
Hill Nursery, Beach Road near Cardoza (ARS 78-
25 & 26) (letter report)
Archaeological Resource
Service
Katherine Flynn
S-003704 1981 Backhoe Testing of Point A, Monterey Regional
Wastewater Treatment System Outfall, Monterey
County, California
Ann S. peak & Associates Ann S. Peak & Associates
S-005439 1978 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Selected
Alternative of the Monterey Regional Wastewater
Treatment System, Monterey County, California.
Ann S. Peak and Associates Ann S. Peak and Associates
S-009552 1987 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Marina
County Water District's Wastewater Facilities,
Monterey County, California
Peak and Associates Peak and Associates
S-012218 1990 Archaeological Assessment for the RMC
Lonestar Lapis Sand Plant Reclamation Project,
Mark Hylkema and Robert I.
Orlins
S-014001 1992 Preliminary Cultural Resources Reconnaissance
for the MPWMD Desalinization Pipeline,
Archaeological Consulting Anna Runnings and Gary S.
Breschini
S-016462 1994 Addendum 2 to the Archaeological
Reconnaissance of the Salinas Valley Seawater
Intrusion Project
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. Jones & Stokes Associates,
Inc.
S-017494 1983 Archaeological Reconnaissance, Gullwing
Properties (letter report)
Archaeological Consulting and
Research Services, Inc.
Stephen A. Dietz
S-022657 2000 Archaeological Survey Along Onshore Portions
of the Global West Fiber Optic Cable Project
Science Applications
International Corporation
Izaak Sawyer, Laurie
Pfeiffer, Karen Rasmussen,
and Judy Berryman
S-023937 2001 Proposed Construction of Bike Lane and
Sidewalks on Reservation Road from State
Route 1 to Marina State Beach, 05-MNT-CU05-
168
Caltrans Kelda Wilson
S-030832 2005 Preliminary Archaeological Archival Research for
the Marina Station Project, in Marina, Monterey
County, California.
Archaeological Consulting Mary Doane and Gary S.
Breschini
S-031328 2006 AC 3791 Marina Station Project (letter report) Archaeological Consulting Mary Doane
S-031346 2006 Preliminary Archaeological Reconnaissance for
the Marina Station Project, in Marina, Monterey
County, California.
Archaeological Consulting Mary Doane and Gary S.
Breschini
S-032385 2006 Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance for the
Marina Coast Water District Regional Urban
Water Augmentation Project, Recycled Water
Component, Northern Segment, in Marina and
Seaside, Monterey County, California
Archaeological Consulting Mary Doane and Trudy
Haversat
S-032920 2006 AC 3791, Marina Station, Cultural Resource P-
27-2417 (CA-MNT-2080H) (letter report)
Archaeological Consulting Gary S. Breschini
S-036240 2009 Archaeological Survey for the Cal-Am Coastal
Water Project, Monterey County, California
Pacific Legacy, Inc. Kari Jones and John Holson
S-037725 2010 Archaeological Survey Report for the Monterey
Light Rail Transit Project
Far Western Anthropological
Research Services, Inc.
Allika Ruby
Page 1 of 1 3/18/2014 11:59:03 AM
Northwest Information Center Report Listing
S-number Year Title Affiliation Author(s)
S-000848 1977 A Summary of Knowledge of the Central and
Northern California Coastal Zone and Offshore
Areas, Vol. III, Socioeconomic Conditions,
Chapter 7: Historical & Archaeological Resources
The Anthropology Laboratory,
Sonoma State College
David A. Fredrickson
S-015529 1993 California, Oregon, and Washington:
Archaeological Resource Study
Espey, Huston & Associates,
Inc.; Dames & Moore
Robert L. Gearhart II, Clell L.
Bond, Steven D. Hoyt,
James H. Cleland, James
Anderson, Pandora
Snethcamp, Gary Wesson,
Jack Neville, Kim Marcus,
Andrew York, and Jerry
Wilson
Page 1 of 1 3/18/2014 12:31:46 PM
Primary No. HRI No. Trinomial
Northwest Information Center Resource Listing
Name Other IDs Reports (S-)
P-27-002417 CA-MNT-2080H AR-3 "Old Railroad
Grade" (USGS
Marina quad., 1947,
1983)
30832, 31328, 31346,
32920, 34216, 36240
Page 1 of 1 3/18/2014 11:53:18 AM

Appendix B

NAHC Sacred Lands File Results and Native American Contact Program


SWE OF CALIFORNIA
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1550 Blvd., FI'OOM 100
WC!$t SACRAMENTO, CA 95691
(916)
Fax (916) 3735471
Steven Treffers
625 Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 190
South Pasadena, CA 91030
Sent by Fax: 626 240-0607
Number of Pages: 3
March 13,2014
ESIMWQd G. Brown .. !r Gpvernqr
Re: California American Water Temporary Slant Test Well Project, Marina, (SWCA Project No.
26292) Monterey County.
Dear Mr. Treffers,
A record search of the sacred land file has failed to indicate the presence of Native American
cultural resources in the immediate project area. The absence of specific site information in the
sacred lands file does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other
sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and
recorded sites.
Enclosed is a list of Native Americans individuals/organizations who may have knowledge of
cultural resources in the project area. The Commission makes no recommendation or
preference of a single individual, or group over another. This list should provide a starting place
in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you
contact all of those indicated, if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others
with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to
respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe or group, If a response has not
been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with
a telephone call to ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from any of these
individuals or groups, please notify me. With your assistance we are able to assure that our
lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need .additional information,
please contact me at (916) 373-3712.
Sincerely,

Katy Sanchez
Associate Government Program Analyst
TOO IE!
06CS L99 9T6 XVd
Native American Contacts
Monterey County
March 13, 2014
Jakki Kehl
Amah MutsunTribal Band ot Mission San Juan Bautista
Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson
720 North 2nd Street Ohlone/Costanoan 789 Canada Road Ohlone/Costanoan
Patterson , CA 95363
(209) 892 1060
Tony Cerda, Chairperson
240 E, 1st Street Ohlone/Costanoan
Pomona , CA 91766
rumsen@aol.com
(909) 524-8041 Cell
909-629-6081
OhlonetCoastanoan-Esselen Nation
Louise Miranda-Ramirez, Chairperson
PO Box 1301 Esselen
Monterey , CA 93942 Ohlone/Costanoan
ramirez.louise@yahoo.com
408-629-5189
408-205-7579- cell
Ramona Garibay, Representative
30940 Watkins Street Ohlone/Costanoan
Union City , CA 94587 Bay Miwok
51 0-972-0645-home Plains Miwok
F'atwin
soaprootmo@comcast.net
Woodside , CA 94062

650-400-4806 cell
650-332-1526 - Fax
Christianne Arias, Vice Chairperson
PO Box 552 Esselen
Soledad ' CA 93960 Ohlone/Costanoan
831-235-4590
Amah MutsunTribal Band
Edward Ketchum
35867 Yosemite Ave
Davis , CA 95616
aerieways@aol.com
Ohlone/Costanoan
Northern Valley Yokuts
Pauline Martinez-Arias, Tribal Council woman
1116 Merlot Way Esselen
Gonzales , CA 93926 Ohlone/Costanoan
makliciO-us@gmail
831-596-9897
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan
Ann Marie Sayers, Chairperson
Amah MutsunTribal Band
Valentin Lopez, Chairperson
PO Box 5272 Ohlone/Costanoan P.O. Box 28 Ohlone/Costanoan
Galt , CA 95632
vlopez@ amahmutsun .org
916-743-5833
Tht5 list is current only as o1 tl'le date of this document
Hollister , CA 95024
ams@indiancanyon.org
831-637-4238
DistribUtion of this list does not reUeve any person of staMory responsibility EtS defined In Sec:tlon 7050.5 of the Health and
Safety Code, Sectton of the Public Flesouroe Seetton 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resoureas for the proposed
California Watar Teml)orary Slant Test Well Proj&e't (SWCA Project No. 26292), Monterey County.

Linda G. Yamane
1'585 Mira Mar Ave
Seaside , CA 93955
rumsien 1 23 @yahoo .com
831-394-5915
Native American Contacts
Monterey County
March 13, 2014
Ohlone/Costanaon
Amah MutsunTribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
Michelle Zimmer
789 Canada Road Ohlone/Costanoan
Woodside , CA 94062

(650) 851-7747- Home
650-332-1526 - Fax
This list is current only as of the date or thiS document.
Dls:trlbutlon Of this list does not relieve cu1y person of statutory responsibility as defined In Sectlot'l7050.5 of the and
Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Seot.Jorr 5097.98 of the A&Sources Code
This list is only applicable for contacting local Native. Americans with regard to resources for the proposed
California Arnti!tiCiln Water Temporary Slant Test Well Project, (SWCA Project Nc. 26292), Monterey County.
COO lei

06CS LS9 9T6 XVd os:cr vT06/TT/CO

March 12, 2014

Christianne Arias, Vice Chairperson Sent Via U.S. Mail
P.O. Box 552
Soledad, CA 93960

RE: Cultural Resources Assessment for a Proposed Slant Test Well Project in the Marina Coastal Dunes,

Dear Ms. Arias:
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) has been retained by the City of Marina to conduct a cultural
resources study for the proposed California American Water (Cal Am) Temporary Slant Test Well Project in
Marina, Monterey County, California (see attached map). SWCA will conduct cultural resources studies in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The project proposed involves the development of a temporary slant test well, which would extend from the
coastal dune area diagonally under the floor of the Pacific Ocean through the Dunes Sand Aquifer and
180-Foot Aquifer. The slant test well would operate for an estimated two year lifespan to provide field data
concerning the geologic, hydrogeologic, and water quality characteristics of the Dunes Sand formation and
180-Foot Aquifer. The data obtained would be used in the design and planning of a potential subsurface
intake system and desalination plant to serve as the primary future water supply source for the Monterey
Peninsula. Additional project components include development of two adjacent monitoring wells and
electrical and discharge connections.
As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues associated with development of this project,
SWCA contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and requested a Sacred
Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American individuals and/or tribal organizations that may have
knowledge of cultural resources in or near the project area. The NAHC SLF search failed to identify Native
American cultural resources within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area, and recommended
that we consult with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may
be impacted by this project.
If you have knowledge of any cultural resources that may exist within or near the proposed project area,
please contact me via telephone at (626) 240-0587 Ext. 6610; or via email at streffers@swca.com; or in
writing at the above address at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Steven Treffers, Architectural Historian
Enclosures: project location map

March 12, 2014

Tony Cerda, Chairperson Sent Via U.S. Mail
240 E. 1
st
Street
Pomona, CA 91766


Dear Mr. Cerda:

Sincerely,


March 12, 2014

Ramona Garibay, Representative Sent Via U.S. Mail
30940 Watkins Street
Union City, CA 94587


Dear Ms. Garibay:

Sincerely,


March 12, 2014

Jakki Kehl Sent Via U.S. Mail
720 North 2
nd
Street
Patternson, CA 95363


Dear Ms. Kehl:

Sincerely,


March 12, 2014

Edward Ketchum Sent Via U.S. Mail
35867 Yosemite Avenue
Davis, CA 95616


Dear Mr. Ketchum:

Sincerely,


March 12, 2014

Valentin Lopez, Chairperson Sent Via U.S. Mail
P.O. Box 5272
Galt, CA 95632


Dear Mr. Lopez:

Sincerely,


March 12, 2014

Pauline Martinez-Arias, Tribal Councilwoman Sent Via U.S. Mail
1116 Merlot Way
Gonzales, CA 93926


Dear Ms. Martinez-Arias:

Sincerely,


March 12, 2014

Louise Miranda-Ramirez, Chairperson Sent Via U.S. Mail
P.O. Box 1301
Monterey, CA 93942


Dear Ms. Miranda-Ramirez:

Sincerely,


March 12, 2014

Anne Marie Sayers, Chairperson Sent Via U.S. Mail
Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Coastanoan
P.O. Box 28
Hollister, CA 95024


Dear Ms. Sayers:

Sincerely,


March 12, 2014

Linda G. Yamane Sent Via U.S. Mail
1585 Mira Mar Ave
Seaside, CA 93955


Dear Ms. Yamane:

Sincerely,


March 12, 2014

Michelle Zimmer Sent Via U.S. Mail
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA 94062


Dear Ms. Zimmer:

Sincerely,


March 12, 2014

Irene Zwierlein, Chairperson Sent Via U.S. Mail
Amah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista
789 Canada Road
Woodside, CA 94062


Dear Ms. Zwierlein:

Sincerely,


Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation
March 26, 2014
Steven Treffers,
Architectural Historian
SWCA
150 S. Arroyo Parkway, 2"ct Floor
Pasadena, CA 91105
Previously acknowledged as
The San Carlos Band of
Mission Indians
The Monterey Band
And also known as
O.C.E. N. or Esse/en Nation
P.O. Box 1301
Monterey, CA 93942
www.ohJonecostanoanesseJennation.org.
Re: Proposed Slant Test Wall Project in the Marina Coastal Dunes, Monterey County, California
Saleki Atsa,
Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation is the legal tribal government representative for over 600 emolled
members ofEsselen, Carmeleno, Monterey Band, Rumsen, Chalon, San Carlos Mission and/or Costanoan
Mission Indian descent. Though other indigenous people may have lived in the area, the area is the
indigenous homeland of our people. Included with this letter please fmd a territorial map by Taylor 1856;
Levy 1973; and Milliken 1990, indentifying Tribal areas. At this time are unable to provide you with
cultural resource information but ask that OCEN be contacted upon any findings on this project.
Oh1one/Costanoan-Esselen Nation objects to all excavation in known cultural lands, even when they
are described as previously disturbed, and of no significant archaeological value. Please be advised
that it is our first priority that our ancestor' s remains be protected and undisturbed. We desire that all
cultural and sacred items be left with our ancestors on site or where they are discovered. We ask for the
respect that is afforded all of our current day deceased, by no other word these burial sites are cemeteries,
respect for our ancestors as you would expect respect for your deceased family members in today's
cemeteries. Our definition of respect is no disturbance.
Aware that despite our objection, disturbance continues, therefore: We request that Ohlone/Costanoan-
Esselen Nation be consulted as to any planned projects that might adversely impact known or predicted
cultural resources and sacred sites within our aboriginal territory. Furthermore, the Tribal leadership
desires to be contacted with: 1) surveys, 2) subsurface testing, 3) presence/absence testing, 4) mitigation
and recovery programs, 5) reburial of any of our ancestral remains, 6) placement of all cultural items, and
7) that a Native American Monitor of Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation, approved by the OCEN Tribal
Council be used within our aboriginal territory.
We look forward to hearing more information about this project; please feel free to contact me at ( 408)
629-5189. Nimasianexelpasaleki. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincer y : nd ,
/ /; 7
omseJ:'M"iranaa Ramirez, Cnarrp n
Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation
( 408) 629-5189
Cc: OCEN Tribal Council
Distribution of Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation Tribal
Rancherias, Districts, Landgrants and Historic Landmarks
OCEN DIRECT LINEAL DESCENT
I
A.
Junipero
.Serra Peak
\
11-.-. . -.... ,
""f/;- . - . - . -,;
......
...
...
'
' \
Cone
1
Pe ak ' / '
\
10
..... , 'l
-... 1 Missi on
...... \. San Antonio
.. , ... &'\
__ .. '
, ,
. ' ......._.... .
0
'
\
\
,
I
I
I
.
' ' '
' ?/0 . ,'
-? ' . .,'
Miles
Suffi xes after the district names
represen1 the f ollowi ng groups:
C = Costanoan/Ohlonc
CIE = Costanoan/Ohlone/Esselen
E = Esselen
S = Salinan ,
Map Taylor 1856: Levy 1973; Hester 1978: Milliken J 990
,
,
,
,
,
,
'"' -----""'' ' ..
I ' '
I
I
I
,
Figure 2:


Appendix C

Local Historic Group/Local Government Contact Program


March 12, 2014

Sam Shields, Branch Librarian Sent Via U.S. Mail
Marina Branch Library
190 Seaside Circle
Marina, CA 93933


Dear Mr. Shields:


The proposed project involves the development of a temporary slant test well, which would extend from the
coastal dune area diagonally under the floor of the Pacific Ocean through the Dunes Sand Aquifer and 180-
Foot Aquifer. The slant test well would operate for estimated two year lifespan to provide field data concerning
the geologic, hydrogeologic, and water quality characteristics of the Dunes Sand formation and 180-Foot
Aquifer. The data obtained would be used in the design and planning of a potential subsurface intake system
and desalination plant to serve as the primary future water supply source for the Monterey Peninsula.
Additional project components include development of two adjacent monitoring wells and electrical and
discharge connections.

The purpose of this letter is to request your input on potential and/or known designated significant cultural
resources in or near the project area. We take the work of protecting cultural resources very seriously, and are
making every effort to identify the existence of potential historic properties or historical resources prior to
completion of environmental documentation. We are also reviewing all previously identified cultural resources,
including the Historic Property Data File for Monterey County and the records maintained at the Northwest
Information Center (CCIC).

If you have any knowledge of cultural resources that may exist in or near the project area, please contact me in
writing at the above address or (626) 240-0587, streffers@swca.com. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,


March 12, 2014

Boronda Adobe History Center Sent Via U.S. Mail
Monterey County Historical Society
333 Boronda Road
Salinas, CA 93907


To Whom It May Concern:





Sincerely,


March 12, 2014

Monterey Salinas Valley Railroad Historical Society Sent Via U.S. Mail
26 Station Place
Salinas, CA 93901







Sincerely,


March 12, 2014

Monterey County RMA Sent Via U.S. Mail
Department of Building Services, Department of Planning
168 W. Alisal St., 2
nd
Floor
Salinas, CA 93901







Sincerely,


Appendix D

State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
Series 523 Forms


State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 3D
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
Page 1 of 17 *Resource Name or #: Lapis Sand Mining Plant

P1. Other Identifier: CEMEX Lapis Sand Plant; RMC Lonestar; Pacific Cement and Aggregates; Pacific Coast Aggregates; Bay
Development Company; and E.B. and A.L Stone
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: Monterey
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Marina, CA Date: 1947 (PR 1983) T 14 South; R 2 East; of of Sec ; M.D. B.M.
c. Address: Lapis Road City: Marina Zip: 93933
d. UTM: Zone: 10 S; 607098 mE/ 4063698 mN (G.P.S.)
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation:
APN #203011019000

*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
Located in the City of Marina along the Monterey Bay, the subject property is the Lapis Sand Mining Plant. It is currently operated
by CEMEX, a building materials supplier. The subject property was initially developed in 1906 by E.B. and A.L. Stone has
functioned as a sand plant under the operation of various companies since this time. The approximately 50-acre property is located
in an area characterized by extensive sand dunes and is roughly bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, California State Route
1 to the east, and undeveloped land to the north and south. The built environment resources within the subject property are
generally utilitarian and representative of the various developmental periods of the larger facility. These include residential,
commercial, and industrial buildings and structures dating from the establishment of the sand plant in 1906 and extend to
subsequent expansion efforts through 1960. Reflective of the industrial landscape are various settling ponds and a dredging pond,
which includes a dredging boat and crane that floats atop the surface. Various sand and paved roads traverse portions of the
subject property, which is accessed via Lapis Road from the east. The subject property remains in overall good condition and
continues to convey its historical and current function as a sand mining plant.

*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP43. Mine structure/ building; HP2. Single family property; HP8. Industrial
building; HP20. Canal/ aqueduct
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #) Overview
(Source: GoogleEarth 2014)

*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
Ca. 1906; 1910s; 1920s; 1950s; 1960s
(Hart 1966; personal
communication with Kenneth L.
Burns)

*P7. Owner and Address:
CEMEX
920 Memorial City Way, Ste 100
Houston, TX 77024
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliation, and address)
Steven Treffers
150 S Arroyo Pkwy, 2
nd
Flr
Pasadena, CA 91105
*P9. Date Recorded: 03/ 04/ 2014
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.")
Cultural Resources Survey Report for theCalifornia American Water Temporary Slant Project, City of Marina, Monterey County, California
(SWCA Environmental Consultants, Pasadena, 2014).
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial
Page 2 of 17 *Resource Name or #: Lapis Sand Mining Plant

*Map Name: Marina, CA *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1947 (PR 1983)
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information

SKETCH MAP Trinomial
Page 3 of 17 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Lapis Sand Mining Plant

*Drawn By: William Hayden, M.A., RPA, GISP *Date: 04/ 10/ 2014
DPR 523K (1/95) *Required information

NOTE: Include bar scale and north arrow.
_ Lapis Siding
- Primary Resource
- Ancillary Building
c::J District Boundary
250
0
a.: . http:llserver.arcgisonhne.co basedata from.
DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial
Page 4 of 17 *NRHP Status Code: 3D
*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Lapis Sand Mining Plant

D1. Historic Name: Lapis Sand Mining Plant D2. Common Name: Lapis Sand Mining Plant
*D3. Detailed Description (Discuss overall coherence of the district, its setting, visual characteristics, and minor features. List all elements of
district.): The Lapis Sand Mining Plant is located along the Monterey Bay in the City of Marina and encompasses a sand mining
facility that has operated continually since being developed in 1906. The rectangular-shaped district is situated in a sand dune
system and is bordered by the Pacific Ocean to the west, sand dunes to the north and south, and agricultural and undeveloped
land to the east. The property consists of a number of industrial, commercial, and residential resources that contribute to its
historical significance as a remote sand mining plant, including: the Sorting Plant, Washing Plant, Canal Flume, Lapis Siding,
Superintendents Residence, Bunkhouse, Garage/ Office, Maintenance Shop, and the Scale House and Office. There are a number
of small ancillary buildings spread throughout the property that are associated with the above-mentioned resources. In addition
there are a number of settling ponds and a dredging pond that were initially developed as part of the modernization of the facility
in 1959-60. The geographic boundaries and location of these features have frequently shifted since their initial development.
According to historic photographs, the current dredging boat and crane that floats atop the dredging pond was put into operation
sometime after 1966. The isolated district is accessed via a private road off of Lapis Road to the east.

*D4. Boundary Description (Describe limits of district and attach map showing boundary and district elements.):
The eastern boundary of the historic district runs north from its southeastern terminus along the eastern side of the
Superintendents Residence before turning to the northwest to include the Scale House and Office, and the Sorting Plant. The
boundary then heads along a northwestern course to a point just east of the Pacific Ocean. From this point, the boundary runs
south and then southeast back to the southeastern terminus to include the Canal Flume, associated ancillary buildings, and Lapis
Siding (see Location Map).

*D5. Boundary Justification:
The boundary of the Lapis Sand Mining Plant historic district is defined by the propertys historic built environment elements,
setting and property lines. The eastern boundary corresponds with the propertys historic property line and is clearly defined by
the location of the Plant Superintendents Residence. The northern, western, and southern boundaries are delineated to include the
propertys historic operations and resources that contribute to the propertys historical significance.

*D6. Significance: Theme: Sand Mining Area: Monterey Bay
Period of Significance: 1906-1960 Applicable Criteria: 1/ 3 (Discuss district's importance in terms of its
historical context as defined by theme, period of significance, and geographic scope. Also address the integrity of the district as a whole.)
The Lapis Sand Mining Plant was established in 1906 by the E.B. and A.L. Stone Company. The Oakland, California based
construction firm believed the sand from the surrounding dunes to be ideal for concrete production and needed a steady supply of
the building material in the aftermath of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and subsequent fires (Armstrong 2014). The Stone
Company purchased the land from John A. Armstrong, an early settler and rancher who sold the company 400 acres at $2/ acre
with the stipulation that a fence was built to keep his cattle out of the sand dunes (Armstrong 2014). Initial development of the
plant included the construction of a small superintendents residence and the Lapis Siding, a rail line which connected to the
Southern Pacific (SP) Monterey Branch (Burns 2014). Using a locomotive crane, sand was scooped by dragline or crane directly
into railroad cars and shipped to the San Francisco Bay Area with little or no processing (Hart 1966:88).

(See Continuation Sheets, pages 5 and 6)

*D7. References (Give full citations including the names and addresses of any informants, where possible.):
(See Continuation Sheet, page 6)

*D8. Evaluator: Steven Treffers Date: April 10, 2014
Affiliation and Address: SWCA Environmental Consultants, 150 S Arroyo Pkwy, 2
nd
Flr, Pasadena, CA 91105

DPR 523D (1/95) *Required information
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Steven Treffers *Date: 03/ 04/ 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*D6. Significance:
Sand mining has a long history in areas throughout the United States. While the practice along northern California coast dates to at
least 1865, it didnt begin in earnest in the southern Monterey Bay until 1889 with the completion of the SP Monterey Branch. The
earliest operation appears to be related to the later-named Del Monte Sand Plant, which was located in Asilomar and exported
sand largely for use in bottle glass production (Seavey and the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove 2005:101). The Lapis Sand Mining
Plant however appears to be the first large-scale endeavor to produce sand for use as a building material. Historic maps from 1910
and 1913 indicate the Lapis Siding was the only rail siding connected to Southern Pacifics Monterey Line by this time (Coast and
Geodetic Survey 1910; USGS 1913). According to the California State Mineralogists annual report, the Lapis Plant remained the
only building material-specific sand mine in Monterey County until 1916, by which time the Stone Company was outputting
nearly 1000 to 1200 tons of sand per day (California State Mining Bureau 1916:615). Contributing to this increased productivity was
a larger, permanent on-site staff, which was housed in a new bunkhouse that was constructed during the 1910s (Burns 2014).

This staff had reached a total of 8 men when the Bay Development Company took over operations in 1918. Based out of San
Francisco, the company expanded the facility over the following decade through the construction of a larger plant superintendents
residence and possibly a garage addition to the old residence (Burns 2014). Other improvements to the property included the
development of wells and the installation of a stationary hoist. Although the sand continued to be transported directly into railroad
cars, the Bay Development Company began to obtain sand from the beach in addition to the dunes and therefore diversify their
output. The coarser dune sand continued to be used primarily in building and construction work for concrete and mortar, while
the finer sand from the beach working resulted in a new product that was well suited for sand blasting, marble cutting, and as
locomotive sand (California State Mining Bureau 1925:55).

In 1929, the recently-formed Pacific Coast Aggregates assumed operation of the Lapis Sand Mining Plant. The recently formed
company made no significant changes to the property over the following decade, and production at the plant appears to have held
steady through the Great Depression. Production soon increased with the onset of World War II, with much of the sand exported
to northern California foundries for use as a core material for heavy gray iron castings (Division of Mines 1948:45). As a result of
the war effort and the prosperous years that followed, a number of new sand mining operations opened along the Monterey Bay
Coast and were soon in direct competition with Pacific Coast Aggregates; including, the Granite Construction Company in Sand
City, the Monterey Sand Company in Marina, the Seaside Sand and Gravel Company in Marina, and the Owens-Illinois Company
in Moss Beach (Hart 1966). While the Lapis Sand Mining Plant continued to produce sand much as it had since 1906, many of these
new operations developed modern facilities that allowed for the efficient washing, sorting, and packaging of sand.

Pacific Coast Aggregates reorganized as Pacific Cement and Aggregates in 1958 and quickly set to modernizing its facilities to
provide for increased production. Settling ponds and a dredging pond were easily developed because of the abundant ground
water and allowed the company to access coarser sand for older deposits beneath the dunes. To wash and classify the sand, a Dorr
Oliver Jet Sizer was installed in 1959. Commonly known as the washing plant, dredged sand was pumped to the structure from a
dredging boat and crane and hydraulically sorted into 8 size ranges (Hart 1966:89). A canal flume was constructed in support of the
washing plant to direct wastewater to settling ponds in the west. In 1960, a large sorting plant was constructed to the north of the
washing plant. This large structure was similar to those constructed at surrounding sand mining plants and allowed the company
to not only further sort sand, but also dry it and blend it to a customers specifications (Hart 1966:90).

Over the following decade, new technology drove sand to become one of the most important mineral commodity groups in
Monterey County. From 1901 through 1964, recorded production totals were close to $50,000,000, with the value of sand of gravel
in the two decades after 1945 exceeding one million dollars annually (Hart 1966:84). At the peak of the industry, there appear to
have been six major sand mining plants (including the Lapis Sand Mining Plant) operating along the coast in Monterey County.
Sand mining operated unregulated until 1968 when the State Lands Commission issued and began to manage leases of the coastal
land. Because of ongoing erosion, additional regulations were put into effect in 1974 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers further
restricting mining activities along the coast (Berner 2008). As sand mining leases expired over the following decade, nearly all of
the sand mining plants were forced to shut down operations by the late 1980s. The buildings and structures of these facilities were
subsequently demolished in response to community concerns regarding safety and viewsheds. The Lapis Sand Mining Plant
changed ownership to RMC Lonestar in the 1970s and eventually to CEMEX in 2005, and remains as the last extant facility of a
once prevalent industry the Monterey Bay.
(See Continuation Sheet, page 6)
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

*Recorded by: Steven Treffers *Date: 03/ 04/ 2014 Continuation Update
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
*D6. Significance:
The Lapis Sand Mining Plant represents one of the earliest and largest sand mining operations in the southern Monterey Bay. The
property consists of a variety of industrial, commercial, and residential resources that characterize the establishment and growth of
both the facility and the sand mining industry in California as a whole.

All of these functionally-related resources collectively contribute to the significance of the property; and result in a historic district
that appears eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of Historic Resources
(CRHR) under Criteria A/ 1 for its associations with the events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patters of
local and regional history of California. Further, the physical design of the property and the resources it encompasses are specific
to its function as a sand mining facility. This distinct and identifiable entity has continually developed throughout the districts
period of significance, which begins in 1906 with the establishment of the facility and ends with the completion of modernization
efforts in 1960. The alterations and additions to the larger property and the resources it encompasses experienced during this
period are representative of the ongoing growth of the sand mining industry through the post-World War II era. The Lapis Sand
Mining Plant therefore retains integrity, and as a rare intact example of a continuously operating coastal sand mining plant
property in California, it also appears eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criteria C/ 3 for its embodiment of the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, and region of construction. The property as a whole retains a high degree of integrity of design,
materials, association, location, feeling, workmanship, and setting to accurately convey the period of significance. Because the built
environment resources located within the district are not associated with the productive lives of members of the Armstrong facility
or any other notable individuals, the subject property does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR under Criteria B/ 2.
Further, no evidence was identified that suggests the built environment resources have the potential to yield information and the
property does not appear eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR under Criteria D/ 4.

*D7. References:
Armstrong, Jack. Personal communication with Steven Treffers. April 7, 2014.
Berner, Andrew D. Sand Mining on the Monterey Bay. Memorandum to Steve Zmak. Sierra Club, Ventana Chapter. July 18, 2008.
Burns, Kenneth L. Personal communication with Steven Treffers. April 2, 2014.
California State Mining Bureau. Report XV of theStateMineralogist. California State Printing Office. Sacramento, California. 1916.
California State Mining Bureau. Report XXI of theStateMineralogist. California State Printing Office. Sacramento, California. 1925.
Coast and Geodetic Survey. Pacific Coast from Point Pinos to Bodega Head [map: 1:200,000]. Coast and Geodetic Survey,
Washington D.C. 1910
Division of Mines. California Journal of Mines and Geology. Volume 48. Division of Mines. San Francisco, California. 1948.
Hart, Earl W. Mines and Mineral Resourceof Monterey, California. County Report 5, California Division of Mines and Geology.
Sacramento, California. 1966.
Seavey, Kent and the Heritage Society of Pacific Grove. Pacific Grove. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina. 2005.
USGS. Monterey Quadrangle [map; 1:62,500]. United States Geological Survey, Washington D.C. 1913.
NRHP Status Code 3D
Other Listings
Page 7 of 17 *Resource Name or #: Sorting Plant

P1. Other Identifier:
APN #203011019000

Constructed in 1959-60, the sorting plant is a large industrial complex comprised of a series of connected buildings that are
arranged in a long linear plan and house various functions related to the sorting and storage of sand. Characteristic of its
industrial design, all of the buildings are sheathed in almost entirely in corrugated metal. The central feature is the sorting
building, which is approximately six stories in height and rectangular in plan. Capped by a gable-roof, the building rests on an
approximately two-story tall concrete foundation and features replacement vinyl windows sporadically located across the upper
floors. The building features a large projection with a half-gamble roof that extends outward and down from the northeast
elevation. In addition, various infrastructural elements such as large silos and exhaust pipes are located across the exterior of the
building. An approximately two-story building to the southeast is also rectangular in plan with a gabled-roof and feeds the sorting
building through additional infrastructure such as machinery, large pipes, and conveyor belts. Extending northwest from the
sorting building are two large storage buildings. Both of these feature gabled roofs and have fenestration that is limited to large
open doors on various elevations. There is presently a non-operational rail car located along the northeast side of the subject
property there are presently two-rail cars sitting atop the tracks. With the exception of the replaced windows, the building retains
its integrity and is overall good condition.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP43. Mine structure/ building
date, accession #) View north;
03/ 04/ 2014; IMG_8644.jpg

Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
1959-60 (Hart 1966; personal
Burns

CEMEX
Houston, TX 77024
Steven Treffers
nd
Flr
Pasadena, CA 91105
Intensive

NRHP Status Code 3D
Other Listings
Page 8 of 17 *Resource Name or #: Scale House

APN #203011019000

Located at the Lapis Sand Mining Plant, this small, one-story Scale House was initially constructed circa 1959. The concrete-
masonry unit Scale House is rectangular in plan and capped by a flat roof with a fascia board. Comprised of two bays, the eastern
bay was constructed in 1997 and is slightly taller than the western bay; it features a large window on the south elevation that
allows employees to interact with truck drivers as they pull up to the building. Additional fenestration includes steel casement
windows and a single, metal and glass door on the east elevation. There is a prefabricated office building situated immediately
east of the Scale House and sits above the ground on a raised trailer. In addition to a flagpole at the eastern boundary of the subject
property, bollards direct outgoing trucks onto underground scales located immediately south of the Scale House. The subject
property remains in good overall condition and although the 1997 addition affected some aspects of the buildings original design,
it retains integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association and continues to convey its historical function as a Scale House.

*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP8. Industrial building; HP4. Ancillary building
date, accession #) View northwest
of scale house in foreground with
office in background; 03/ 04/ 2014;
IMG_8606.jpg

Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
Ca. 1959 (personal communication
with Kenneth L. Burns)

CEMEX
Houston, TX 77024

Steven Treffers
nd
Flr
Pasadena, CA 91105
Intensive


NRHP Status Code 3D
Other Listings
Page 9 of 17 *Resource Name or #: Maintenance Shop

APN #203011019000

This is a single-story Utilitarian-style maintenance shop located at the Lapis Sand Mining Plant. Initially constructed circa 1906, the
wood-framed building is sheathed in corrugated metal and wood paneling, and is irregular in plan following the addition of
multiple shed extensions. The building consists of two primary units that feature moderately pitched front-gabled roofs. Visual
inspection and archival research indicate that three shed extensions were added to building in the years immediately before and
after 1962: first to the northeastern elevation, and subsequently to the southwest and northwest elevations. The building features
sliding corrugated metal doors at each end of the primary sections (northwest and southeast), as well as additional corrugated
metal and metal doors on the shed extensions. Windows on the southwest elevation are currently boarded with plywood, and
there is a replacement aluminum-sliding window located on the northeast elevation. There are numerous ancillary buildings
associated with the subject property, all of which house various materials and equipment used in the maintenance of the overall
sand mining facility. The small, one-story buildings share common design features and are located primarily to the south of the
maintenance shop. They are rectangular in plan, with flat or gabled roofs, and sheathed in wood siding or corrugated metal. In
addition there is a small, wood water tank that is circular in plan and sheathed in vertical wood siding. The subject property
remains in overall good condition and continues to convey its historical function.

*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP8. Industrial building; HP4. Ancillary building
date, accession #) View northwest;
03/ 04/ 2014; IMG_8590.jpg

Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both

CEMEX
Houston, TX 77024

Steven Treffers
nd
Flr
Pasadena, CA 91105

Intensive

NRHP Status Code 3D
Other Listings
Page 10 of 17 *Resource Name or #: Wash Plant

APN #203011019000

Located at the Lapis Sand Mining Plant, this is a sand washing plant that was developed in support of dredging operations in
1959. Also known as a Dorr Oliver Jet Sizer, the industrial structure is approximately two stories in height and is constructed of
exposed structural metal posts and beams with a metal staircase that wraps around the exterior. Sand and water are pumped
through tubing from a dredging pond that is located near the coastline approximately 0.25 mile to the west, and then fed to the top
of the structure and into washing and classifying machinery below. Once the clean sand reaches the bottom of the machinery, it is
fed into piles via three conveyor belts that extend outwards from the structure. The waste water is then pumped into a canal flume
that leads to settling ponds approximately 0.25 mile to the west. Two small ancillary buildings are associated with the subject
property, both of which house pumping equipment and are square in plan, sheathed in vertical wood siding, and capped by a flat
roof. One is located immediately west of the subject structure and pumps water into the canal flume, and the other is located
approximately 900 feet to the northwest and pumps sand and water to the washing plant from the dredging pond. The subject
property is in good overall condition and retains its integrity.

*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP43. Mine structure/ building; HP4. Ancillary building
03/ 04/ 2014; IMG_8619.jpg

Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
1959 (Hart 1966; personal
Burns)

CEMEX
Houston, TX 77024

Steven Treffers
nd
Flr
Pasadena, CA 91105

Intensive


NRHP Status Code 3D
Other Listings
Page 11 of 17 *Resource Name or #: Plant Superintendents Residence

APN #203011019000

The former residence of the plant superintendent, this is a two- and one-story building located towards the eastern boundary of
the Lapis Sand Plant. Constructed circa 1920, the two-story main unit of the building was expanded to the north in 1955-56 with a
single-story addition that resulted in the current rectangular plan. The roof features exposed rafters and asphalt composition
shingles, and is hipped on the main two-story unit and gabled on the single-story addition. Primarily vernacular in its design, the
building is sheathed in wood simple-drop and clapboard siding, and incorporates an original concrete chimney on the west
elevation of the main unit and a later brick-masonry chimney on the east elevation of the northern addition. Most notable among
its design accents is an Asian-influenced railing that encloses a balcony on the southeast corner of the second floor, which is
accessed via an exterior wood stairway on the eastern elevation. The balcony originally extended the entire length of the second
floor but was partially filled in 1955-56 to create an additional interior room. Many of the main units original wood casement
windows were replaced in 1955-56 with the same aluminum slider type windows that are present on the northern addition.
Additional fenestration includes entryways on the eastern and western elevations that feature various door types. The building is
currently vacant and in moderate condition. Although the above-mentioned alterations affected aspects of the original 1920s
design, they are representative of the continuing development of the Lapis Sand Mining Plant and therefore the building retains
integrity.

*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single family property
03/ 04/ 2014; IMG_8533.jpg

Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both

CEMEX
Houston, TX 77024

Steven Treffers
nd
Flr
Pasadena, CA 91105

Intensive

NRHP Status Code 3D
Other Listings
Page 12 of 17 *Resource Name or #: Garage/ Office Building

APN #203011019000
Located at the Lapis Sand Plant, this is a Vernacular-style single-story office building and garage that consists of three adjoining
but distinct units, resulting in an irregular U-shaped plan. The eastern most unit was constructed circa 1906 and was initially the
residence of the plant superintendent. Currently housing office space, this section is square in plan and capped by a moderately-
pitched hipped roof with exposed rafters and sheathed in composition asphalt shingles. Its wood frame structural system is clad in
stucco. There is a recessed entryway on the southern elevation and a covered porch area on the northern elevation supported by
wood columns. Fenestration includes original wood-framed casement windows and wood- and glass-paneled doors. Limited but
distinctive design features include concrete planters on the south and east elevations that are currently spalling. The large central
unit is a garage addition that was constructed circa 1910s and extends west from the southeastern corner of the former residence
unit. Rectangular in plan, the garage is sheathed in stucco and metal siding and features a hipped roof that is sheathed in
composition asphalt shingles. The central garage unit features large original and replacement wood doors across the northern
elevation, with additional access granted via wood- and glass-paneled doors off the covered porch of the eastern unit. Windows
are limited to wood-framed windows on the northern and southern elevations. Attached to the southern elevation of the garage is
a shed extension that was constructed at an unknown date. The shed features a flat roof and is sheathed entirely in corrugated
metal with the exception of large plywood doors that comprise the southern elevation. Currently used as an office and storage
space, the subject property remains in overall good condition and continues to convey its historical function.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single family property; HP4. Ancillary building

P5b. Description of Photo:
(View, date, accession #) View
north; 03/ 04/ 2014; IMG_8574-
78.jpg
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
Ca. 1906 (personal
Burns)
CEMEX
Houston, TX 77024
Steven Treffers
SWCA Environmental
Consultants
nd
Flr
Pasadena, CA 91105
*P9. Date Recorded:
03/ 04/ 2014
Intensive

NRHP Status Code 3D
Other Listings
Page 13 of 17 *Resource Name or #: Bunkhouse

APN #203011019000

This is a small, single-story residential building on a concrete foundation located immediately west of the Plant Managers
residence at the Lapis Sand Mining Plant and constructed circa the 1910s. Centered on a small central courtyard, it is a front-facing
U-shape in plan with a rounded bay extending slightly out from the northern elevation and a small shed extension from the
western elevation. Designed in a Vernacular style with Craftsman influences, the building is capped by a composition asphalt
shingle roof that is gabled at the front (east) and hipped at the rear (west) with exposed rafters, and partially extends outward over
the courtyard via diagonal wood posts. The wood frame structural system is clad in simple-drop wood siding and is punctuated by
a concrete chimney with a missing flue on the western elevation. Primary access is granted from the courtyard via various wood
paneled and French doors, with a secondary wood and glass paneled-door located on the western elevation. Additional
fenestration includes double hung, fixed, and casement windows, all of which are set in wood frames. Located in the center of the
courtyard is a concrete rafter pergola that has spalled, resulting in the exposure and rusting of the interior structural metal beams.
Although the spalling concrete and missing flue have affected the aspects of the buildings materials and workmanship, it is in good
overall condition and retains much of its integrity.

*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2. Single family property
date, accession #) View west;
03/ 04/ 2014; IMG_8548.jpg

Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
Ca. 1910s (personal communication

CEMEX
Houston, TX 77024

Steven Treffers
nd
Flr
Pasadena, CA 91105

Intensive

LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial
Page 14 of 17 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) Lapis Siding

L1. Historic and/or Common Name: Lapis Siding
L2a. Portion Described: Entire Resource Segment Point Observation Designation:
b. Location of point or segment: (Provide UTM coordinates, legal description, and any other useful locational data. Show the area that
has been field inspected on a Location Map) Eastern terminus: 607267 mE 4063568; western terminus: 607152 mE 4063617 mN

L3. Description: (Describe construction details, materials, and artifacts found at this segment/point. Provide plans/sections as appropriate.)
The subject property is an approximately 420-foot segment of the Lapis Siding, a single- and double-track rail siding that was
constructed circa 1906 to connect the Lapis Sand Mining Plant with the former Southern Pacific Monterey Branch to the east. From
its eastern terminus at the eastern boundary of the Lapis Sand Mining Plant, the segment consists of two parallel metal rail lines
that merge into one line at a rail switch approximately 135 feet to the west. The segment continues along a general northwesterly
course for approximately 285 feet before it becomes covered by sand and dirt. Since its decommission in the late 1980s, the
recorded segment has been overgrown by vegetation and partially buried, and as a result no ballast or ties are currently visible.

L4. Dimensions: (In feet for historic features and
meters for prehistoric features)
a. Top Width: 5 feet
b. Bottom Width: N/ A
c. Height or Depth: 6 inches
d. Length of Segment: 420 feet

L5. Associated Resources:
Switch stand.

L6. Setting: (Describe natural features, landscape
characteristics, slope, etc., as appropriate.)
The recorded segment is located in a sand mining
facility that is characterized by a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and structures. It traverses a relatively
flat landscape and is bordered by residential and industrial buildings immediately to the north.

L7. Integrity Considerations:
Although ballast and ties are not visible, the recorded segment of the Lapis Siding retains sufficient integrity to contribute to the
significance of the historic district. Since the siding was decommissioned, much of the line has been infilled with dirt and sand,
and the ballast and ties were not clearly evident within the recorded segment. Further, historic topographic maps indicate that the
Lapis Siding extended much further west and north than was observed during the course of the current survey. Archival research
was unable to determine if the rails, ties, and/ or any associated infrastructure of the larger rail siding were removed. Because of
the constantly shifting sand dunes, there is potential that other intact segments may be buried underneath the changing landscape.

L8b. Description of Photo, Map,
or Drawing (View, scale, etc.)
View east; 03/ 04/ 2014;
IMG_8549.jpg

L9. Remarks:

L10. Form Prepared by: (Name,
Steven Treffers
nd
Flr
Pasadena, CA 91105

L11. Date: 03/ 04/ 2014

DPR 523E (1/95)
L4e. Sketch of Cross-Section (include scale) Facing:
L8a. Photograph, Map or Drawing

Page 15 of 17 *Resource Name or #: Lapis Siding (Segment)


0
SWCA
1'(VJRONMUHAL CONSVlTAifTS
150 s N'rol)IO Patkwu,>.llld Floor
Pes.seaena. CA9'1105
T-&1 626.2-40-0587
Fa:t (ll(J lO 0001
0
0
bas.6data ft'om: hllp://urv&r.acegisonhne.tomJartgls.Jstrvlees
'
..
meters
500
feet
1,000
0
LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial
Page 16 of 17 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) Canal Flume

L1. Historic and/or Common Name:
L2a. Portion Described: Entire Resource Segment Point Observation Designation:
b. Location of point or segment: (Provide UTM coordinates, legal description, and any other useful locational data. Show the area that
has been field inspected on a Location Map) Eastern terminus: 607038 mE 4063631 mN; western terminus: 606699 mE 4063778 mN

L3. Description: (Describe construction details, materials, and artifacts found at this segment/point. Provide plans/sections as appropriate.)
The subject property is a canal flume that was constructed in 1959 to support the commencement of dredging operations at the
Lapis Sand Mining Plant. Approximately 1,250 feet in length, the flume directs wastewater west from the sand washing plant to
settling ponds near the coastline. The narrow flume is lined with wood siding and braced by horizontal wood boards that
intermittently span the open air trench. A dirt road crosses over the flume approximately 410 feet from the eastern terminus at the
sand washing plant.

L4. Dimensions: (In feet for historic features and
meters for prehistoric features)
a. Top Width: 2 feet
b. Bottom Width: 2 feet
c. Height or Depth: 3 feet
d. Length of Segment: 1,250 feet

L5. Associated Resources:
Sand washing plant; settling ponds.

L6. Setting: (Describe natural features, landscape
characteristics, slope, etc., as appropriate.)
The subject property is located in a sand mining
facility that is characterized by a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and structures. It traverses a slightly
downward slope west towards the ocean and is surrounded largely by sand dunes and vegetation such as ice plant.

L7. Integrity Considerations: Historic aerial photographs suggest that since the subject property was initially constructed, it has
remained approximately 1,250 feet in length and the western portion of the flume has been realigned multiple times to connect to
the frequently shifting settling ponds. The majority of the flume appears to have remained in its original alignment however.
Although this has affected some aspects of the flumes design, materials, and workmanship, it strongly retains integrity of
location, setting, feeling, and
association.

L8b. Description of Photo, Map,
or Drawing (View, scale, etc.)
View northeast; 03/ 04/ 2014;
IMG_8625.jpg

L9. Remarks:

L10. Form Prepared by: (Name,
Steven Treffers
SWCA Environmental
Consultants
nd
Flr
Pasadena, CA 91105

L11. Date: 03/ 04/ 2014

DPR 523E (1/95)
L4e. Sketch of Cross-Section (include scale) Facing:
L8a. Photograph, Map or Drawing

Page 17 of 17 *Resource Name or #: Canal Flume


1

APPENDIX D:
GEOLOGY AND SOILS BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Geotechnical Investigation California American Water Temporary Slant Test Well Project,
Marina, Monterey County, California (GeoSoils, Inc. 2014)

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
CALIFORNIA AMERICAN WATER TEMPORARY
SLANT TEST WELL PROJECT
MARINA, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR
SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
1422 MONTEREY STREET, C200
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401
W.O. S6678-A-SC APRIL 3, 2014

Geotechnical C Geologic C Coastal C Environmental
5741 Palmer Way C Carlsbad, California 92010 C (760) 438-3155 C FAX (760) 931-0915 C www.geosoilsinc.com
April 3, 2014
W.O. S6678-A-SC
1422 Monterey Street, C200
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Attention: Ms. Emily Creel, JD
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation, California American Water Temporary Slant Test
Well Project, Marina, Monterey County, California
Dear Ms. Creel:
In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is pleased to
present the results of our geotechnical investigation for the California American Water
temporary slant test well project in the City of Marina, Monterey County, California. The
purpose of this report was to evaluate the onsite soils and geologic conditions and their
effects on the proposed well project, from a geotechnical viewpoint.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our services included the following:
1. Review of readily available geologic literature for the site (see Appendix A).
2. Review of log data for two (2) borings advanced by Geoscience Support Services,
Inc. (Geoscience) during their previous exploratory and coincidental water quality
testing studies (Appendix B).
3. General areal geologic and seismic hazards evaluation (see Appendix C).
4. Appropriate laboratory testing of representative soil samples (see Appendix D).
5. Engineering and geologic evaluation of data collected.
6. Preparation of this illustrated report and accompanying appendices.
GeoSoils, Inc.
SWCA Environmental Consultants W.O. S6678-A-OC
Temporary Slant Test Well, Marina April 3, 2014
File:e:\wp9\6600\S6678a.gic Page 2
SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject site is situated within a portion of the existing CEMEX sand mining plant,
located west of Lapis Road and Highway 1 in the northwestern quadrant of the City of
Marina, Monterey County, California (see Figure 1, Site Location Map). The assessors
parcel number (APN) )of the CEMEX sand mining plant is 203-011-019. The subject site
largely consists of a coastal sand dune complex. Some of the dunes have been altered
from onsite sand mining practices that have occurred since 1906. A majority of the project
site would occur directly adjacent to an existing unpaved service road that traverses
through the CEMEX facility.
PROPOSED PROJECT
It is GSIs understanding that California American Water proposes to develop a temporary
slant well in order to obtain geologic, hydrogeologic, and water quality data for the design
and planning of a potential intake system and desalination plant to serve as the primary
future water supply source for the Monterey Peninisula. The slant well would extend
diagonally beneath the sea floor of the Pacific Ocean through the Dunes Sand Aquifer, the
Salinas Valley Aquitard, and the 180-foot Aquifer (City of Marina, 2013). The well would
terminate at the bottom of the 180-foot Aquifer, approximately 500 feet westerly of its
insertion point and at a approximate depth of 300 feet below Mean Sea Level (MSL), or
approximately 290 feet below the surface of the ocean floor. The slant well will include a
wellhead vault; a buried test water disposal pipeline connected to an existing ocean outfall
via a subsurface manhole; temporary sedimentation tanks; and electrical facilities,
including a buried 4-inch conduit that would extend approximately 0.38 miles east of the
slant well insertion point and tie into a new pole-mounted transformer. The wellhead vault
will be composed of pre-cast concrete, and will extend to a depth of 5 feet below grade.
Steel plates will cover the wellhead vault to allow for vehicular traffic. Two vertical
monitoring wells are also proposed to measure changes in groundwater levels during slant
well operation. One of the monitoring wells would be located immediately adjacent to the
slant well insertion point and wellhead vault. The other would be located approximately
1,350 feet inland, adjacent to the CEMEX service road. The wells would be 2 inches in
diameter and advanced to an approximate depth of 300 feet below MSL.
SUBSURFACE EVALUATION
Subsurface evaluation for this geotechnical investigation was performed by Geoscience
on March 4, 2014. At the direction of GSI, Geoscience provided a geologic log of the
upper 67 feet of their Boring CX-B2W2, advanced for their coincidental water quality
evaluation. This log included a description of the soil types encountered and Standard
Penetration Test (SPT) blow count data. SPT data was collected at 5-foot depth intervals
between approximate depths of -5 feet and -50 feet. The Standard Penetrometer was
SITE
AREA
,,
f()
Base Map: TOPOl 2003 National Geographic, U.S.G.S. Marina Quadrangle, California--
Monterey Co., 7.5 Minute, dated 1981, current, 1983.
SITE
AREA
Base Map: Google Maps, Copyright 2014 Google, Map Data Copyright 2014 Google
W.O.
This map is ct1pyriglrtsd by Google 2014. It is unlawful to
copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, llllrether for
pareonal un or resale, without pannlsslon. All tfglrts
reserved.

56678-SC
SITE LOCATION MAP
N
Figure 1
GeoSoils, Inc.
driven 18 inches at each testing depth using a standard 140-pound weight dropped
30 inches. The Geoscience geologist recorded the number of blows required to drive the
sample 18 inches. The Geoscience representative also collected bag samples of the
onsite soils for our independent laboratory testing purposes. The approximate location of
Boring CX-B2W2 is presented on the Boring Location Map (see Figure 2). The adapted
log of Boring CX-B2W2 is presented in Appendix B. GSI also reviewed the preliminary log
of Geoscience Boring CX-B1 advanced between October 22 and October 26, 2013
(Geoscience, 2014) to further develop an understanding of the site geologic and
hydrostratigraphic conditions. The log of this boring is also provided in Appendix B.
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The subject site is situated near the southerly margin of the northerwesterly reach of the
Salinas River Valley. The Salinas River Valley is located within the southern subprovince
of the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California (Norris and Webb, 1995). This
subprovince extends south of San Francisco Bay to the Santa Ynez River. The Coast
Ranges geomorphic province consists of many elongate mountain ranges and narrow
valleys that extend approximately 600 miles (960 kilometers) from the California - Oregon
border to the Santa Ynez River. These landforms are generally oriented parallel the
coastline, the result of northwest-trending strike-slip faulting within the region.
Basement Rocks
Basement rocks of the Coast Ranges consist of two dissimilar complexes in fault contact
with one another along the San Andreas and San Gregorio Fault Zones. These are
referred to as the Franciscan basement and Crystalline (Salinian) basement complexes.
The Salinian basement complex underlies the site at depth and consists of a magmatic arc
composed of metamorphic rocks and granitic plutons. The Salinian metamorphic rocks
present in the Santa Lucia Range are known as the Sur Series. This series includes
gneiss, schist, quartzite, and marble. The granitic rocks and their associated metamorphic
rocks are vast in areal extent and presumably underlie much of the Salinian block at depth.
The composition of Salinian granitic rocks varies from granodiorite and quartz
monzogranite to quartz diorite, similar to compositions found in the Sierra Nevada and
Peninsular Ranges. The age of Salianian metamorphic rocks is somewhat ambiguous;
however, radiometric dating of the plutonic rocks indicates an age range of 69 to
110 million years, with the younger rocks commonly found along the western margin of the
block. The relative youthfulness of these rocks may be attributed to slower cooling,
possibly due to their deep location inside the magmatic batholith.
Sedimentary Rocks
The basement rocks are discontinuously overlain by thick sequences of Miocene marine
sediments. These Miocene-age deposits are mantled by Pleistocene-age terrace deposits,
alluvial fan, and dune deposits. Holocene-age alluvium lines the floor of the Salinas River
Qd
Qod
GSI LEGEND
QUA TERNARY DUNE DEPOSITS (RECENT)
QUA TERNARY OLDER DUNE DEPOSITS
APPROXIAIA TE LOCA 1JON OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
CX-82 W2 _Lh_
m=Br "W
APPROXIAIA TE LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORING WITH TOTAL DEPTH IN FfET
ALLLOCATIONSAREAPPROX/MATE
This document or etrlels not a part of the Construcllon
Documents and should not be relied upon as being an
accurate depiction of design.
GRAPHIC SCALE
1000 0 500 1000 2000
r = 10oo
BORING LOCATION MAP
W.O. SBB78-SC DATE: 04114
GeoSoils, Inc.
Valley and similar aged dune deposits are located in the near-shore zone of Monterey Bay.
According to Geologic Mapping by Wagner, et al. (2002), site geologic units within the
CEMEX facility consist of Pleistocene-age Older Dune Sands and Holocene-age Dune
Sands associated with the Monterey Dune Complex studied by Cooper (1967).
Geologic Structure
Embryonic geologic structure within the Coast Ranges began over 100 million years ago
when the Pacific Plate was being subducted beneath the North American Plate, resulting
in a volcanic range. During the Miocene Epoch, the Pacific Plate and North American Plate
underwent transform movement, similar to that occurring at present. Movement along this
ancient transform fault carried the Salinian Block northward, after undergoing folding and
granitic intrusion.
At present, geologic structure within the Monterey County region is primarily controlled by
the San Andreas Fault System and to a lesser extent, the San Gregorio fault. Uplift
beginning in the late Pliocene to early Pleistocene resulted in rapid bedrock incision and
subsequent deposition in the Salinas Valley. The Plio-Pleistocene sediments are inferred
to generally be a gently inclined northwesterly dipping monocline. The parabolic sand
dunes, near Monterey Bay, are generally gently to moderately (cross beds) inclined to the
southeast.
SITE GEOLOGIC UNITS
Based on our review of the Geoscience subsurface data, the geologic units observed
and/or encountered at the subject site consist of Holocene/Pleistocene-age dune deposits,
Pleistocene-age Valley Fill, and Plio-Pleistocene-age continental deposits belonging to
the Aromas Sand and Paso Robles Formations. A general description of each
deposit/formation is presented as follows, from youngest to oldest. The general
distribution of the surficial units across the project site and adjacent areas is presented on
Figure 2.
Quaternary Dune Deposits (Map Symbols - Qd and Qod)
Recent to Pleistocene-age (older) dune deposits, associated with the Monterey Dune
Complex (Cooper, 1967), were noted at the surface throughout the study area. Where
encountered in the Geoscience test borings, dune sands generally consist of light brown
to brown, and yellowish brown, poorly graded, very fine to medium grained sands. Dune
deposits appear to be on the order of to 35 to 36 feet in thickness, with the base of the
dune complex slightly below sea level.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Quaternary Valley Fill (Not Mapped)
Pleistocene-age fluvial and estuarine deposits of valley fill, were observed immediately
below the dune complex, at depths between approximately 35 feet to 175 feet below
surface grades. Where encountered, deposits of valley fill include an upper member,
consisting of yellowish brown, poorly graded sands with gravel, and silty sands, at depths
between approximately 35 to 82 feet below grade; a middle member, consisting of
interbedded, grayish, yellowish, and olive brown, well graded sands and silty sands, at
depths between approximately 82 and 123 feet below surface grades; and a lower
member, consisting of gray brown, yellowish brown, and reddish brown to yellowish red,
interbedded silts, silty sands, clayey sands, and clays, between approximately 123 feet and
175 feet below existing grades.
Quaternary Aromas Sand (Not Mapped)
The Pleistocene-age Aromas Sand (Harding ESE, 2001) appears to be present below
valley fill, at approximate depths ranging between 175 feet and 205 feet below surface
grades. Where encountered, this deposits generally consists of a dark yellowish brown
to dary grayish brown fine sand to silty sand. Near the contact with the underlying
Paso Robles Formation, the Aromas Formation is oxidized (reddish brown).
Quaternary Paso Robles Formation (Not Mapped)
The oldest formation encountered in nearby explorations appears to be the
Plio-Pliestocene-age Paso Robles Formation. This deposit is generally characterized by
gray to yellowish brown, olive to olive gray/brown, interbedded clays, silts, poorly graded
to well graded sands, and gravels. Gravels generally contain rounded to subrounded rock
fragments of chert, volcanics, and granite. This formation was generally encountered
below a depth of 205 feet, to the maximum depth of 306 feet explored.
Hydrostratigraphic Units
Based on our review, dune deposits below the groundwater table, and the upper and
middle members of Valley Fill deposits comprise a shallow, open aquifer, or dune
aquifer. The lower member, or relatively fine grained member, of Valley Fill deposits
appears to be the Salinas Valley Aquitard (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2004), occurring
at approximate depths between 123 feet and 175 feet below the surface. At a depth of
approximately 175 feet below surface grades lies an aquifer occurring in formational soils
consisting of interbedded silty sands, poorly to well graded sands, and clays belonging to
the Aromas Sand and Paso Robles Formations. This aquifer appear to also be referred to
in the region as the 180 foot aquifer (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2004).
GeoSoils, Inc.
GROUNDWATER
The regional groundwater table was encountered in Geoscience Boring CX-B1 at an
approximate depth of 20 feet below ground surface (bgs) or at an approximate elevation
of 6 feet MSL. Based on a review of groundwater data compiled by the State of California
Department of Water Resources (http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/groundwater/
hydrographs/brr_hydro.cfm?CFGRIDKEY=47429), the regional goundwater table was
encountered in a nearby well at elevations ranging between 2.27 and 3.95 feet (North
American Vertical Datum of 1988 [NAVD88]).
Perched groundwater conditions may occur during and following slant well development
along contacts between sediments with contrasting densities/permeabilities or along
geologic discontinuities. Perched groundwater conditions may develop in response to
above normal rainfall or damaged/leaking wet underground utility pipelines.
Groundwater observations reflect site conditions at the time of this report and do not
preclude changes in local groundwater conditions in the future. The potential for changing
groundwater conditions should be disclosed to any interested or potentially affected
parties.
GEOLOGIC/SEISMIC HAZARDS ASSESSMENT
Mass Wasting/Landslides
The subject site is located within a sand dune complex comprised of relatively dry,
cohesionless, and poorly consolidated sands near the surface. Sloughing is expected to
occur on dune slopes from subaerial and possibly marine erosional processes and
anthropogenic modifications until the angle of repose is reached (i.e., likely 30 to 35
degrees from the horizontal). This should be considered during project planning and
construction. Recommendations to enhance the performance of the proposed
improvements are provided herein.
Volcanic Hazards
There are no known active or Quaternary volcanoes in the vicinity of the subject site. Thus,
the potential for the site to be subjected to volcanic hazards is considered low.
Expansive and Compressive Soils
Near-surface soils within the project site primarily consist of sand that do not meet the
criteria for expansive soils as defined in Section 1803.5.3. of the 2013 California Building
Code (2013 CBC). Owing to relatively low densities, the upper 10 feet of the site soils are
considered potentially compressible under load, in their existing state. The magnitude of
soil compression would be within acceptable tolerances provided that the
GeoSoils, Inc.
recommendations included herein for site earthwork and wellhead vault foundation design
are incorporated into project development. The seismic-induced settlements, reported
herein, should be considered during site design.
Corrosive Soils
In general, soils are corrosive to exposed buried metals when in a wet to saturated state.
Based on our experience, the dune deposits should not present concentrations of soluble
sulfates and chlorides that would require specific mitigation. However, owing to the project
sites proximity to the Pacific Ocean, concrete structural members would likely be exposed
to sea spray. Therefore, the project designers should consider using concrete mixes for
structural members that comply with Exposure Class C2 in Table 4.3.1 of ACI 318.
Flooding and Dam Inundation
A review of the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Monterey County (FEMA, 1984) indicates that
the project area is located within Zone X, which is an area considered to have minimal
flood risk hazard and determined to be outside a Special Flood Hazard Area, and higher
than the elevation of the 0.2 percent-annual-chance (or 500-year) flood. The 100-year
flood zone map in the City of Marina 2000 General Plan (City of Marina, 2000) shows that
the subject site is well outside the western edge of the Nacimiento Dam failure inundation
zone. The potential for flooding to occur at the site from surface waters or dam failure is
under the purview of the design civil engineer.
Subsidence
Subsidence is the incremental settling or abrupt sinking of the ground surface owing to
subsurface movement of earth materials. According to the Monterey County 2007 General
Plan, the principal causes of subsidence in Monterey County are groundwater extraction,
drainage of organic soils, underground mining, hydroconsolidation, and sinkholes. The
Monterey County 2007 General Plan further indicates that there is a limited amount of
documented evidence of regional subsidence. Any subsidence would likely occur
incrementally and would likely not manifest at the site, under controlled withdrawal and
recharge conditions.
Coastal Erosion
Marine and subaerial erosional processes have the potential to remove and transport the
sand dune deposits at the subject site. As such, coastal erosion is considered a potential
geologic hazard. Because the slant well is temporary (i.e., will be in operation for
approximately 18 months), coastal erosion should not significantly affect the well site.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Faults and Regional Seismicity
The subject site is situated within a seismically active region. This is due in part to its close
proximity to the active (i.e., movement within the Holocene Epoch) San Andreas fault
system and other subsidiary faults.
The San Andreas Fault is a complex system of generally northwest-trending, right lateral,
en-echelon strike-slip faults. It is considered the tectonic plate boundary between the
North American Plate and the Pacific Plate and generally controls the regional geologic
structures and landforms.
Our review indicates that there are no known faults crossing the project site and the site
is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). However,
the site is situated in an area containing active and potentially active faults. According to
Rosenberg and Clark (2009), the Blanco section of the Reliz Fault Zone (RFZ) is the closest
known fault to the subject site, located approximately 830 feet northeast. The Blanco
section of the RFZ reportedly extends northwest from the north end of Sierra de Salinas
and continues offshore into Monterey Bay where it may connect into the Monterey Bay
Fault Zone. Owing to the relatively high rate of sedimentation of thick Holocene deposits,
geomorphic expression of this fault section is not well documented. Bouger gravity
anomaly surveys indicate that the Reliz Fault demonstrates high-angle reverse motion with
approximately 3,000 vertical feet of displacement. The Reliz Fault is considered a right
step-over of the Rinconada Fault which extends 230 kilometers from King City in the north
to the Big Pine Fault in the south. The Rinconada Fault consists of three main sections of
right lateral strike-slip faults. Geomorphic expressions such as sag ponds, offset and
clockwise-rotated drainages, and faint lineaments shown on stereoscopic aerial
photographs suggest indications of late Pleistocene or Holocene movement on this fault.
However, Rosenberg and Clark (2009) indicate that seismicity within the Reliz and
Rinconanda Fault Zones is relatively sparse and infrequent, and lacks the linearity of that
demonstrated by the San Andreas Fault Zone, located approximately 16 miles to the
northeast (Blake, 2000) of the site. Thus, these faults have been designated by the State
of California as potentially active. Given the above and the capability of nearby San
Andreas Fault segments to produce maximum magnitude 6.2 to 7.0 earthquakes (Cao, et
al., 2003), it is considered the design fault for the project. The location of the San Andreas
fault and other major regional faults relative to the site is shown on the Figure 3 (Regional
Fault Map). The possibility of ground acceleration, or shaking at the site, may be
considered as approximately similar to the region as a whole.
Seismicity
Maximum Credible Ground Acceleration
The acceleration-attenuation relation of Bozorgnia, Campbell, and Niazi (1999) has been
incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 2000a). EQFAULT is a computer program developed
EXPLANATION
Fool! !hot exhibits foult creep slippage. Hachures indicate linear extent of fault cre.,.
Annototi<ln (erHp with f-) indicotu ,.,...ont<Jt;.,. loe<JtiaM wnort fovlt erHp
h .. b- ob!O!Wd and recorded.
------' Hoi<>OIIM foul! d/spl<>e6'1lllflt (during post 11,700 )ll!<lfS) without historic record.
eWdetle. for Hcloc.,. f<aJti!lg li>cludes sag pond$, $1lorilg 1/tUe
erosion. or !he following fe<ltures Ill HoloeeM oge deposits: offstlt sfrfOIII cout- Hneor
a'luttor rldl)ft. and triangular focoted spurs. of foultlng offohore &
booed on the inlerpttted oge of the slrota displaced by faulting.
, Late Ou<Jtornory foult disploceme11t (during post 700.000 yeatS). Ceam"')>hic eoidence
similar to tflat -.d for Ha.'ocene foults teotum or. tess tllftlnct. fO!IIting
may bit younger, but lade of yovnger d*Posits prJvMI more accurate age
el<mffleotlon.
Quaternary fault (age uncJifferentlated). Most foults of this ootegory show e>fdence of
cl!splacement """'etime during tile past 1.8 million ,...,.... possible eJtCeptions are foults
wnich rtisptace IOCirs or ondifferentiafOII
Plio-Pfei:rtocone oge. Unnumb<ered Ouatemary foulfa were b081!d an Fault Map of Co/ifornio.
1975. S.e IMietfll 201. APf#ld' 0 for SOUt'Cf <Iota.
fault (older tllat 1.8 million yeors) or foul! without recognized Quotemary
BAS MAP: CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY. 2010, FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF
CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DATA SERIES,
MAP NO. 6, 1 SHEET. SCALE: 1: 750,000.
REGIONAL FAULT MAP
cl!splacement Some f011lls ore ,..._, in ltlis ootegary b<ecouse the soure<o of m-ing
oas of rec:ontlaissnce nalln, or was not dono with tho objoct of <lotw>g foult
cl!sp/ocement.. Foolts in this cotegwy oro not necessarily ir>octi.e. W.O. S6fl7fi.SC DATE:04114
GeoSoils, Inc.
by Thomas F. Blake (2000a), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using
digitized California faults as earthquake sources.
The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a given site. If a fault
is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground
acceleration that may occur at the site from an upper bound (formerly maximum credible
earthquake), on that fault. Upper bound refers to the maximum expected ground
acceleration produced from a given fault. Site acceleration (g) was computed by
one user-selected acceleration-attenuation relation that is contained in EQFAULT. Based
on the EQFAULT program, a peak horizontal ground acceleration from an upper bound
event on nearby segments of the San Andreas Fault may be on the order of 0.40 g. The
computer printouts of pertinent portions of the EQFAULT program are included within
Appendix C.
Historical Site Acceleration
Historical site seismicity was evaluated with the acceleration-attenuation relation of
Bozorgnia, Campbell, and Niazi (1999), and the computer program EQSEARCH
(Blake, 2000b, updated to July 2013). This program performs a search of the historical
earthquake records for magnitude 5.0 to 9.0 seismic events within a 100-kilometer radius,
from the year 1800 through July 2013. Based on the selected acceleration-attenuation
relationship, a peak horizontal ground acceleration is estimated, which may have affected
the site during the specific event listed. Based on the available data and the attenuation
relationship used, the estimated maximum (peak) site acceleration from the year
1800 through July 2013 was about 0.25 g. A historic earthquake epicenter map and a
seismic recurrence curve are also estimated/generated from the historical data. Computer
printouts of the EQSEARCH program are presented in Appendix C.
Seismic Shaking Parameters
Based on the site conditions, the following table summarizes the site-specific design
criteria obtained from the 2013 CBC, Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613,
Earthquake Loads. The computer program Seismic Design Maps, provided by the United
States Geologic Survey (USGS, 2014) was utilized to aid in design.
2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
PARAMETER VALUE 2013 CBC AND/OR REFERENCE
Site Class D
Section 1613.3.2/ASCE 7-10
(Chapter 20)
s
Spectral Response - (0.2 sec), S 1.543 g Figure 1613.3.1(1)
1
Spectral Response - (1 sec), S 0.548 g Figure 1613.3.1(2)
GeoSoils, Inc.
2013 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
PARAMETER VALUE 2013 CBC AND/OR REFERENCE
a
Site Coefficient, F 1.0 Table 1613.3.3(1)
v
Site Coefficient, F 1.50 Table1613.3.3(2)
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
MS
Response Acceleration (0.2 sec), S
1.543 g
Section 1613.3.3
(Eqn 16-37)
Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral
M1
Response Acceleration (1 sec), S
0.822 g
Section 1613.3.3
(Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design Spectral Response
DS
Acceleration (0.2 sec), S
1.029 g
Section 1613.3.4
(Eqn 16-39)
5% Damped Design Spectral Response
D1
Acceleration (1 sec), S
0.548 g
Section 1613.3.4
(Eqn 16-40)
Seismic Design Category D
Section 1613.3.5/ASCE 7-10
(Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2)
M
PGA 0.5720g ASCE 7-10 (Eqn 11.8.1)
GENERAL SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
PARAMETER VALUE
Distance to Seismic Source - A fault (San Andreas Fault) 16.9 mi/27.2 km
(1) (2)
W
Upper Bound Earthquake (San Andreas Fault) M = 7.0
(1)
- From Blake (2000a)
(1)
- Cao, et al. (2003)
(2)
Conformance to the criteria above for seismic design does not constitute any kind of
guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage, ground failure, or surface
manifestations will not occur in the event of a large earthquake in this region. The primary
goal of seismic design is to protect life, not to eliminate all damage, since such design may
be economically prohibitive.
SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS
Surface Fault Rupture
As previously indicated, no known faults exhibiting Holocene movement transect the
project site. In addition, the subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). Thus, the potential for surface fault rupture to
adversely affect the project is considered very low.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by
earthquake-induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively
cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can
lead to vertical deformation, lateral movement, lurching, sliding, and as a result of seismic
loading, volumetric strain and manifestation in surface settlement of loose sediments, sand
boils and other damaging lateral deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the
water table, but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying
non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates.
One of the primary factors controlling the potential for liquefaction is depth to groundwater.
Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential at depths greater than 50 feet and is
unlikely and/or will produce vertical strains well below 1 percent for depths below 60 feet
when relative densities are 40 to 60 percent and effective overburden pressures are two
or more atmospheres (i.e., 4,232 psf [Seed, 2005]).
The condition of liquefaction has two principal effects. One is the consolidation of loose
sediments with resultant settlement of the ground surface. The other effect is lateral
sliding. Significant permanent lateral movement generally occurs only when there is
significant differential loading, such as fill or natural ground slopes within susceptible
materials.
Liquefaction susceptibility is related to numerous factors and the following five conditions
should be concurrently present for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively
young in age and not have developed a large amount of cementation; 2) sediments must
generally consist of fine- to medium-grained, relatively cohesionless sands; 3) the
sediments must have low relative density; 4) free groundwater must be present in the
sediment; and 5) the site must experience a seismic event of a sufficient duration and
magnitude, to induce straining of soil particles. Our evaluation indicates that these
concurrently necessary conditions have the potential to affect the site in its existing state.
This is corroborated by the Dupre and Tinsley (1980) findings that the site area has a
moderate potential for liquefaction to develop at the site.
Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Analyses
Given the aforementioned site characteristics, GSI performed a liquefaction and dynamic
settlement analyses using the computer software LiquefyPro (Civiltech Software, 2006).
Input data incorporated into the analyses included the SPT blow count data from
M
Geoscience Boring CX-B2W2, the 0.572 g peak ground acceleration (PGA ) value
obtained from USGS (2014), 6.2 to 7.0 maximum magnitude earthquakes occurring on
nearby segments of the San Andreas Fault (Cao, et al., 2003; Blake, 2000), the inferred
depth to groundwater from our review of Geoscience Boring CX-B1 (approximately 26 feet
bgs), and assumed average dry densities for the Older Dune Deposits and Valley Fill based
on our review (URS, 2013).
GeoSoils, Inc.
Our analyses indicate that liquefaction has the potential to occur in two layers occurring
between approximate depths of 26 and 28 feet bgs and 42 and 48 feet bgs. As such, the
site is considered susceptible to liquefaction-induced settlement (i.e., dynamic settlement
which is the combined effects of liquefaction and seismic densification).
Seismic-induced ground motions from earthquakes can result in the volumetric strain
caused by the excess pore pressures generated in saturated soils. This volumetric strain,
in the absence of lateral flow or spreading can result in settlement. The same volumetric
strain may also occur in unsaturated earth materials above the water table in dry to moist,
loose to medium dense granular (sandy) soils.
The magnitude of potential seismic settlement was computed using various methods within
the LiquefyPro program in general accordance with Special Publication 117 Guidelines
for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California, (CDMG, 1997) and Recommended
Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing
and Mitigating Liquefaction in California (SCEC, 1999). Based upon our understanding
of the proposed development and the results of our seismic settlement analysis, the
anticipated total ground surface settlement (post-earthquake without lateral or dilation
effects) during the design seismic event will be on the order of 1 to 3 inches with a
potential differential settlement of approximately -inch to 2 inches over a 50-foot
horizontal span (i.e., angular distortions of approximately 1/800 to 1/300). This should be
considered in the design of the wellhead vault, underground utility corridors, and the slant
well shaft. Remedial earthwork recommendations have been provided to enhance the
performance of the wellhead vault and underground utility corridors. The slant well
designer should evaluate if the proposed drill pipe can tolerate the angular distortions,
noted above, without significant deflection.
Seismic Densification
Seismic densification or volumetric strain of loose, relatively dry (significantly
drier-than-optimum moisture), granular soils above the groundwater table may occur on
this site when considering the seismic loading of the design basis earthquake. Potential
densification was evaluated for the soil profile in Geoscience Boring CX-B2W2 as well as
the anticipated (planned) construction. For purposes of our review, the seismic
M
densification evaluation included the use of the PGA value (0.572 g) obtained from the
USGS (2014) and based on ASCE 7-10, Section 11.8.3 criteria for incorporating the peak
ground acceleration into seismic hazard analyses. Based on our analyses volumetric
strain from seismic densification is considered comparable to the values obtained from our
liquefaction dynamic settlement analyses. Considering the proximity of the site to the
Pacific Ocean and the depth to groundwater, the seismic densification will typically involve
the upper 25 to 50 feet of loose to medium dense sands on the site. Therefore, it will
always be accompanied by a component of liquefaction if the site is subjected to the
design-level earthquake. This evaluation does not consider perimeter conditions that
remain unmitigated, nor a combination of seismic densification and lateral deformation.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spread phenomenon is described as the lateral movement of stiff, surficial, mostly
intact blocks of sediment displaced downslope towards a free face along a shear zone that
has formed within the liquefied sediment. The resulting ground deformation typically has
extensional fissures at the head of the failure, shear deformations along the side margins,
and compression or buckling of the soil at the toe. The extent of lateral displacement
typically ranges from a half inch to several feet. Two types of lateral spread can occur:
1) lateral spread towards a free face, e.g., shoreline, river channel, or embankment; and
2) lateral spread down a gentle ground slope where a free face is absent. Factors such
as earthquake magnitude, distance from the seismic energy source, thickness of the
liquefiable layers, and the fines content and particle size of those sediments also correlate
with ground displacement.
Based on the available data, the potential exists for some lateral spreading to occur within
300 to 400 feet of the shoreline. Our evaluation indicates that the magnitude of lateral
spreading may be on the order of -foot to more than 1 foot should the site be subjected
to the design-level earthquake
Tsunamis
Tsunami are a series of waves caused by a rapid displacement of water volume within a
body of water. This accelerated change in volume can be caused by displacement of the
seafloor due to faulting or other factors such as volcanic eruptions, landslides, glacier
calving, meteorite impacts, and underwater explosions. According to tsunami inundation
mapping by the California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey,
and the University of Southern California (2009), the westerly, approximately 200 feet of the
project area is within a tsunami inundation zone. Critical project improvements within this
zone could be subject to damage from tsunami run-up.
Other Secondary Seismic Hazards
The following list includes other geologic/seismic related hazards that have been
considered during our evaluation of the site. The hazards listed are considered negligible
and/or mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, and typical site
development procedures:
Surface Manifestation of Liquefaction
Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture
Seiche
GeoSoils, Inc.
LABORATORY TESTING
General
Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite earth materials
collected from the Geoscience Boring CX-B2QW2, in order to evaluate their physical
characteristics and engineering properties with respect to project development. The test
procedures used and subsequent results are presented below:
Classification
Soils were classified with respect to the U.S.C.S. in general accordance with ASTM D 2487
and D 2488. The soil classification is presented on the adapted CX-B2W2 boring log (see
Appendix B).
Particle-Size Analysis
An evaluation was performed on selected representative soil samples collected from
Geoscience Boring CX-B2W2 in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The grain-size
distribution curves generated from the testing is presented in Appendix D. These test
results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of this study, GSI concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed
temporary slant well development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic
viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented herein are properly incorporated into
design and construction phases of development. The most significant factors related to
the currently planned project development are as follows:
1. The project area is located within a seismically active region. The project
improvements could be damaged by moderate to strong ground shaking over their
design life. Provided that the planned structures are designed and constructed to
tolerate the potential ground accelerations reported herein, and in accordance with
current building code requirements, they should be repairable. Any seismically-
induced damage should be repaired shortly following a seismic event as repeated
earthquakes, over time, may cause structures to fall into states of disrepair. It
should be noted that the primary goal of seismic design is to protect life and safety
and not to eliminate all structural damage.
Anticipated effects of seismic shaking in slant well housing, fixtures, and well shaft
will be lateral and vertical deformations that may exceed the tolerances of these
components. Emergency shut off mechanisms, flexible connections, and the ability
GeoSoils, Inc.
to accommodate the vertical and lateral deformations in the well shaft should be
incorporated into the project design.
2. The onsite soils are considered susceptible to liquefaction and seismic settlement.
Earthwork recommendations have been provided to enhance the structural integrity
of the planned improvements constructed within the influence of the onsite soils.
3. Lateral spreads appear to have the potential to occur under the design-level
earthquake within 300 to 400 feet from the shoreline, based on the available data.
This should be considered when siting critical project infrastructure.
4. The recent dune deposits are relatively dry, cohesionless, and poorly consolidated.
As such, these dune slopes are susceptible to erosion and sloughing. In order to
reduce damage to project infrastructure, GSI recommends that settlement-sensitive
improvements be sited such that they maintain a 1.5(H) setback from the top of any
dune slope, where H equals the height of the dune slope. This setback is based
on an approximate 33 degree angle of repose for the recent dune sand deposits.
In addition, debris impact devices may be constructed at the toe of dune slopes
ascending from the planned improvements. Since dunes are migratory, some
regular and periodic maintenance should be included in project planning. Dune
fencing may help in this regard.
5. The westerly, approximately 200 feet of the project area is located within a tsunami
inundation zone and therefore is potentially susceptible to tsunami hazards. Critical
project infrastructure should be sited landward of the tsunami inundation zone
shown on California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey,
and University of Southern California (2009).
The geologic and engineering analyses performed concerning site preparation and the
recommendations presented herein have been completed using the information provided.
In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the
conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid
unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report are verified or
modified in writing by this office.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Concrete
In light of the project areas proximity to the Pacific Ocean, concrete could be introduced
to an external source of chlorides from sea spray. Therefore, GSI recommends that
concrete mixes for structural members conform to Exposure Class C2 in Table 4.3.1 of
ACI 318.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Bearing Design - Wellhead Vault (Cellar)
1. Analyses indicate that an allowable vertical bearing value of 2,000 pounds per
square foot (psf) may be used in the design of a wellhead vault that is supported on
engineered fill materials prepared and compacted in accordance with the
recommendations in this report. The bearing value should be increased by
20 percent for each additional 12 inches in wellhead vault depth to a maximum
vertical allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf.
2. For lateral sliding resistance, a 0.25 coefficient of friction should be utilized for a
concrete to soil contact when multiplied by the dead load.
3. Passive earth pressure should be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density
of 150 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) with a maximum earth pressure of 1,500 psf.
4. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third.
5. The upper 6 inches of passive pressure should not be utilized in the foundation
design if footings are not confined by slabs or pavement.
6. The allowable vertical bearing is for static and live loads, and do not account for the
effects of vibratory loading which may densify sandy soils on site. GSI may address
this type of live loads on foundations if required by the governing agency.
Preliminary Settlement Evaluation
Based on our analyses, preliminary settlements under the design-level earthquake are
anticipated to be on the order of 1 to 3 inches with a potential differential settlement of
approximately -inch to 2 inches over a 50-foot horizontal span (i.e., angular distortions
of approximately 1/800 to 1/300).
Lateral Earth Pressures - Wellhead Vault Walls
The following lateral earth pressures may be used in the design of the wellhead vault walls,
provided that level backfill and drained conditions are present. Level backfill conditions
are defined as a non-sloping ground surface behind the top of the wellhead vault for a
distance of 2H (where H equals the height of the wellhead vault wall).
GeoSoils, Inc.
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
BACKFILL TYPE ACTIVE PRESSURE AT-REST PRESSURE
Select Backfill 35 65
(1)
Native Backfill 45 75
(2)
Sand Equivalent (SE) > 30, Plasticity Index (PI) < 15, Expansion Index (EI) < 21, and < 10% passing No. 200 sieve.
(1)
EI= 0 to 20, SE > 25, PI < 15, and < 15% passing No. 200 sieve; confirmation testing required.
(2)
If wellhead vault walls are designed for select backfill conditions, native soils should be
kept below a 1:1 (h:v) projection up from the heel of the wall footing.
Subdrains for retaining walls should minimally consist of a 4-inch perforated, Schedule 40
or SDR 35 drain pipe (with perforations oriented down), encased in one cubic foot of clean,
crushed -inch to 1-inch gravel and wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N or approved
equivalent). The subdrain should flow via gravity (minimum 1 percent fall) to an approved
drainage facility as evaluated by the project civil engineer.
Seismic Surcharge (If Warranted)
Should wellhead vault walls retain more than 6 feet of earth materials, as measured
vertically from the bottom of the wall footing at the heel to daylight , GSI recommends that
the walls be evaluated for a seismic surcharge (in general accordance with 2013 CBC
requirements). Walls in this category should maintain an overturning Factor-of-Safety
(FOS) of approximately 1.25 when the seismic surcharge (increment), is applied. For
restrained walls, the seismic surcharge should be applied as a rectangular load distribution
from the bottom of the footing (excluding shear keys) to the top of the backfill at the heel
of the wall footing. For cantilevered walls, the pressure should be applied as an inverted
triangular distribution. This seismic surcharge pressure (seismic increment) may be taken
as 12H where "H" for walls is the dimension previously noted as the height of the backfill
to the bottom of the footing. The resultant force should be applied at a distance 0.6 H up
from the bottom of the footing. For the evaluation of the seismic surcharge, the bearing
pressure may exceed the static value by one-third, considering the transient nature of this
surcharge. Please note this is for local wall stability only.
The 12H is derived from a Mononobe-Okabe solution for both restrained and cantilever
walls. This accounts for the increased lateral pressure due to shakedown or movement of
the sand fill soil in the zone of influence from the wall or roughly a 45/ - N/2 plane away
from the back of the wall. The 12H seismic surcharge is derived from the formula:
GeoSoils, Inc.
h h t
P = d C a C ( H
h
Where: P = Seismic increment
h
a = Probabilistic horizontal site acceleration with a percentage of
g
t
( = total unit weight (115 to 125 pcf for site soils @ 90% relative
compaction).
H = Height of the wall from the bottom of the footing or point of pile
fixity.
Concrete Slab-on-Grade Floor - Wellhead Vault
From a geotechnical standpoint, the concrete slab-on-grade floor for the wellhead vault
should be a minimum of 4 inches thick and be minimally reinforced with No. 3 steel
reinforcement bars placed at 18 inches on center in two perpendicular directions. The
steel reinforcement should be placed in the middle of the slab and supported on chairs.
Hooking of steel reinforcement should not be permitted. Actual slab thickness and steel
reinforcement should be provided by the project structural engineering based on use and
project loading requirements. Concrete slab-on-grade floors should be constructed on
very low expansive (E.I. < 21 and PI < 15) subgrade materials that have been prepared
in accordance with the recommendations in this report.

Earthwork Construction Recommendations
General
All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in the 2013 CBC (CBSC, 2013) and
the City of Marina, except where specifically superceded herein. When code references
are not equivalent, the more stringent code should be followed. During earthwork
construction, all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor
should be observed and the fill selectively tested by the geotechnical consultant. If
unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by the
geotechnical consultant. All applicable requirements of local and national construction
and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and
the Construction Safety Act should be met.
Prior to grading, a meeting should be held between California American Water, the project
civil and geotechnical consultants, and the grading contractor so that clarifications or
amendments to our earthwork recommendations can be provided (if necessary), and to
review the earthwork schedule.
GSI recommends that the contractor(s) take precautionary measures to protect work,
especially during the rainy season. Failure to do so may result in additional remedial
earthwork.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Demolition/Grubbing
1. Organic materials, existing structures/underground utilities, and/or miscellaneous
debris should be removed from the areas of proposed grading, prior to the start of
work.
2. Any previous foundations, existing underground utilities, or other subsurface
structures uncovered during the recommended remedial excavations should be
observed by the geotechnical consultant so that appropriate mitigative
recommendations can be provided.
3. Cavities or loose soils remaining after demolition and site clearance should be
cleaned out and observed by the geotechnical consultant. The cavities should be
replaced with fill materials that have been moisture conditioned to at least optimum
moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard
(ASTM D 1557).
Remedial Grading/Treatment of Existing Ground
Due to the susceptibility of the site to undergo seismic (dynamic) settlement during the
design earthquake and to mitigate compression of low-density, near-surface dune
deposits, GSI recommends that the upper 10 feet of the surficial earth materials be
removed where settlement-sensitive improvements are proposed. The removed soils may
be reused as engineered fill provided the major concentrations of organic and deleterious
material have been removed prior to placement. Remedial grading excavations should be
completed below a 1:1 (h:v) projection down from the bottom, outboard edge of the
wellhead vault and the spring line of any underground utilities. Remedial grading
excavations should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. If significantly
loose/compressible soils are exposed at the bottom of remedial grading excavations,
deeper removals may be necessary. Once approved by the geotechnical consultant, the
bottom of the remedial grading excavations should be scarified, thoroughly wetted, and
recompacted with vibratory compaction equipment.
Fill Placement
1. Fill materials should be cleansed of major vegetation and debris prior to placement.
2. At a minimum, fill materials located below a 1:1 (h:v) projection down from the
bottom, outboard edge of the wellhead vault or spring line of underground utilities
that intersects with the bottom of the remedial grading excavation should be
moisture conditioned and mixed to achieve the soils optimum moisture content,
placed in relatively thin (i.e., 6- to 8-inch) lifts, and then recompacted to at least
90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Wellhead vault wall) and
underground utility trench backfills should be placed under similar methods.
GeoSoils, Inc.
In order to enhance performance under the design-level earthquake, the
compaction of the fill materials supporting the wellhead vault and underground
utilities, as well as wellhead vault wall backfill may be increased to 95 percent of the
laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557). Additional increased performance of the
wellhead vault, underground utilities and wellhead vault walls under the design-
earthquake may include the use of soil cement. This would involve mixing fill soils
supporting the wellhead vault and underground utilities as well as wellhead vault
wall backfill with cement introduced at 6 percent by weight.
3. The maximum to minimum fill thickness beneath the wellhead vault should not
exceed a ratio of 3:1 (maximum:minimum). Based on the conditions exposed
during construction, this may require some overexcavation of the underlying earth
materials.
4. Although not anticipated, any oversized rock materials or concrete debris greater
than 4 inches in any dimension should not be placed in engineered fills. Oversize
constituents should be removed and replaced with acceptable-sized materials or
be reduced to acceptable size and re-used in the fill.
5. If necessary, any import materials should be observed and evaluated for suitability
by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement on the site. At least three
business days of lead time should be allowed by builders or contractors for
proposed import submittals. This lead time will allow for particle size analysis,
specific gravity, relative compaction, expansion testing, and blended import/native
characteristics as deemed necessary. Import soils for a fill cap should be very low
expansive (E.I. < 21 and PI < 15). The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
report for the export site should also be reviewed prior to importing.
Permanent Graded Slopes
Based on our understanding of site development, no permanent graded slopes are
planned for the project. Therefore, no recommendations for graded slope construction
have been provided. If necessary, these recommendations can be provided upon request.
Temporary Slopes
Temporary slopes for excavations greater than 4 feet, but less than 20 feet in overall height
should conform to CAL-OSHA and/or OSHA requirements for Type C soils. Temporary
slopes, up to a maximum height of 20 feet, may be excavated at a 1 :1 (h:v) gradient,
or flatter, provided groundwater and/or running sands are not exposed. Building materials
soil stockpiles, and/or heavy equipment should not be stored/operated within 1.5(H) of the
tops of any temporary slope where H equals the height of the temporary slope. All
temporary slopes should be observed by a licensed engineering geologist and/or
geotechnical engineer prior to worker entry into the excavation.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Debris Impact Structures
Debris impact structures may be used to protect critical project infrastructure where it
located within a horizontal distance of H/2 from the base (toe) of any ascending dune slope
(where H equals the height of the ascending slope). The debris impact structure should
be at least 4 feet high and capable of retaining a single-event active pressure of 125 pcf.
Debris impact structures should be periodically maintained. Any accumulated materials
should be removed as quickly as possible.
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed
representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between
excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site
conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. A full dynamic settlement
analysis was beyond the scope of our services for this investigation.
Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory
data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions
have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty,
either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change with time.
GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their
inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our
recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an
agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding
any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may be subject to
review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion our scope of
services for this portion of the project. All samples will be disposed of after 30 days
following the issuance of this report, unless specifically requested by California American
Water, in writing.
--- - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
GeoSoils, Inc.
~ ~ a ' Z ' ~ ~
Project Geologist
RBB/JPF/DWS/ATG/jh
Appendices: Appendix A - References
Appendix B- Geoscience Boring Logs CX-B2W2 and CX-81
Appendix C- EQFAULT AND EQSEARCH
Appendix D- Laboratory Testing
Distribution: (3) Addressee (wet signed)
Temporary Slant Test Well, Marina
File:e:\wp9\6600\S6678a.gic
GeoSoils, Inc.
W. 0. S6678-A-OC
April 3, 2014
Page 25

GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES

GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, 2011, Building code requirements for structural concrete
(ACI 318-11), an ACI standard and commentary: reported by ACI Committee 318;
dated May 24.
ACI Committee 318, 2008, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08)
and commentary, dated January.
Blake, Thomas F., 2000a, EQFAULT, A computer program for the estimation of peak
horizontal acceleration from 3-D fault sources; Windows 95/98 version.
_____, 2000b, EQSEARCH, A computer program for the estimation of peak horizontal
acceleration from California historical earthquake catalogs; Updated to July 2013,
Windows 95/98 version.
Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell K.W., and Niazi, M., 1999, Vertical ground motion: Characteristics,
relationship with horizontal component, and building-code implications;
Proceedings of the SMIP99 seminar on utilization of strong-motion data,
September 15, Oakland, pp. 23-49.
Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California, Alquist-Priolo
earthquake fault zoning act with index to earthquake fault zones maps;
California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, interim revision.
California Building Standards Commission, 2013, California Building Code, California Code
of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2, Based on the 2012 International
Building Code, 2013 California Historical Building Code, Title 24, Part 8; 2013
California Existing Building Code, Title 24, Part 10.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997,
Guidelines for evaluation and mitigating seismic hazards in California, CDMG
Special Publication 117.
California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, and University
of Southern California, 2009, Tsunami inundation map for emergency planning,
Marina 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle, Monterey County, California, 1:24,000-
scale, dated July 1.
California Geological Survey, 2010, Fault activity map of California, California data series,
map no. 6, 1 sheet, 1:750,000-scale.
California, State of, 2014, Civil Code, Title 7, Division 2, Section 895, et seq.
GeoSoils, Inc.
SWCA Environmental Consultants Appendix A
Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and willis, C.J., 2003, The revised 2002
Cal i f or ni a pr obal i st i c sei smi c hazar d maps, dat ed June,
http://www.conversation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/fault_parameters/pdf/documents
/2002_ca_hazardmaps.pdf
City of Marina, 2013, Initial study for the California American Water temporary slant test
well project, dated October.
_____, 2000, City of Marina 2000 General Plan, adopted October 31 (updated through
December 31, 2006).
Civiltech Software, 2006, LiquefyPro, liquefaction and settlement analysis; Version 5.4b.
Cooper, 1967, Coastal dunes of California in The Geological Society of America, Memoir
104.
County of Monterey Planning and Building Inspection Department, 2008, Draft
environmental impact report, Monterey County 2007 general plan, Monterey
County, California, dated September.
Dupr, W.R. and Tinsley, J.C., 1980, Maps showing geology and liquefaction potential of
northern Monterey and southern Santa Cruz counties, California, US Geological
Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1199.
Geoscience Support Services, Inc., 2014, Draft Field data for CEMEX exploratory borings,
Monterey Peninsular Water supply project, California American Water, Project No.:
13017-13, dated January 16.
Harding ESE, 2001, Final report, Hydrogeologic investigation of the Salinas Valley Basin
in the vicinity of Fort Ord and Marina, Salinas Valley, California, Project No. 51750
007, dated April 28.
Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes, Proceeding of the
eleventh international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering,
San Francisco, Ca., Volume I, P. 321-376, dated August.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas, scale 1:750,000,
California Division of Mines and Geology, California Data Map Series, Map No. 6.
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2004, Hydrostratigraphic analysis of the northern Salinas
Valley, dated May 14.
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER), 1997, Proceedings of the
NCEER workshop on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils, Publication No.
NCEER-97-0022, eds. Youd, T.L., and Idriss, I.M.
GeoSoils, Inc.
SWCA Environmental Consultants Appendix A
Norris, R.M. and Webb, R.W., 1990, Geology of California, second edition, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Rosenberg, L.I. and Clarke, J.C., 2009, Map of the Rinconada and Reliz Fault Zones,
Salinas River Valley, California, 1:250,000-scale.
Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999, Recommended procedures for
implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, guidelines for analyzing and
mitigating liquefaction in California, dated March.
United States Department of Naval Facilities, 1986, Design manual-7.2.
United States Geological Survey, 2014, U.S. Seismic design maps, earthquake hazards
program, http://geohazards.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php.
Version 3.1.0, dated July.
URS, 2013, DRAFT Geotechnical baseline report, proposed desalination plant, Monterey
Peninsula Water supply project, Marina, Monterey County, California, URS Project
No.: 26818674, dated June 20.
Wagner, D.L., Greene, H.G., Saucedo, G.J., and Pridmore, C.L., 2002, Geologic map of the
Monterey 30' x 60' quadrangle and adjacent areas, California, regional geologic map
series, map no. 1, plate 1 of 5, 1:100,000-scale

GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX B
GEOSCIENCE BORING LOGS CX-B2W2 AND CX-B1

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY
Major Divisions
Group
Symbols
Typical Names
CRITERIA
C
o
a
r
s
e
-
G
r
a
i
n
e
d

S
o
i
l
s
M
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

5
0
%

r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

o
n

N
o
.

2
0
0

s
i
e
v
e
G
r
a
v
e
l
s

5
0
%

o
r

m
o
r
e

o
f

c
o
a
r
s
e

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d

o
n

N
o
.

4

s
i
e
v
e
C
l
e
a
n
G
r
a
v
e
l
s
GW
Well-graded gravels and gravel-
sand mixtures, little or no fines
Standard Penetration Test
Penetration
Resistance N Relative
(blows/ft) Density

0 - 4 Very loose
4 - 10 Loose
10 - 30 Medium
30 - 50 Dense
> 50 Very dense
GP
Poorly graded gravels and
gravel-sand mixtures, little or no
fines
G
r
a
v
e
l
w
i
t
h
GM
Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt
mixtures
GC
Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay
mixtures
S
a
n
d
s

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

5
0
%

o
f
c
o
a
r
s
e

f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
a
s
s
e
s

N
o
.

4

s
i
e
v
e
C
l
e
a
n
S
a
n
d
s
SW
Well-graded sands and gravelly
sands, little or no fines
SP
Poorly graded sands and
gravelly sands, little or no fines
S
a
n
d
s
w
i
t
h
F
i
n
e
s
SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
SC
Clayey sands, sand-clay
mixtures
F
i
n
e
-
G
r
a
i
n
e
d

S
o
i
l
s
5
0
%

o
r

m
o
r
e

p
a
s
s
e
s

N
o
.

2
0
0

s
i
e
v
e
S
i
l
t
s

a
n
d

C
l
a
y
s
L
i
q
u
i
d

l
i
m
i
t
5
0
%

o
r

l
e
s
s
ML
Inorganic silts, very fine sands,
rock flour, silty or clayey fine
sands
Unconfined
Penetration Compressive
Resistance N Strength
(blows/ft) Consistency (tons/ft
2
)
<2 Very Soft <0.25

2 - 4 Soft 0.25 - .050
4 - 8 Medium 0.50 - 1.00
8 - 15 Stiff 1.00 - 2.00
15 - 30 Very Stiff 2.00 - 4.00
>30 Hard >4.00
CL
Inorganic clays of low to
medium plasticity, gravelly clays,
sandy clays, silty clays, lean
clays
OL
Organic silts and organic silty
clays of low plasticity
S
i
l
t
s

a
n
d

C
l
a
y
s
L
i
q
u
i
d

l
i
m
i
t
g
r
e
a
t
e
r

t
h
a
n

5
0
%
MH
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sands or silts,
elastic silts
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity,
fat clays
OH
Organic clays of medium to high
plasticity
Highly Organic Soils PT
Peat, mucic, and other highly
organic soils
3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve
Unified Soil
Classification
Cobbles
Gravel Sand
Silt or Clay
coarse fine coarse medium fine
MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS
Dry Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch trace 0 - 5 % C Core Sample
Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5 - 10 % S SPT Sample
Moist Near optimum moisture content little 10 - 25 % B Bulk Sample
Very Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25 - 45 % Groundwater
Wet Visible free water; below water table Qp Pocket Penetrometer
BASIC LOG FORMAT:
Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum,
coarse grained particles, etc.
EXAMPLE:
Sand (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose, trace silt, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets.
File:Mgr: c;\SoilClassif.wpd PLATE B-1
SP
SP
14
25
36
44
11
RECENT DUNE DEPOSITS:
@ 0' SAND, light brown, dry, loose; poorly graded, fine to
medium grained.
@ 5' As per 0'.
QUATERNARY OLDER DUNE DEPOSITS:
@ 10' SAND, light brown to brown, dry, medium dense; poorly
graded, very fine to fine grained.
@ 15' SAND, light brown, dry, dense; poorly graded, fine to
medium grained.
@ 20' SAND, light brown to brown, damp, dense; poorly graded,
fine to medium grained.
@ 25' As per 20', wet, medium dense.
@ 26' Groundwater encountered.
GeoSoils, Inc.
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD:
U
n
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

(
%
)
U
S
C
S

S
y
m
b
o
l
PROJECT:
S6678-SC
Sample
BORING LOG
California American Water, Temporary Slant Test Well, Marina, CA
Seepage
B
l
o
w
s
/
F
t
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
t
.

(
p
c
f
)
CX-B2W2
S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
W.O.
PLATE
3-4-14
Standard Penetration/Modified Cal Sampler, 140 Lb @ 30" Drop
B
u
l
k
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
3
D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
.
)
Adapted From Geoscience Preliminary Log of Boring
B-2
Approx. Elevation: 32' MSL
SHEET OF
GeoSoils, Inc.
1 SWCA
S6678-SC
Groundwater
BORING
Description of Material
SP
SP
SW
SP/SM
SP
30
43
35
9
40
@ 30' SAND, light brown, saturated, medium dense; poorly
graded, fine to medium grained.
QUATERNARY VALLEY FILL DEPOSITS:
@ 35' SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, dense; poorly
graded, medium grained.
@ 40' SAND, light brown, saturated, dense; well graded,
medium to coarse grained, trace rounded gravels, trace silt.
@ 45' SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, loose; well
graded, medium to coarse grained, trace gravels, trace silt.
@ 50' SAND with trace SILT/SILTY SAND, light yellowish
brown, saturated, dense.
@ 51' SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, dense; fine to
medium grained.
GeoSoils, Inc.
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD:
U
n
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

(
%
)
U
S
C
S

S
y
m
b
o
l
PROJECT:
S6678-SC
Sample
BORING LOG
Seepage
B
l
o
w
s
/
F
t
.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
t
.

(
p
c
f
)
CX-B2W2
S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
W.O.
PLATE
3-4-14
B
u
l
k
3
D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
.
)
B-3
SHEET OF
GeoSoils, Inc.
2 SWCA
S6678-SC
Groundwater
BORING
Total Depth = 67'
Groundwater Encountered @ 26'
No Caving Encountered
Backfilled 3-4-2014
GeoSoils, Inc.
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD:
U
n
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
M
o
i
s
t
u
r
e

(
%
)
U
S
C
S

S
y
m
b
o
l
PROJECT:
S6678-SC
Sample
BORING LOG
Seepage
B
l
o
w
s
/
F
t
.
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
D
r
y

U
n
i
t

W
t
.

(
p
c
f
)
CX-B2W2
S
a
t
u
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
%
)
W.O.
PLATE
3-4-14
B
u
l
k
3
D
e
p
t
h

(
f
t
.
)
B-4
SHEET OF
GeoSoils, Inc.
3 SWCA
S6678-SC
Groundwater
BORING
2. -
3 -
"' -

7 -
3
9
l} -
t"\ "'
'"' ....
GEOSCIENCE Proj ect: P/MPV'Sfl
Proj ectNo.
Location (r"" t?V ' "' Date(s) I 1 .,
,._
Ground Surface Logged
Elevation (ft) - z.t.. f-} by 8Y
HaizontaWertical
Datum

"'
Sample Information

c:
c:i = -c:
Reviewed
by
LOG OF BORING (X.- 8/
SHEET I OF (3>
Driling
Contractor
Bore'lole n
Diameter(in) ::r-
Bearing
(Azimuth)
Punge V I ,
(Degrees)
Total _
Depth (II) 0 ll
:5 <J:)
WELL

z c:
::l
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ... 0
g
""0 Ill
2:' CONSTRUCTION

c:
a.
"'
"
ro
"'
=
Ill Ill

a.
0
Qj
a.
Ill
c
a z ct co
1 ..
li

I

I
f:j
I
.
1--
I
t:E f2
0

w
8:

en

Ill
c:
Q)
Cl.
"'
\
'L.

v
')
"
7
$
'7
l!)
,,
1"1.
I)
l(
I 'S
((..
11
L!!
"

'l-1
),.1..
).}
'l'l
,<
.1.1
Ill

0

Q)
a::
(.?
''
\ \ i
'
.
''
..
. '
It
"..,
";

-

l;t'
'
I ,
I f
' ..

... t'J Yo -
>
GEOSCIENCE

Location CQ-f\E)( rr.;.._ .
Ground Surface '
Elevation (ft) ...- r
HcrizontaiNertical
Datum
Sample Information

-=
c:
ci = "2
"' c:o
z
c:
==-
... 0
g

--o Ql

c:-
c: Q.
Ql
ro
"'
Ei
"'

Ql
Ql
-.;

Q.
0

c:
Ql
0 z ffi 0::
,..
__,
.::;
::l
.Sol
g>
g
C9
.. ,
I.( .... \
't ..,. . " ...
,
Project: (< jM-f> w s p
Project No. l o '1
LOG OF BORING
SHEET J_ OF \..3
Date(s) '
1
Driled
Logged .....,.,)
by l"Ol'
Reviewed
by
Drilfi ng /? _ Bearing
Contractor '-A. S (Azimuth)
Drill Rig /
Twe '"")-o
Borehole
Di"!meter (in) '1-
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Plunge _ r _ ,...,
(Degrees)
Total
Depth (ft) cs G.
WELL
CONSTRUCTION
s-..D
1
p o 1 rttc:koc.O
1
S .-t:O,
-4. l(
0
( - L r>l'-"- l 0 't (2.. S/4
b r()V" Sfy-fll'l.{"'l 1> ,/- fi;ff7
.. . , " -f. s-0
.4 J -v
,.
I

.
... (..o ..
GEOSCIENCE

CA_
Ground Surface
ElevaUon (ft) _ "2
HorizontaUVerUcal
Datum
Sample Information
...
2
1i
ci
.E
= 2

"' <0
c:

z t: :.=..
::l ...
0
:
"0 (])

i:!'
.Q

t:
a.

co

g>
:5
cJl

Q)
a.
Q)
a;

t: u 0
Q) 0

(]) Q) Q)
Cl z t- co Cl. a:::
(.!)
-
"S/

S"J ..

,..
.,.,
-
' lc

I

-
' ' , ..

J
I

f
, ..

- "'
I
'!
I
w'

_,, ....
I
I
lU'
s
s-
-

S't1 -

Sr
-1 "t
J
-
II
..
Project: R C:: / MP INS f
Project No. l o t 1 - I
Date(s) I 1
Dri l ed l ot '?lJ t 3
"v
Reviewed
by
LOG OF BORING C-St
SHEET3 OF l)
Dr! ling
Contractor
Borehole
0
Diameter (In) l -
Bearing
(Azimuth)
Plunge
(Degrees) V
Total ,.
Depth (ft) 3b6
WELL
CONSTRUCTION
&
_..__
fth.c_ "'- <" t ',...,__ J s
c;-... -'j 'S .. ( [;;..,,....R_cp
,, @
"a - J
'
I
I "'i-'1 f.,'flA ""' t

lot((.
s.t"" ... .... , .
-li.!t
''f - '
I\'<"\V .... 1?\' I

;
'9-.
Cd
10 '(t
., :. -
.. /ct) J O'I{Cl
4
f>o.O.,,
.:;r t 1
1
zc- t;
(..rn., -v._E,jc.w-
'Tt S I 1 '3 "2.. ""'-J ( L
> iC42. &. r p'f
;, 1.{<.,.
I
L..11t f Ol,'IN. brJt.vt._ - (No O'r-.;[f
, "\'\
1S"
il"
.t /0()-
,
GEOSCIENCE

Ground SUrface '
Elevation (ft) 2 hf,f-
HorizontaWertlcal
Datum
Sample Information

.s

r::
ci =
{!j z
<0
r::
... 0
g
8
"0 Ql

!:':-
r::
Ql
ell
""
ro

Ei
=

Ql Ql
Q;

0
r:: u
Ql

Ql Ql
Cl z iii Cl.. a:::
.,.,..

c:
:=>
.Sol
g>
0
Ql
(!)

f'l(j. 77 - :
'fy .
?f
!i
,. ;:)
e>t - ,,
.. '

0 '
59
'io
.r:;,

'i'Z.
'.3

"Y ...

r-

''"
o
- LJ
-9,

.,.,
b.Ll
Project: 12.\3 F /tJ...P t.vSP
Project No. 1 7. l
Dale(s) . 1 f
Dril ed to
1

Logged ", I
by Bv
Reviewed
by
LOG OF BORING C. 'II-
1
SHEET '-{, OF G
Drill ng
Contractor (-.;c.Ad..d
Drill Rg
Twe S 0 ""- !'('_.
Borehole 1
Diameter (In) <=) we.'-
Bearing
(Azimuth)
Plunge
(Degrees)
Total r
Depth (It) 3ow
WELL
CONSTRUCTION
I t>c.
(oc(
,,.,
GEOSCIENCE

Ground Surface
Elevation (ft) -.
HorizontaiNerti cal
Datum

..
i!5
:
:5
:5
CfJ

Q)
-a;
c.
C5 (J)
a z
r
Sample Information

ci
z
<0
...
"0 Q)
c
c.
co
CfJ
Q)

c.
.::- co
lY4: A

.....
2_(

("T r
, - o\
c

=
2 c:
c
=
:J
0

.Sol
Q)
Ei
g>
0 c
Q) (J)
a.. 0::
(!)

I< I
I
\ "2..
I< 3
.
I
'( ,
1;;- .
I
(,. j..

I bJ-

.
. .
I '1 -
I
I .,

Project No.
Logged <?\ j '"
by '0'
Reviewed
by
LOG OF BORING
SHEET 7J' OF t3
Dril i ng
Cortractor C
Drill ..:'
Twe :::> 0 MC
Borehole
Diameter (In) O:w. A
Bearing
(Azimuth)
Pl.mge
(Degrees)
Total
Depth (II) ..
WELL
CONSTRUCTION
:> _f, -+he :so-,..>
.c.-:>i
1f
p .. f
t,"i
.,)..

;-

l}{ -
!'
?
J)O-
GEOSCIENCE

Location
Ground Surface '
Elevation (ft) .-L. 2-f> (.f-
HorizontaiNertical
Datum

g
i :5
(Jl
Q)
a.
0
a;
Q) c
0 z If
Sample Information
c:i
.E
z
(0
...
"0 Ql
c: a.
<0
(/)
Q)

a.
iii
Project: {:- ( P
Project No. 1 l1- I>
Logged
by
Reviewed
by
LOG OF BORING
SHEET (> OF l3
Drill ng c. .J -
Contractor t:l..t; &a fA@
Borehole
(in) 8
Bearing
(Azimuth)
Plunge l..
(Degrees) V
Total
Depth (ft) 3 Oo ,...
MATERIAL DESCRIPTI ON
WELL
CONSTRUCTION
/' --. I

2
-
:2
-
-

a
'
\
z
:.o
"'(/)
:>
_w
.a:::
:o

1
l I -
.. t
GEOSCIENCE

Ground Surface I
Elevation (ft) - " In fr. #
HcrizontaiNertical
Datum

"'

g

=
rll

a.

o;
Q)
Cl z
Sample Information

.5
c::
c:i =
:
<D
z
c::
... 0
-c Q)

c:: a. Q)
ro
tfl
Q)
a.

c::

co 0:
-c:
:J
.Y
g>
g
(!)
Proj ect: \<_ M j::w S p
Proj ect No. \ Q 1 { .. \
Date(s)
1 1
Drtled 1..0 / "1-"l,/
'?:> y
Reviewed
by
LOG OF BORING ll I
SHEET 7 OF \3
Drili ng
Contractor ('A. t Ctt h
Drill Ag 1"1
"'?0""'-' C.
Borehol e
Diameter (in) e ' I,.M.
Bearing
(Azimuth)
Pk.mge
(Degrees)
Total
Depth (tl) ""3 0" ,..
WELL
CONSTRUCTION
t9>
-
I 1'f- ,_
l 3 _,, -..-
,, y - l ;i
Dnfre '

?'

..;.. .j
- ,,, '
lj?'

11 t;l - '
'
I- I
S L I cl"'Jo S-...9 (
5Jf I)
\

..

/flo ..
GEOSCIENCE
Project No. \ t3
LOG OF BORING (".,/
SHEET 9 OF
Ground Surface r" L 1 ' bl yogged a: 1
Elevati on (ft) "' vV
HorizontaWertical
Datum
Sample Information
!vAG

X
L.
u
I J ,..
li -P:

tS) -

..

' -
.. :
lf 2 -
"1

.
lq
...
If 'f .-
.
...
tl

)
'
..
'" c.

,,
7 ,.. I
I

.
.,
In
Reviewed
by
-:;z_.
..-z.---
Dlilirg
Contractor C c;. I'
Borehole
Diameter (in) e
Bee ring
(Azimuth)
Plunge , , { .
1
,
(Degrees)
Total "'l
Depth (II) 7 o6 ,..
WELL
CONSTRUCTION
..
,.,,
2. 2c,
,.

GEOSCIENCE

Location '-i'(V\ VlJ A. ( LY!41, /!:g_
Ground Surface
Elevation (ft) - '4.h
HcrtrontaWertical
Datum
Sample Information
:i:l
.s
2

ooJ
ci '="

c:
i!l
z
(0
r:::
::l .... 0
g

"0 Q)

i!-
.!.I c::;
c. Q)
:5
rJ)

ca
rJ) .=.

Q)
Qi
Q)

Q)
0
at 0

r::: u
c: (l) Q) Q)
0 z iii Cl. 0::
(!)
.L'

' I
4..) I

. /
,<'1 - /
Project: R 'i3
Project No. ('\ C./'7 11
Date(s) \ 1
Driled \ C> 2."( I
Logged __ /
by w
Reviewed
by
LOG OF BORING St
SHEET t::j OF 3
Driling
Contractor (
Drill
Type ;70"'-l'C:.
Borehole , ,.,
Diameter (in) eJ "-'' e.J-1..
Bearing
(Azimuth)

Total
Depth (ft) ';) 0 6
WELL
CONSTRUCTION
I
<; \c. . (
J.ID _f
.. C' -E-., c ( Ov rs.-- 5
1/ .-... .. ...._....() "' .. -...12t? 7'f"'et u._O
.... A.P, 0

-

:2

-
P.
Li:

g:

u ( ..
4---l.: !5 dhs;
Ow"'- I co 't cL ->/3
- qr.-...L: ..__

\ l
,.
.... \ <\ z. t..,
.
..
.
.

.. 'lt'-1
GEOSCIENCE

Project: R\S F / Pw'P
Project No. 11t D/( -I;
Ground Surface
1
Logged , /
Elevation (ft) - '1.. /,. .()."' by "S V
HorizontaiNertlcal
Datum
IJ:i

Sample Information

ci
.E
c:
=

t:
Reviewed
by
LOG OF BORING Cy ... Bl
SHEET {D OF
Drilirg /'
Contractor { at; Ck
Drill Ag L
Twe - "'" 1e..
Borehole
Diameter (In) &' , '-eQ.
Bearing
(Azimuth)
Total
Depth (ft) -:j -

z

-o
. co c:
:::>
WELL
.... 0
CONSTRUCTION
C!l

g c:
ca
;
CfJ

C!l
C!l
a;
0.
0
a.
Q) c:
0 z
a.
CfJ

a:i
.

.1.2
C!l
g>
15
c: u
2 Q) Q)
a.. a::
(.!)
..1?
:ne: - If
-1.,...
_ ,/
itl -
.

- /
l}
-I / "
132.
/
l

.1 ;;
r_ \
.... o
GEOSCIENCE

Ground Surface ' ,..
1
Elevation (ft) ,.._ 1 f.., 't'"1-'
HaizontaiNertical
Datum
Sample Information

.5
r::
0 =
:
"'
(0

z
r::
I
0
g

"0

r:: 0.
Ill
al
-=
e5
=
C/)

Q)

Q)
0.
'*
Qj
0. r:: u
Q)
cf
Ill
0 z ffi a::
-c;
::l
.!.2
8>
0
Q)
(!)
t(% pj M Pwsp
Project No. t"'3 ot7 l
Date(s) . J
Doled 1 ol -1.c; f 2-o
Reviewed
by
LOG OF BORING C Y .. i!Jt
SHEET I I OF \
Driling
Contractor C ct.) (" eJ.Q,
Borehole
(In) e -
Bearing
(Azimuth)
\ , r. _
1
1-.
(Degrees)
Total
Depth (ft) ()f::o ,..
WELL
CONSTRUCTION
..,.,. .. C\
1-"1 -f

,.
/
GEOSCIENCE

Grourd Surface '
Elevation (ft) " '2-b "(' r
HorizontaiNertlcal
Datum
Sample Information

ci
.E
..
(0

z
...
::

"0 Q)
c
a.
co
"' =
"'
!!!
C])
C])
Oi

a.
0
a.
Q) c:
a z tt co
-
-

z

-
<:l
'-(/)
2
:>
.I.LJ
1.;
Zi1

-
.o::

-

-
is

' "
; *
. ,;

- ,-

-.
-
p
. '

.,

- 1-...:

g

;a. - ;
::::>
.(/)

.. ...
2'11
;d"l
l"l
''H 'f
u-
X

r-----
?.{ ?t;'
-:1.
.,
2.'

'
-
...,.,..,
'"'
....
Project No.
0 1
;
Date(s) . f ./:
Dri l ed I Oj'2..c;- - 2o!1
Reviewed
by
I
Driling
Contractor
Drill Rig

Borehole
Diameter (In)
LOG OF BORING
SHEET \2.0F
LA
Bearing
(Azimuth)

.1..
(Degrees) V-
8t-'d
Total
Depth (ft) )o"' ,..
WELL
CONSTRUCTION
-......
_._..
GEOSCIENCE
Project: w"5r
LOG OF BORING
CY-61

Project No. 'l o 1/- 1 SHEET !3 0F

Location Wtc.rt- (" '-.
Oate{s)
Drl l ed
tofu/ l
Dril i ng C
Contractor c:r 5 C. eo--'d:?
Bearing
(Azimuth)
Ground Surface
'
Logged Drill Rg
Pk.mge
Elevation (ft)
- U.-f+-
by Twe
':>o"'-tc.
Horizonta!Nertical Reviewed Bordlole Total
Datum by Diameter (in)
ct-..... c.P. .
Depth (II)
--
Sample Information
-

.s:
c:::
- c:i =
:
"'
<0
c:
WELL l!l z
c:::
::>
.... 0

"0 Q)

;::.
.!.2 CONSTRUCTION
!!::.. g c:::
a. Q)
co
(/) .l::l

g>
:5
(/)

Q) Q)
Q)
Qj

0 a.
0

c::: u
Q) c:
Q) Q) Q)
0 z ct iii c. a::
(.!)
., ..... .,
' '

, ..
. ..
''t
.,.
(
e- <b-e 0\.1 ... C2.. ' t. e<:..(":J (' &-.(' ;.o(l ' \_ l . <; .... Cf
- .....
.-'2--

. r ' c... '
"t\ Q
o) .
.. c.
. c.. "" .(? .(( '" # S--<
0' ,y-s..-
-
f1t
6:>
)
{ C''j) I ?.'!i

5 '.f--- ""'-oo:>-.0r....._.J, td S.:H: -

[ .{ ,.. :( . ' .,...
1(1
Gv-: C.. I .fu,rf' I s:<..-("' ,-.........; sl
1- -
. ::a
I 11uQ.ec0} -
..._Q,
...
1(2?_.)

'h o..l .... el ... G e I
1- 3
'"
'
<
{ ,4..c.v J ' ,. -...,.j) s ).!# .. 0 e-1 r IWoJ
1 )1
O..'tc:'"' Cl
<c.,..,u<
... b .... "'j"'l-) s.:..

11vf" ok.c.. "1'"'-k. t.rf._

.

tr=:.
g
lc::('

t5
UJ
w
...,
g:
en
:::;)
CJ)

GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX C
EQFAULT AND EQSEARCH

***********************
* *
* E Q F A U L T *
* *
* Ver si on 3. 00 *
* *
***********************
DETERMI NI STI C ESTI MATI ON OF
PEAK ACCELERATI ON FROM DI GI TI ZED FAULTS
J OB NUMBER: S6678- SC
DATE: 03- 26- 2014
J OB NAME: SWCA
CALCULATI ON NAME: S6678
FAULT- DATA- FI LE NAME: C: \ Pr ogr amFi l es\ EQFAULT1\ CGSFLTE. DAT

SI TE COORDI NATES:
SI TE LATI TUDE: 36. 7131
SI TE LONGI TUDE: 121. 8058
SEARCH RADI US: 62. 42 mi
ATTENUATI ON RELATI ON: 11) Bozor gni a Campbel l Ni azi ( 1999) Hor . - Pl ei st . Soi l - Cor .
UNCERTAI NTY ( M=Medi an, S=Si gma) : S Number of Si gmas: 1. 0
DI STANCE MEASURE: cdi st
SCOND: 0
Basement Dept h: 1. 00 km Campbel l SSR: 0 Campbel l SHR: 0
COMPUTE PEAK HORI ZONTAL ACCELERATI ON
FAULT- DATA FI LE USED: C: \ Pr ogr amFi l es\ EQFAULT1\ CGSFLTE. DAT

MI NI MUM DEPTH VALUE ( km) : 3. 0
Page 1
W.O. S6678-SC
PLATE C-1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EQFAULT SUMMARY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DETERMI NI STI C SI TE PARAMETERS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| | ESTI MATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
| APPROXI MATE | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ABBREVI ATED | DI STANCE | MAXI MUM | PEAK | EST. SI TE
FAULT NAME | mi ( km) | EARTHQUAKE| SI TE | I NTENSI TY
| | MAG. ( Mw) | ACCEL. g | MOD. MERC.
================================| ==============| ==========| ==========| =========
RI NCONADA | 4. 2( 6. 8) | 7. 5 | 0. 722 | XI
MONTEREY BAY - TULARCI TOS | 7. 2( 11. 6) | 7. 3 | 0. 763 | XI
ZAYANTE- VERGELES | 12. 9( 20. 7) | 7. 0 | 0. 295 | I X
SAN GREGORI O ( SGS+SGN) | 15. 7( 25. 3) | 7. 4 | 0. 323 | I X
SAN GREGORI O ( FLOATI NG) | 15. 7( 25. 3) | 6. 9 | 0. 230 | I X
SAN GREGORI O ( SGS) | 15. 7( 25. 3) | 7. 0 | 0. 239 | I X
SAN ANDREAS ( SAS+SAP) | 16. 9( 27. 2) | 7. 4 | 0. 298 | I X
SAN ANDREAS ( SAS+SAP+SAN) | 16. 9( 27. 2) | 7. 8 | 0. 368 | I X
SAN ANDREAS ( SAS+SAP+SAN+SAO) | 16. 9( 27. 2) | 7. 9 | 0. 400 | X
SAN ANDREAS ( FLOATI NG) | 16. 9( 27. 2) | 6. 9 | 0. 214 | VI I I
SAN ANDREAS ( SAS) | 16. 9( 27. 2) | 7. 0 | 0. 233 | I X
SAN ANDREAS ( Cr eepi ng) | 19. 1( 30. 8) | 6. 2 | 0. 120 | VI I
SAN GREGORI O ( SGN) | 21. 7( 35. 0) | 7. 2 | 0. 207 | VI I I
CALAVERAS ( CS+CC) | 24. 1( 38. 8) | 6. 4 | 0. 105 | VI I
CALAVERAS ( FLOATI NG) | 24. 1( 38. 8) | 6. 2 | 0. 095 | VI I
CALAVERAS ( CS+CC+CN) | 24. 1( 38. 8) | 6. 9 | 0. 153 | VI I I
CALAVERAS ( CS) | 24. 1( 38. 8) | 5. 8 | 0. 073 | VI I
CALAVERAS ( CS+CC FLOATI NG) | 24. 1( 38. 8) | 6. 2 | 0. 095 | VI I
CALAVERAS ( CC) | 26. 8( 43. 2) | 6. 2 | 0. 086 | VI I
CALAVERAS ( CC+CN) | 26. 8( 43. 2) | 6. 2 | 0. 086 | VI I
QUI EN SABE | 28. 6( 46. 0) | 6. 4 | 0. 090 | VI I
MONTE VI STA - SHANNON | 31. 8( 51. 2) | 6. 7 | 0. 139 | VI I I
SAN ANDREAS ( SAP) | 33. 9( 54. 5) | 7. 2 | 0. 125 | VI I
SAN ANDREAS ( SAP+SAN+SAO) | 33. 9( 54. 5) | 7. 8 | 0. 203 | VI I I
SAN ANDREAS ( SAP+SAN) | 33. 9( 54. 5) | 7. 7 | 0. 178 | VI I I
HOSGRI | 39. 3( 63. 2) | 7. 5 | 0. 138 | VI I I
ORTI GALI TA | 43. 9( 70. 6) | 7. 1 | 0. 093 | VI I
GREAT VALLEY 8 | 46. 7( 75. 1) | 6. 6 | 0. 087 | VI I
GREAT VALLEY 9 | 47. 1( 75. 8) | 6. 6 | 0. 086 | VI I
CALAVERAS ( CN) | 50. 6( 81. 4) | 6. 8 | 0. 064 | VI
HAYWARD ( FLOATI NG) | 51. 3( 82. 5) | 6. 9 | 0. 068 | VI
HAYWARD ( HS+HN) | 51. 3( 82. 5) | 6. 9 | 0. 069 | VI
HAYWARD ( HS+HN+RC) | 51. 3( 82. 5) | 7. 3 | 0. 088 | VI I
HAYWARD ( HS) | 51. 3( 82. 5) | 6. 7 | 0. 058 | VI
GREAT VALLEY 10 | 53. 1( 85. 5) | 6. 4 | 0. 066 | VI
GREENVI LLE ( GS) | 56. 3( 90. 6) | 6. 6 | 0. 050 | VI
GREENVI LLE ( FLOATI NG) | 56. 3( 90. 6) | 6. 2 | 0. 039 | V
GREENVI LLE ( GS+GN) | 56. 3( 90. 6) | 6. 9 | 0. 064 | VI
GREAT VALLEY 7 | 56. 8( 91. 4) | 6. 7 | 0. 075 | VI I
GREAT VALLEY 11 | 60. 9( 98. 0) | 6. 4 | 0. 057 | VI
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page 2
W.O. S6678-SC
PLATE C-2
DETERMI NI STI C SI TE PARAMETERS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| | ESTI MATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
| APPROXI MATE | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ABBREVI ATED | DI STANCE | MAXI MUM | PEAK | EST. SI TE
FAULT NAME | mi ( km) | EARTHQUAKE| SI TE | I NTENSI TY
| | MAG. ( Mw) | ACCEL. g | MOD. MERC.
================================| ==============| ==========| ==========| =========
*******************************************************************************
- END OF SEARCH- 40 FAULTS FOUND WI THI N THE SPECI FI ED SEARCH RADI US.
THE RI NCONADA FAULT I S CLOSEST TO THE SI TE.
I T I S ABOUT 4. 2 MI LES ( 6. 8 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXI MUM- EARTHQUAKE SI TE ACCELERATI ON: 0. 7632 g
Page 3
W.O. S6678-SC
PLATE C-3
SITE
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
SWCA
W.O. S6678-SC
PLATE C-4
.001
.01
.1
1
.1 1 10 100
MAXIMUM EARTHQUAKES
SWCA
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Distance (mi)
W.O. S6678-SC
PLATE C-5
*************************
* *
* E Q S E A R C H *
* *
* Ver si on 3. 00 *
* *
*************************
ESTI MATI ON OF
PEAK ACCELERATI ON FROM
CALI FORNI A EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS
J OB NUMBER: S6678- SC
DATE: 03- 26- 2014
J OB NAME: SWCA
EARTHQUAKE- CATALOG- FI LE NAME: ALLQUAKE. DAT

SI TE COORDI NATES:
SI TE LATI TUDE: 36. 7131
SI TE LONGI TUDE: 121. 8058
SEARCH DATES:
START DATE: 1800
END DATE: 2013
SEARCH RADI US:
62. 4 mi
100. 5 km
ATTENUATI ON RELATI ON: 11) Bozor gni a Campbel l Ni azi ( 1999) Hor . - Pl ei st . Soi l - Cor .
UNCERTAI NTY ( M=Medi an, S=Si gma) : S Number of Si gmas: 1. 0
ASSUMED SOURCE TYPE: SS [ SS=St r i ke- sl i p, DS=Rever se- sl i p, BT=Bl i nd- t hr ust ]
SCOND: 0 Dept h Sour ce: A
Basement Dept h: 1. 00 km Campbel l SSR: 0 Campbel l SHR: 0
COMPUTE PEAK HORI ZONTAL ACCELERATI ON
MI NI MUM DEPTH VALUE ( km) : 3. 0
Page 1
W.O. S6678-SC
PLATE C-6
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| | | | TI ME | | | SI TE | SI TE| APPROX.
FI LE| LAT. | LONG. | DATE | ( UTC) | DEPTH| QUAKE| ACC. | MM | DI STANCE
CODE| NORTH | WEST | | H M Sec| ( km) | MAG. | g | I NT. | mi [ km]
- - - - +- - - - - - - +- - - - - - - - +- - - - - - - - - - +- - - - - - - - +- - - - - +- - - - - +- - - - - - - +- - - - +- - - - - - - - - - - -
DMG | 36. 9000| 121. 8000| 03/ 11/ 1910| 652 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 50| 0. 114 | VI I | 12. 9( 20. 8)
MGI | 36. 6000| 122. 0000| 07/ 03/ 1841| 22 7 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 00| 0. 082 | VI I | 13. 3( 21. 4)
DMG | 36. 9000| 121. 7000| 04/ 30/ 1899| 2241 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 60| 0. 111 | VI I | 14. 2( 22. 8)
DMG | 36. 8700| 121. 6300| 09/ 14/ 1963| 194617. 0| 0. 0| 5. 40| 0. 095 | VI I | 14. 5( 23. 4)
T- A | 36. 8300| 121. 5700| 10/ 18/ 1800| 0 0 0. 0| 0. 0| 7. 00| 0. 249 | I X | 15. 3( 24. 7)
GSB | 36. 9170| 121. 6750| 04/ 18/ 1990| 135351. 4| 5. 0| 5. 40| 0. 088 | VI I | 15. 8( 25. 5)
GSB | 36. 9180| 121. 6700| 04/ 18/ 1990| 134138. 8| 6. 0| 5. 00| 0. 068 | VI | 16. 0( 25. 8)
GSB | 36. 9320| 121. 6950| 04/ 18/ 1990| 154603. 7| 9. 0| 5. 20| 0. 076 | VI I | 16. 3( 26. 2)
DMG | 36. 9300| 121. 6800| 04/ 25/ 1954| 203328. 0| 0. 0| 5. 30| 0. 079 | VI I | 16. 5( 26. 6)
DMG | 36. 9000| 121. 6000| 04/ 24/ 1890| 1136 0. 0| 0. 0| 6. 00| 0. 118 | VI I | 17. 2( 27. 7)
MGI | 36. 9000| 121. 6000| 10/ 11/ 1800| 0 0 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 70| 0. 097 | VI I | 17. 2( 27. 7)
DMG | 36. 9000| 121. 6000| 03/ 30/ 1883| 1545 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 60| 0. 091 | VI I | 17. 2( 27. 7)
DMG | 36. 8000| 121. 5000| 11/ 13/ 1892| 1245 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 60| 0. 088 | VI I | 17. 9( 28. 9)
GSB | 36. 7550| 121. 4640| 08/ 12/ 1998| 141025. 1| 8. 0| 5. 40| 0. 073 | VI I | 19. 1( 30. 8)
DMG | 37. 0000| 121. 7800| 12/ 18/ 1967| 172432. 0| 0. 0| 5. 30| 0. 066 | VI | 19. 9( 32. 0)
DMG | 36. 8000| 121. 4500| 06/ 24/ 1939| 13 2 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 50| 0. 072 | VI | 20. 6( 33. 1)
DMG | 36. 7800| 121. 4300| 01/ 20/ 1960| 32553. 0| 0. 0| 5. 00| 0. 052 | VI | 21. 3( 34. 3)
DMG | 36. 9800| 121. 6000| 03/ 02/ 1959| 232717. 0| 30. 0| 5. 30| 0. 060 | VI | 21. 6( 34. 8)
DMG | 36. 5700| 122. 1700| 10/ 22/ 1926| 133522. 0| 0. 0| 6. 10| 0. 095 | VI I | 22. 5( 36. 1)
T- A | 37. 0000| 122. 0000| 06/ 30/ 1890| 2030 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 00| 0. 049 | VI | 22. 5( 36. 2)
DMG | 36. 9100| 121. 4800| 11/ 28/ 1974| 23 124. 7| 0. 0| 5. 20| 0. 055 | VI | 22. 6( 36. 3)
GSB | 37. 0360| 121. 8830| 10/ 18/ 1989| 000415. 2| 18. 5| 7. 00| 0. 170 | VI I I | 22. 7( 36. 5)
DMG | 36. 8300| 121. 4200| 12/ 31/ 1910| 1211 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 00| 0. 048 | VI | 22. 8( 36. 7)
DMG | 36. 8000| 121. 4000| 04/ 02/ 1885| 1525 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 40| 0. 060 | VI | 23. 2( 37. 4)
MGI | 37. 0000| 121. 5700| 01/ 09/ 1928| 250 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 30| 0. 055 | VI | 23. 7( 38. 1)
T- A | 37. 0000| 121. 5700| 03/ 25/ 1859| 0 0 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 00| 0. 046 | VI | 23. 7( 38. 1)
GSB | 36. 3730| 121. 9070| 01/ 23/ 1984| 054019. 7| 7. 0| 5. 40| 0. 057 | VI | 24. 1( 38. 8)
DMG | 37. 0600| 121. 6900| 11/ 16/ 1964| 24641. 7| 0. 0| 5. 00| 0. 044 | VI | 24. 8( 39. 9)
GSB | 36. 3630| 121. 9100| 01/ 23/ 1984| 065950. 4| 5. 0| 5. 00| 0. 044 | VI | 24. 8( 40. 0)
GSB | 37. 0780| 121. 8320| 10/ 25/ 1989| 012726. 6| 14. 0| 5. 00| 0. 043 | VI | 25. 2( 40. 6)
DMG | 37. 0000| 121. 5000| 06/ 20/ 1897| 2014 0. 0| 0. 0| 6. 20| 0. 087 | VI I | 26. 0( 41. 9)
DMG | 37. 1000| 121. 8000| 05/ 24/ 1865| 1121 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 50| 0. 055 | VI | 26. 7( 43. 0)
DMG | 37. 1000| 121. 7000| 02/ 26/ 1864| 1347 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 90| 0. 069 | VI | 27. 3( 44. 0)
DMG | 37. 0200| 121. 4800| 03/ 09/ 1949| 122839. 0| 0. 0| 5. 20| 0. 044 | VI | 27. 8( 44. 7)
DMG | 36. 7000| 121. 3000| 03/ 31/ 1885| 756 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 50| 0. 052 | VI | 28. 0( 45. 1)
DMG | 36. 7000| 121. 3000| 04/ 09/ 1961| 72541. 0| 0. 0| 5. 50| 0. 052 | VI | 28. 0( 45. 1)
DMG | 36. 6800| 121. 3000| 04/ 09/ 1961| 72316. 0| 0. 0| 5. 60| 0. 055 | VI | 28. 1( 45. 2)
GSB | 36. 8030| 121. 3020| 02/ 20/ 1988| 083957. 5| 9. 0| 5. 30| 0. 045 | VI | 28. 5( 45. 9)
GSB | 37. 0250| 121. 4580| 01/ 16/ 1993| 062934. 9| 5. 0| 5. 30| 0. 045 | VI | 28. 9( 46. 4)
DMG | 37. 1000| 121. 6000| 03/ 26/ 1866| 2012 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 40| 0. 047 | VI | 29. 0( 46. 7)
GSB | 37. 1300| 121. 8780| 06/ 27/ 1988| 184322. 3| 13. 0| 5. 70| 0. 057 | VI | 29. 1( 46. 8)
GSB | 37. 1300| 121. 9520| 08/ 08/ 1989| 081327. 5| 15. 0| 5. 30| 0. 043 | VI | 29. 9( 48. 1)
DMG | 36. 9500| 122. 2600| 02/ 15/ 1927| 2354 3. 5| 0. 0| 5. 00| 0. 036 | V | 30. 0( 48. 2)
GSB | 36. 8100| 121. 2750| 01/ 26/ 1986| 192051. 2| 7. 0| 5. 50| 0. 048 | VI | 30. 1( 48. 5)
DMG | 37. 0200| 122. 2000| 10/ 24/ 1926| 225149. 5| 0. 0| 5. 50| 0. 048 | VI | 30. 4( 48. 9)
DMG | 36. 6700| 121. 2500| 08/ 06/ 1916| 1938 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 50| 0. 047 | VI | 30. 9( 49. 7)
T- A | 36. 6700| 121. 2500| 04/ 01/ 1857| 1135 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 00| 0. 035 | V | 30. 9( 49. 7)
DMG | 36. 6100| 122. 3500| 10/ 22/ 1926| 1235 7. 0| 0. 0| 6. 10| 0. 068 | VI | 31. 0( 49. 8)
BRK | 37. 1000| 121. 5000| 08/ 06/ 1979| 17 522. 0| 0. 0| 5. 80| 0. 055 | VI | 31. 6( 50. 8)
Page 2
W.O. S6678-SC
PLATE C-7
DMG | 37. 1700| 122. 0000| 11/ 09/ 1914| 231 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 50| 0. 044 | VI | 33. 3( 53. 6)
GSB | 36. 6030| 121. 2010| 04/ 23/ 1995| 084136. 6| 7. 0| 5. 00| 0. 032 | V | 34. 3( 55. 3)
DMG | 36. 5780| 121. 2090| 02/ 24/ 1972| 155651. 0| 7. 5| 5. 10| 0. 033 | V | 34. 3( 55. 3)
DMG | 37. 1000| 122. 2000| 03/ 26/ 1884| 040 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 90| 0. 054 | VI | 34. 5( 55. 4)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Page 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
| | | | TI ME | | | SI TE | SI TE| APPROX.
FI LE| LAT. | LONG. | DATE | ( UTC) | DEPTH| QUAKE| ACC. | MM | DI STANCE
CODE| NORTH | WEST | | H M Sec| ( km) | MAG. | g | I NT. | mi [ km]
- - - - +- - - - - - - +- - - - - - - - +- - - - - - - - - - +- - - - - - - - +- - - - - +- - - - - +- - - - - - - +- - - - +- - - - - - - - - - - -
DMG | 36. 4500| 121. 2500| 09/ 27/ 1938| 1223 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 00| 0. 030 | V | 35. 8( 57. 6)
DMG | 36. 5800| 121. 1800| 07/ 29/ 1951| 105345. 0| 0. 0| 5. 00| 0. 030 | V | 35. 9( 57. 7)
DMG | 36. 9000| 121. 2000| 03/ 06/ 1882| 2145 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 70| 0. 046 | VI | 35. 9( 57. 7)
DMG | 37. 2500| 121. 7500| 07/ 01/ 1911| 22 0 0. 0| 0. 0| 6. 60| 0. 078 | VI I | 37. 2( 59. 9)
GSB | 37. 1980| 122. 1050| 10/ 18/ 1989| 004124. 7| 19. 0| 5. 10| 0. 031 | V | 37. 3( 60. 1)
DMG | 37. 2000| 122. 1000| 02/ 17/ 1870| 2012 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 80| 0. 046 | VI | 37. 3( 60. 1)
DMG | 37. 2000| 121. 5000| 07/ 06/ 1899| 2010 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 80| 0. 046 | VI | 37. 6( 60. 5)
DMG | 37. 3000| 121. 8000| 08/ 03/ 1903| 649 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 50| 0. 035 | V | 40. 5( 65. 2)
DMG | 37. 3000| 121. 8000| 01/ 02/ 1891| 20 0 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 50| 0. 035 | V | 40. 5( 65. 2)
MGI | 37. 3000| 121. 9000| 05/ 28/ 1927| 1739 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 00| 0. 026 | V | 40. 8( 65. 7)
DMG | 37. 3000| 121. 9000| 10/ 08/ 1865| 2046 0. 0| 0. 0| 6. 30| 0. 058 | VI | 40. 8( 65. 7)
GSB | 37. 3200| 121. 6980| 04/ 24/ 1984| 211519. 0| 8. 0| 6. 20| 0. 052 | VI | 42. 3( 68. 1)
DMG | 37. 3700| 121. 7800| 09/ 05/ 1955| 2 118. 0| 0. 0| 5. 50| 0. 031 | V | 45. 4( 73. 0)
GSB | 37. 3850| 121. 7720| 06/ 13/ 1988| 014536. 8| 7. 0| 5. 40| 0. 029 | V | 46. 4( 74. 7)
DMG | 36. 4000| 121. 0000| 04/ 12/ 1885| 4 5 0. 0| 0. 0| 6. 20| 0. 044 | VI | 49. 6( 79. 9)
GSB | 37. 4340| 121. 7740| 10/ 31/ 2007| 030454. 8| 10. 0| 5. 50| 0. 029 | V | 49. 8( 80. 1)
DMG | 37. 4000| 121. 4000| 04/ 10/ 1881| 10 0 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 90| 0. 035 | V | 52. 4( 84. 4)
GSB | 37. 4830| 121. 6900| 03/ 31/ 1986| 115540. 0| 8. 0| 5. 70| 0. 030 | V | 53. 5( 86. 2)
DMG | 37. 5000| 121. 9000| 11/ 26/ 1858| 835 0. 0| 0. 0| 6. 10| 0. 038 | V | 54. 6( 87. 8)
DMG | 36. 6000| 120. 8000| 07/ 25/ 1926| 175749. 0| 15. 0| 5. 00| 0. 019 | I V | 56. 3( 90. 5)
GSB | 36. 3110| 120. 8560| 10/ 21/ 2012| 065509. 5| 9. 0| 5. 30| 0. 021 | I V | 59. 6( 95. 9)
DMG | 37. 5000| 122. 3000| 02/ 15/ 1856| 1325 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 50| 0. 023 | I V | 60. 8( 97. 8)
DMG | 37. 5000| 121. 3000| 07/ 15/ 1866| 630 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 80| 0. 028 | V | 61. 1( 98. 2)
DMG | 37. 6000| 121. 8000| 06/ 11/ 1903| 1312 0. 0| 0. 0| 5. 50| 0. 023 | I V | 61. 2( 98. 5)
*******************************************************************************
- END OF SEARCH- 77 EARTHQUAKES FOUND WI THI N THE SPECI FI ED SEARCH AREA.
TI ME PERI OD OF SEARCH: 1800 TO 2013
LENGTH OF SEARCH TI ME: 214 year s
THE EARTHQUAKE CLOSEST TO THE SI TE I S ABOUT 12. 9 MI LES ( 20. 8 km) AWAY.
LARGEST EARTHQUAKE MAGNI TUDE FOUND I N THE SEARCH RADI US: 7. 0
LARGEST EARTHQUAKE SI TE ACCELERATI ON FROM THI S SEARCH: 0. 249 g
COEFFI CI ENTS FOR GUTENBERG & RI CHTER RECURRENCE RELATI ON:
a- val ue= 1. 296
b- val ue= 0. 393
bet a- val ue= 0. 904
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
TABLE OF MAGNI TUDES AND EXCEEDANCES:
Page 3
W.O. S6678-SC
PLATE C-8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ear t hquake | Number of Ti mes | Cumul at i ve
Magni t ude | Exceeded | No. / Year
- - - - - - - - - - - +- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - +- - - - - - - - - - - -
4. 0 | 77 | 0. 36150
4. 5 | 77 | 0. 36150
5. 0 | 77 | 0. 36150
5. 5 | 41 | 0. 19249
6. 0 | 11 | 0. 05164
6. 5 | 3 | 0. 01408
7. 0 | 2 | 0. 00939
Page 4
W.O. S6678-SC
PLATE C-9
SITE
LEGEND
M = 4
M = 5
M = 6
M = 7
M = 8
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
EARTHQUAKE EPICENTER MAP
SWCA
W.O. S6678-SC
PLATE C-10
.001
.01
.1
1
10
100
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0
EARTHQUAKE RECURRENCE CURVE
SWCA
C
u
m
m
u
l
a
t
i
v
e

N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

E
v
e
n
t
s

(
N
)
/

Y
e
a
r
Magnitude (M)
W.O. S6678-SC
PLATE C-11

GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX D
LABORATORY TESTING

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
6
Sample
CXB2W
CXB2W
CXB2W
CXB2W
2
4.75
4.75
9.5
1.09
1.19
1.53
2.17
coarse
Depth D60 D100
10 100
140 3
%Silt
50
1.5
fine
CXB2W
CXB2W
CXB2W
CXB2W
D30
20
30
0.184
0.163
0.124
0.118
200
60
LL PL

10-11.5
20-21.5
30-31.5
40-41.5
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
HYDROMETER U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
4
1
medium
14
16
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL SAND
Sample

PI Cc
6
8
Sand
Sand
Sand w/ Silt
Sand w/ Silt
Visual Classification/USCS CLASSIFICATION
SILT OR CLAY
P
E
R
C
E
N
T

F
I
N
E
R

B
Y

W
E
I
G
H
T
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
3/4
1/2
coarse
3.05
2.25
4.41
6.81
U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
fine
3
0.562
0.366
0.548
0.801
0.336
0.266
0.323
0.452
40
4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
96.6
95.7
93.0
91.7
3.4
4.3
7.0
7.6
Cu
%Gravel D10 %Clay
Range Depth
3/8
%Sand
2
GeoSoils, Inc.
5741 Palmer Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Telephone: (760) 438-3155
Fax: (760) 931-0915
Plate: D - 1
Project: SWCA, MARINA SLANT WALL
Number: 6678-A-SC
Date: April 2014
U
S
_
G
R
A
I
N
_
S
I
Z
E

6
6
7
8
.
G
P
J

U
S
_
L
A
B
.
G
D
T

4
/
1
1
/
1
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
6
Sample
CXB2W 4.75
2.80
coarse
Depth D60 D100
10 100
140 3
%Silt
50
1.5
fine
CXB2W
D30
20
30 200
60
LL PL
50-51.5 50.0
HYDROMETER U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
4
1
medium
14
16
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL SAND
Sample

PI Cc
6
8
Sand w/ Silt
Visual Classification/USCS CLASSIFICATION
SILT OR CLAY
P
E
R
C
E
N
T

F
I
N
E
R

B
Y

W
E
I
G
H
T
50.0
3/4
1/2
coarse
10.48
U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS
fine
3
0.654 0.338
40
4
0.0 88.9 11.1
Cu
%Gravel D10 %Clay
Range Depth
3/8
%Sand
2
GeoSoils, Inc.
5741 Palmer Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Telephone: (760) 438-3155
Fax: (760) 931-0915
Plate: D - 2
Project: SWCA, MARINA SLANT WALL
Number: 6678-A-SC
Date: April 2014
U
S
_
G
R
A
I
N
_
S
I
Z
E

6
6
7
8
.
G
P
J

U
S
_
L
A
B
.
G
D
T

4
/
1
1
/
1
4
APPENDIX E:
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ESA PWA Memorandum: Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea Level Rise,
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (ESA PWA 2014);
Technical Memorandum: Review of Coastal Erosion Analysis by ESA PWA (2014) for the
California American Water Temporary Slant Test Well Environmental Impact Evaluation (Sea
Engineering, Inc. 2014); and,
Draft Review of California American Water Companys Monterey Peninsula Water Supply
Project (SWRCB 2013).

550 Kearny Street
Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94108
415.896.5900 phone
415.896.0332 fax
www.esassoc.com

memorandum
date March 19, 2014
to Michael Burns and Eric Zigas
from Elena Vandebroek, David Revell and Doug George
project Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (205335.01)
subject Analysis of Historic and Future Coastal Erosion with Sea Level Rise

1 Purpose and Scope
The Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (Project) proposes infrastructure that is located near or along the
Monterey Bay coastline (Figure 1). Sea level is predicted to rise over the next century and could affect some of
these project components. Coastal erosion, an ongoing issue in Southern Monterey Bay, is also expected to increase
with accelerating sea level rise. The primary focus of this memo is to describe coastal processes that could be relevant
to assessing the environmental impacts of the Project and the viability of Project alternatives, and to identify
potential damages to Project infrastructure from coastal erosion. This memo is organized as follows:
Section 2 Historic and existing erosion processes in Southern Monterey Bay
Section 3 Future erosion in the face of accelerating sea level rise
2 Historic and Existing Erosion Processes
The following section summarizes the existing and historic processes affecting coastal erosion. These processes
include Wave Climate and Storm Characteristics, Historic Shoreline Change Trends, Sand Mining, and Rip
Embayments.
2.1 Wave Climate and Storm Characteristics
The coast of Monterey Bay is exposed to high energy waves throughout the year, with seasonal differences
resulting in waves approaching from many directions. Wave data measured by offshore wave buoys show these
seasonal and annual differences (Storlazzi and Wingfield 2005). The largest waves typically occur in the late fall
and winter and are associated with wave generation in the Gulf of Alaska. These winter waves have long wave
periods (12 to 14 seconds), large significant waves heights (~9 ft on average), and come from the northwest
(310) (Storlazzi and Wingfield 2005). In the spring, smaller wave heights and shorter wave periods result from
strong northwest winds. In the summer, the coast is exposed to long period south swells. Point Pios partially
shelters the coast from these waves, especially farther south in the bay, toward the City of Monterey. Estimates of
recurrence intervals for large wave events can be statistically derived from a time series of wave data. For
example, a 100-year wave event at the Monterey wave buoy (NDBC #46042) is projected to have an offshore
significant wave height of 40 ft OR a dominant wave period of 32 seconds (Storlazzi and Wingfield 2005)
1
. This

1
A swell period of 32 seconds is not expected to govern at the 100-year recurrence level because the associated wave height would be
much smaller than the 100-year wave height of 40. For this and a range of reasons beyond the scope of this memo, a shorter wave
period would be associated with the governing 100-year swell.
2
means that every year, there is a 1% chance that waves will achieve the above combination of significant wave
height and dominant period. Similar calculations can be made for more frequent storm events, such as 10-yr or
25-yr occurrences, which reflect the 10% and 4% annual probabilities respectively.
Large waves are not the only contributing factor to coastal erosion. A common indicator of coastal erosion is the
total water level, which is the sum of tides, wave runup on the beach, and other atmospheric conditions which
affect ocean water levels. When all of these constituents are added together, the resulting total water elevation
provides a useful measure for projecting coastal erosion (Ruggiero et al 1996, Revell et al 2011). Historically,
some of the most damaging wave erosion events have occurred during El Nio events, when wave directions shift
more to the south and west and come less impeded into Monterey Bay. This more direct wave energy coupled
with elevated ocean water levels (on the order of one foot
2
) can cause dramatic and often devastating erosion
along the Monterey Bay coast.
The ideal situation to minimize damage to the desalination infrastructure is to avoid the dynamic beach
environment, which will migrate inland over time from sea level rise. The storm waves discussed above drive the
episodic erosion events that are typical in Monterey Bay, and periodically threaten existing development.
Following these storm events, beaches can sometimes recover over a season or a few years. Other parts of the Bay
are experiencing continuous erosion without full recovery, especially in southern Monterey Bay (see section 2.2).
2.2 Historic Shoreline Change Trends
It is essential to understand historic shoreline change trends in order to accurately project future erosion. Shoreline
change data was compiled from a variety of sources and is summarized in Figure 2. This figure shows the
locations of the MPWSP representative profiles shown on Figure 1 (discussed in detail later in this technical
memorandum) and other landmarks relative to the historic accretion or erosion rates. Table 1 summarizes each of
the datasets plotted in Figure 2. For the erosion analysis, we combined the updated shoreline change rates (#2)
with the Thornton et al 2006 dune erosion rates (#1), where available. Thornton et al 2006 estimated recent
erosion rates based on dune crest recession, which is a more robust estimate of erosion than shoreline change.
TABLE 1
EROSION RATE DATA SOURCES FOR SOUTHERN MONTEREY BAY
# Dataset Timespan Notes
1 Thornton 2006, dune crest recession rate 1984 2002 This was the most detailed study available for erosion rates in the
study area. Erosion was measured at 6 locations in Southern
Monterey Bay. Erosion rates were interpolated between these
measurements for this analysis.
2 Analysis by ESA for this study: short-term
linear regression erosion rate calculated based
on the 1933, 1998, and 2010 shorelines.
1932 2010 The 1932 and 1998 shorelines were obtained from Hapke et al
2006 and updated with a 2010 shoreline, extracted from a high
resolution LiDAR DEM (NOAA 2012, collected in May/June 2010).
3 Hapke et al 2006, shoreline change rate 1945 1998 Not used in this analysis, included for context only.
4 Hapke et al 2007, soft bluff recession rate 1933 1998 Not used in this analysis, included for context only. This study was
for the entire California coast, while Thornton 2006 focused on this
study area.
5 Analysis by ESA for this study: long-term
linear regression erosion rate calculated
based on the 1852, 1933, 1998, and 2010
shorelines.
1852 2010 The 1852, 1932 and 1998 shorelines were obtained from Hapke et
al 2006 and updated with a 2010 shoreline. Because sand mining,
which started in 1906, plays such a large role in coastal erosion,
these rates were not used in this analysis.

2
Tide stations have recorded an increase in average winter water levels of about one foot during the strong 1982-3 and 1997-8 El Nios,
and individual deviations above predicted tides of over 2 during El Nio storms.
3
2.3 Sand Mining
The mining of sand can increase erosion rates, modify shoreline orientation, and change sand transport rates.
Thornton et al (2006) suggests that the alongshore variation in dune recession rates is a function of wave energy
and sand mining. Southern Monterey Bay has been mined intensively for sand for more than a century. Sand
mining near the mouth of the Salinas River started in 1906, and expanded to six commercial sites: three at Marina
and three at Sand City. Five of these operations closed by 1990, leaving the Pacific Lapis Plant in Marina (owned
by CEMEX) as the only active sand mining operation.
2.4 Rip Embayments
Rip embayments have been correlated with dune erosion in Monterey Bay (Thornton et al, 2007). Also known as
beach mega-cusps, rip embayments are localized narrowing and deepening of the beach. They are caused by the
erosive action of cross-shore rip currents. The beach is the narrowest at the embayment, allowing swash and wave
run-up to reach the toe of the dune and cause erosion during coincident high tides and storm wave events. In
Monterey Bay, these embayments are on the order of 200 feet wide (alongshore and cross-shore), and occur at
approximately 600-foot along-shore spacing intervals (MacMahan et al, 2006, Thornton et al, 2007). Rip currents
are highly dynamic, migrating up to 12 feet per day (Thornton et al, 2007). Field observations of rip channels in
Monterey Bay between Wharf II in Monterey and Sand City found that typical rip channels are 5 feet deeper than
the adjacent beach face.
3 Projecting Future Erosion
Future erosion was analyzed at six locations along the study area (Figure 1) and assessed using two methods. The
first was to look at the aerial extent of potential erosion. Coastal erosion hazard zones, which delineate areas
potentially at risk from coastal erosion, are described and discussed in Section 3.1. The second method considers
erosion on a vertical profile. Profiles were selected at locations of key infrastructure (Figure 1) and projected into
the future. The methods and results of this analysis are described in Section 3.2.
3.1 Coastal Erosion Hazard Zones
3

Coastal erosion hazard zones were developed using methods described in PWA 2009 and Revell et al 2011. A
coastal erosion hazard zone represents an area where erosion (caused by coastal processes) has the potential to
occur over a certain time period. This does not mean that the entire hazard zone is eroded away; rather, any area
within this zone is at risk of damage due to erosion during a major storm event. Actual location of erosion during
a particular storm depends on the unique characteristics of that storm (e.g. wave direction, surge, rainfall, and
coincident tide). As sea level rises, higher mean sea level will make it possible for wave run-up to reach the dune
more frequently, undercutting at the dune toe and causing increased erosion. This analysis used a sea level rise
projection of 15 inches by 2040 and 28 inches by 2060, relative to 2010. These projections are based on a 2012
study by the National Research Council (NRC) which provided regional sea level rise estimates for San Francisco
(the closest projection to the Project). The 2040 and 2060 values were derived by fitting a curve to the Average
of Models, High projections for 2030, 2050, and 2100 published in the NRC study (NRC 2012).

3
The coastal erosion hazard zones are being developed by ESA PWA as part of the ongoing Monterey Bay Sea Level Rise Vulnerability
Study (anticipated completion in early 2014). The zones presented here are preliminary and are subject to change in the final maps
delivered to the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation (the client). However, particular attention was given to the Project focus
locations. Therefore any final modifications are expected to be minimal at these locations.
4
Coastal Hazard Zone Model Development
The coastal hazard zones are developed from three components: historic erosion, additional erosion due to sea
level rise, and the potential erosion impact caused by a large storm wave event (e.g. 100-year). The most
important variables in the hazard zone model address these components (Table 2).
TABLE 2
COASTAL HAZARD ZONE MODEL COMPONENTS AND PRIMARY VARIABLES
Coastal Hazard Zone Component Primary Variables
historic erosion historic erosion trend
erosion due to sea level rise backshore toe elevation, shoreface slope, sea level rise curve
erosion impact caused by a large storm wave event storm total water level, beach slope, backshore toe elevation

This section gives a brief description of the erosion hazard zone methods. For more details about the methods
please see the Pacific Institute study (PWA, 2009 and Revell et al, 2011).
The historic erosion rate is applied to the planning horizon (2010 through 2060 at 10 year increments) to get the
baseline erosion, which is an indirect means to account for the sediment budget. Section 2.2 explains how historic
erosion rates were selected for each location. The erosion model does not account for other shore management
actions, such as sand placement, that could mitigate future shore recession. In this region, where beaches are
controlled in part by sand mining, we assumed that there are no changes to existing sand mining practices.
The potential inland shoreline retreat caused by sea level rise and the impact from a large storm event was
estimated using the geometric model of dune erosion originally proposed by Komar et al (1999) and applied with
different slopes to make the model more applicable to sea level rise (Revell et al, 2011). This method is consistent
with the FEMA Pacific Coast Flood Guidelines (FEMA, 2005). Potential erosion accounts for uncertainty in the
duration of a future storm. Instead of predicting storm specific characteristics and response, this potential erosion
projection assumes that the coast would erode or retreat to a maximum storm wave event regardless of duration.
This is considered to be a conservative approach to estimating impact of a 100-year storm event because larger
erosion estimates are produced.
Results
Figure 3 presents the coastal hazard zones, with detailed maps for each analysis location. These plan view maps
do not represent the vertical extent of erosion, which is relevant to most of the proposed Project infrastructure
which will be buried. As a result, the plan view maps indicated a more robust cross-shore profile analysis was
needed to elucidate how Project infrastructure may be affected by coastal erosion.
3.2 Representative Coastal Profiles
The coastal profile analysis developed a set of representative profiles that show how the shoreline is likely to
evolve from the present (2010) to 2040 and 2060, and the locations of selected Project components relative to
those profiles. As previously discussed, the Monterey Bay shoreline is affected seasonally by localized erosion
(rip currents), long term erosion, and sea level rise. Each of these factors is important in defining the horizontal
and vertical elements of a profile shape and location through time. For this reason, we identify a projected future
profile and an extremely eroded profile (lower envelope) for each future time horizon. The profiles contain both
horizontal and vertical erosion. As described below, the future profile is the current profile eroded horizontally at
the historic rate, with added erosion caused by sea level rise. The lower profile envelope represents a highly
5
eroded condition, which could occur from a combination of localized erosion (rip currents), a large winter storm,
and seasonal changes. The upper envelope (a highly accreted profile) was not analyzed because a key Project
concern is the exposure of buried project components in the future.
Methods and Assumptions
Topographic and bathymetric data, summarized in Table 3, was compiled in the vicinity of the representative
profiles specified by the ESA Project team (Figure 1). Three recent LiDAR profiles and one bathymetric survey
were available. The locations of the Thornton representative profile envelopes (dataset #6 in Table 3), which were
developed for a previous study (ESA PWA 2012), are located in the vicinity of the Project profiles at Sand City
and to the east of Wharf II perpendicular to Del Monte Ave in Monterey.
TABLE 3
BATHYMETRY AND TOPOGRAPHY DATA USED TO DEVELOP REPRESENTATIVE PROFILES
# Dataset Date Collected
Elevation Limits
(Approximate) Source
1 Hydro-flattened bare earth
digital elevation model (1 meter
resolution)
May/June 2010 Minimum of
~0 ft NAVD
NOAA Digital Coast CA Coastal Conservancy Coastal
LiDAR Project
2 Bathymetry in offshore Monterey
Bay (2 meter resolution)
Sept/Oct/Nov 2009 Maximum of
-8 to -12 ft NAVD
California State University, Monterey Bay Seafloor
Mapping Lab
3 Bathymetry within Moss Landing
Harbor (1 meter resolution)
June 2011 Maximum of
-25 to -45 ft NAVD
California State University, Monterey Bay Seafloor
Mapping Lab
4 LiDAR topography
(3 meter resolution)
April 1998
(post El Nino
winter)
Minimum of
~0 ft NAVD
NOAA Digital Coast Airborne LiDAR Assessment of
Coastal Erosion Project (NOAA/NASA/USGS)
5 LiDAR topography
(3 meter resolution)
Fall 1997
(pre El Nino
winter)
Minimum of
~0 ft NAVD
NOAA Digital Coast Airborne LiDAR Assessment of
Coastal Erosion Project (NOAA/NASA/USGS)
6 Representative profiles and
profile envelopes at Marina,
Sand City, and Del Monte
Unknown based
on several
surveys.
N/A Published in ESA PWA 2012, originally Ed Thornton,
unpublished data. Shown in Figure 4.

The raw profile data were processed as follows to develop a representative profile and a corresponding highly
eroded profile for existing conditions:
1. A representative profile was created by combining the June 2010 LiDAR onshore with the 2009 fall
California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) bathymetry offshore. The 2009 2010 winter was a
minor El Nino year, resulting in a relatively eroded starting beach profile. A linear profile was interpolated
between the offshore bathymetry and the terrestrial LiDAR. It is unlikely that the profile is linear, and more
likely has a concave shape with one or more sand bars, depending on season and other factors. The surf and
swash zone is highly dynamic and hence judgment is required to select a design profile. In this study, we
account for this uncertainty in the eroded profile by using an envelope of possible shapes, based on
perturbations from the estimated profile, as described in the following steps.
2. The Thornton envelopes (Figure 4) were horizontally aligned with the representative profiles using the
backshore toe location as a reference feature, which is easily identified in all datasets. Since the profiles
were not collected at exactly the same location and time as the representative profiles, some of profiles do
not align as well in the upland areas. Since upland areas are much more static than the beach (the profile
variability is much smaller), we do not focus on these areas in the profile evolution model, unless erosion
through upland is expected.
3. As discussed above, rip currents can contribute to significant (~5 feet) lowering of the beach profile through
the rip channel. The Thornton profiles were typically measured away from localized rip embayments. The
profile envelope was adjusted to include uncertainty associated with rip channels by narrowing and
6
lowering the nearshore elevations. The beach berm was shifted shoreward by 50 feet or the distance
between the berm crest and the dune toe (whichever was smaller), and the profile was lowered by 5 feet at
MLLW. This adjustment assumes that the rip current would mainly impact the swash zone.
4. The profile envelope was lowered in any areas where the LiDAR or bathymetry data fell below the lower
Thornton envelope. However, measured profile envelopes were unavailable for Profiles 1, 2, and 3. An
envelope of shore profile elevation was created using Thorntons Del Monte profile (the most variable
profile envelope located near Wharf II in Monterey). The vertical variability of the Del Monte profile was
tabulated as a function of distance from shore, and then the elevations in Profiles 1, 2 and 3 were lowered
accordingly.
Once a representative profile and lower profile envelope were identified for existing conditions, an equilibrium
profile approach was used to shift the existing conditions profile and envelope based on projected erosion, which
includes the historic erosion trend and future sea level rise (see Section 3.1). For profiles 1, 2, and 3, which show
a historic trend in accretion, we include only the erosion due to sea level rise (setting the historic trend to 0).
Detailed erosion rates were not available for these profiles, so erosion was calculated based on four shorelines
(June 2010, April 1998, July 1952, and May 1933). The overall linear regression shows accretion, but the
shorelines have fluctuated historically, and the most recent shoreline (spring 2010) is more eroded than the spring
1998 post-El Nino LiDAR. For this reason, we conservatively do not include the accretion signal.
The profiles were shifted horizontally inwards by the projected erosion and raised by the projected sea level rise.
The existing dune elevations were held as maximums even though the profile shift would imply dune growth in
some locations. The shifted profiles were truncated at the back beach location where the toe of dune starts. From
this location, the profile was drawn sloping upward at the approximate angle of repose of loose sand, and
truncated when the existing dune profile was intersected. The slope so drawn is an approximation of the eroded
dune face extending from the beach to the top of the existing dune profile. An angle of 32 degrees was assumed
for these locations (PWA, 2009). We did this because most of southern Monterey Bay shore is receding landward,
erosion is cutting into relict dunes, and the steep dune faces and narrow beaches impede dune growth (Thornton et
al 2006). Dune migration and other changes have not been modeled and dune elevations may change whether the
shore is accreting or eroding due to changes in vegetation, other disturbance, etc. North of the Salinas River, the
shore is accreting and dune growth appears to be occurring but accretion was neglected in these locations as well.
The lower profile envelopes do not necessarily encompass the full range of possible profile configurations. The
profiles are not statistically defined or associated with a specific return interval. The profile construction did
consider historic erosion, which includes a pre-El Nino shoreline and two post- El Nino shorelines, accelerated
erosion from sea level rise, and an additional buffer factor associated with rip currents. The lower envelope for
these profiles does not reflect potential dune erosion that could happen during a major (e.g. 100-year) storm event.
This type of event could contribute as much as 100 feet of dune erosion. The representative profile may accrete or
experience less erosion than projected, which would result in more sand covering the project components. This
analysis is configured to provide estimates of the downward and inland extent of erosion, with the assumption that
higher elevations are not a concern or are addressed by others.
Results
Figure 5 through Figure 11 show the existing (2010) and future (2040 and 2060) profiles and lower envelopes at
each location. There are two profile/envelope combinations for each time step: one to represent long-term profile
evolution (consisting of historic erosion and accelerated erosion from sea level rise) and a second that adds
potential erosion from a 100-year erosion event, which could be as high as much as 125 feet, to the long-term
profile.
7
Approximate locations and other descriptors of proposed Project infrastructure are shown on profiles where pipes
or outfalls cross the profile. These data were provided by the applicant (California American Water Company)
and are shown as a spatial reference to aid in the interpretation of the profiles. The geometry was not proposed by
this study and may be revised based on this study and for other reasons beyond the scope of this document.
At Moss Landing Harbor (Profile 1, Figure 5b), ongoing erosion is relatively low. The dune erosion
envelopes extend inland 105 feet by 2060, with another 68 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.
Sandholdt Road (Profile 2, Figure 6). The dune erosion envelopes extend inland 105 feet by 2060, with
another 65 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.
At Potrero Road (Profile 3, Figure 7). The dune erosion envelopes extend inland 120 feet by 2060, with
At the CEMEX Pacific Lapis sand mining plant (Profiles 4a and b, Figure 8 and Figure 9). The greatest
uncertainty for these lies in the effects of sand mining, which are not explicitly addressed but may be
implicitly addressed by the use of historic erosion rates. The dune erosion envelopes extend inland 300 feet
by 2060, with another 130 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.
At Sand City (Profile 5, Figure 10). The dune erosion envelopes extend inland 180 feet by 2060, with
In the City of Monterey (Profile 6, Figure 11). The dune erosion envelopes extend inland 65 feet by 2060,
with another 110 feet possible with a 100-year erosion event.
Assessment of methodology and accuracy of erosion envelopes
The methodology uses historic data and applied geomorphology methods generally consistent with coastal
engineering and geology practice. There are sufficient data available to have confidence in the results. In general,
we believe that the projections of potential erosion envelopes to be on the more conservative side and actual
erosion may be less. The methodology addresses wave driven processes only, and assumes that historic changes
are representative of future changes, and historic changes can be adjusted based on the rate of sea level rise. This
analysis is consistent with our interpretation of the draft guidance recently published by the Coastal Commission
4
.
It is important to note that actual sea level rise and the effects are not known, and that relatively high values were
used in this study. Also, interventions may change shore recession.
Alternative estimates could be developed by computer-aided modeling of sand transport. For example, XBEACH
and other available software can provide estimates of storm-induced profile erosion (USGS, 2009)
5
. Also,
GENESIS and other available software can provide estimates of future shoreline positions
6
. Such further analysis
may enhance the ability to assess the likelihood of shore recession estimates presented herein.

4
California Coastal Commission's Public Review Draft, Sea-Level Rise Policy Guidance, dated October 14, 2013
5
http://oss.deltares.nl/web/xbeach/
6
http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/chl.aspx?p=s&a=Software;34
8
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Regional Map of Analysis Profiles and Project Components
Figure 2 - Erosion Rates in Southern Monterey Bay
Figure 3 - Coastal Erosion Hazard Zones
Figure 4 Representative Profiles and Envelopes by Ed Thornton, unpublished
Figure 5 - Representative Profile #1 at Moss Landing Harbor
Figure 6 - Representative Profile #2 at Sandholdt Road
Figure 7 - Representative Profile #3 at Potrero Road
Figure 8 - Representative Profile #4a at CEMEX
Figure 9 - Representative Profile #4b at CEMEX
Figure 10 - Representative Profile #5 at Sand City
Figure 11 - Representative Profile #6 at Del Monte Avenue
References
ESA PWA (2012). Evaluation of Erosion Mitigation Alternatives for Southern Monterey Bay. Prepared for
Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation and The Southern Monterey Bay Coastal Erosion Working Group on
May 30, 2012.
California State University Monterey Bay (CSUMB) (2009-2010). Marine habitat mapping data for the Southern
Monterey Bay region. California Coastal Conservancy, Ocean Protection Council, Department of Fish and
Game, and the NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program. Available online:
http://seafloor.csumb.edu/SFMLwebDATA_mb.htm
Hanson, Hans (1989). GENESIS-A generalized shoreline change numerical model. Journal of Coastal Research,
5(1), 1-27, Charlottesville (Virginia). ISSN 0749-0208.
MacMahan, J.H., E.B. Thornton, and J.H.M. Reniers (2006). Rip current review. Coastal Engineering: 53:191-
208.
NOAA (2012). 2009 2011 CA Coastal Conservancy Coastal LiDAR Project: Hydro-flattened Bare Earth
DEM. NOAA Coastal Services Center. Charleston, South Carolina. Available online:
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/dataviewer/#.
NRC (2012). Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future.
Prepublication. National Academy Press: Washington, D. C.
PWA (2004). Southern Monterey Bay Coastal Erosion Services. Memo prepared for the Monterey Regional
Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA). November 24, 2004. PWA Project #1729.00.
PWA (2009). "California Coastal Erosion Response to Sea Level Rise - Analysis and Mapping." Prepared for the
Pacific Institute.
9
Revell, D.L., R. Battalio, B. Spear, P. Ruggiero, and J. Vandever, (2011). A Methodology for Predicting Future
Coastal Hazards due to Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast. Climatic Change 109:S251-S276. DOI
10.1007/s10584-011-0315-2.
Stockdon, H., R. Holman, P. Howd, and A. Sallenger (2006). Empirical parameterization of setup, swash, and
runup. Coastal Engineering: 53:573-588.
Storlazzi, C.D. and D.K. Wingfield (2005). "Spatial and Temporal Variations in Oceanographic and Meteorologic
Forcing Along the Central California Coast, 1980 - 2002." USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5085.
Thornton, E.B., A.H. Sallenger, J. Conforto Sesto, L. A. Egley, T. McGee, and A.R. Parsons, (2006). Sand mining
impacts on long-term dune erosion in southern Monterey Bay, Marine Geology, v. 229, p. 45-58.
Thornton, E.B. J. MacMahan, and A.H. Sallenger Jr. (2007). Rip currents, mega-cusps, and eroding dunes.
Marine Geology, v. 240: 2-4, p. 151-167. 5 June 2007.
Thornton, E.B., L.A. Egley, A. Sallenger, and R. Parsons (2003). Erosion in Southern Monterey Bay during the
1997-98 El Nino. Coastal Sediments 2003.
USGS (2009). Barnard, P.L., O'Reilly, Bill, van Ormondt, Maarten, Elias, Edwin, Ruggiero, Peter, Erikson, L.H.,
Hapke, Cheryl, Collins, B.D., Guza, R.T., Adams, P.N., and Thomas, J.T., 2009, The framework of a coastal
hazards model; a tool for predicting the impact of severe storms: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report
2009-1073, 21 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2009/1073/].

Figures

!
!
!
!
!
M
o
n
t
e
r
e
y
B
a
y
MPWSP Desalination
Plant (Proposed)
MRWPCA
Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant (Existing)
ASR Injection/
Extraction Wells (Proposed)
Terminal Reservoir and
ASR Pump Station (Proposed)
Phase I ASR
Facilities (Existing)
Phase II ASR
Facilities (Existing)
P
r
o
file
#
3
-
P
o
tr
e
r
o
R
o
a
d
P
r
o
f
ile

#
5

-

S
a
n
d

C
it
y
P
r
o
f
i
l
e

#
6

-

D
e
l

M
o
n
t
e
P
r
o
f
ile

#
2

-

S
a
n
d
h
o
ld
t

R
o
a
d
Profile #1 - M
oss Landing Harbor
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project . 205335.01
Figure 1
Regional Map of Analysis Profiles
U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\205xxx\205335_Water\Tasks\Cal_Am_2012\CoastalErosion\Figure X - Profile Locations v2.mxd
3/17/2014
Basemap National Geographic, Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, iPC
Copyright: 2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, TomTom
Copyright: 2013 Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ
Copyright: 2014 Esri, DeLorme, HERE, TomTom
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community
0 1 2
Miles
Regional Setting
Legend
Representative Coastal Profiles
Pipelines
Slant Well
Source Wate Pipeline; Collector Line; Intake Tunnel
Interconnection Improvements (Proposed)
Brine Discharge Pipeline (Proposed)
MRWPCA Ocean Outfall and Diffuser (Existing)
Desalinated Water Pipeline (Proposed)
Transmission Main (Proposed)
Transfer Pipeline (Proposed)
Monterey Pipeline (Proposed)
Salinas Valley Return PL (Proposed)
ASR Conveyance Pipelines (Proposed)
Profile #4b - CEMEX (Southern Well Cluster)
Profile #4a - CEMEX (Northern Well Cluster)
Inset: CEMEX Profile
Representative Profiles
Slant Wells (Proposed)
MRWPCA Ocean Outfall and Diffuser (Existing)
0 250 500 Feet
See inset above
Note: Existing infrastructure locations are approximate.

Proposed infrastructure locations are shown for reference
and were developed prior to this study. Infrastructure
locations were provided by the California American Water
Company and are included here for reference.

Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project. 205335.01
Figure 2. Historic Erosion Rates in Monterey Bay

2.0
1.5
c
.SI
-
f

1.0
A
0.5
-
-
>
.....
E
-
"
0.0
- Q
2

c
" .c
0.5 1.1
" .g
f
0
.c
1.0
"'
v
c
1.5
.SI

e
..
2.0
2.5
Erosion Rates by Block for Southern Monterey Bay
- Linear Regression (1852 2010)
--soft bluff recession rat e (1933 1998) (Hapke e t al 2007)
0 Dune crest recession rate (1984 2002) (Thornton 2006)
- Linear Regression (1932 2010)
MHW erosion rate (1945 1998) (Hapke e t a l 2006)
- Dune crest recession rate (1984 - 2002), int erpolated

.-.N m ,.. .n
1
QICU CU
1 1
CU
1 1
CU
1
CU
1
: c:c: c: : : c: : : c: : c: :
. oo 0 0 0 0
. ... .. .. . . .t . . ct . ct .
<><rAI .... J... r<
0
>r ., .........
Q) --------- ___ _L ___ ---------- =-:
..- > o c .... . ro Q)
oa= ro ro . I Vi .... 't
.!: o : : : Vl Vi : ., :
.... 1 X CO l 1 > "=== > '
ro - UJ c 3: +.- >
o ro o:::: - _ Vl _
- i----- -+---------

. ' '

( t-.'1 1
' '
' '
-... ----1-- -----------+----1--------
: Vl :
' c '
' '
'
2$0
'
'
'
'

'
'

. . '
- .
-----------4-----
......
./_., : ...
. '

--- ----- -:-- _g -----------+----:-------- -\
' -"' '
: iij :
' '
' 0 '
' '
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
2oJQ

'

'
'
2$0
'
270
'
'
...... ..... :

' '
' '
' '
' '
' '
' '

I '
' '
: .-=-+d-41', :
--------+- ---------- ----- +--- 1
. ., . .
: . ..... : :
' ' '
' ' '

.;

' :J '
' 0 '
' "' '
' "" '
' '
' Thor nton 2006 er osion r ate
ext ended to block 226.
+
________ . ____________ J ___ j ____
BlockiD (NW t o SE)
' ' '
' ' '
' ' '
' ' '
' ' '
' ' '
' ' '
----
P
r
o
f
i
le

#
2
Profile #1
Monterey Bay Sea Level Rise Assessment . 211906.00
Figure 3
Coastal Erosion Hazard Zones
U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\205xxx\205335_Water\Tasks\Cal_Am_2012\CoastalErosion\Figure X - Erosion HZs v5.mxd
3/17/2014
Data Source: ESA PWA 2013 hazard zone analysis, NAIP 2012 imagery
P
ro
file
#
3
Profile #4b
Profile #4a
P
r
o
f
i
le

#
5
P
r
o
f
i
l
e

#
6
200 0 200 100 ft

200 0 200 100 ft
200 0 200 100 ft
200 0 200 100 ft
300 0 300 150 ft
Intakes (proposed)
Intake and/or Outfall (proposed)
Pipes
Erosion Reference Line
Offset to backshore toe
Coastal Erosion Hazard Zones
2010
2030
2040
2050
2060
2100
Please see Figure 1 for regional map of profile locations.
These hazard zones show coastal erosion hazard areas, with the inland limit representing the potential future dune crest. Flood hazards may be more extensive,
especially if the area is low-lying compared to the potential wave run-up and flood water levels. Future erosion through dunes has the potential to flood low-lying
areas that are currently protected by high dunes.
Service Layer Credits:
E
ro
s
io
n
s
tu
d
y
lim
it
Erosion study limit
Erosion study lim
it
E
ro
s
io
n
s
tu
d
y
lim
it
E
ro
s
io
n
s
tu
d
y
lim
it
Erosion study lim
it
E
ro
s
io
n
s
tu
d
y
lim
it
E
r
o
s
io
n

s
t
u
d
y

li
m
i
t
E
r
o
s
io
n

s
t
u
d
y

li
m
i
t
200 0 200 100 ft
E
ro
s
io
n
s
tu
d
y
lim
it
Turn in profile
(a) Moss Landing Harbor (b) Sandholdt Road
(c) Potrero Road (d) CEMEX
(e) Sand City (f) Del Monte Ave
Intake 8
(opt 2)
Intake 5
Outfall 6
O
u
t
f
a
l
l

5
In
ta
k
e
6
O
u
tfa
ll 5
Intake 3
S
ource W
ater P
ipeline
Northern Well
Cluster
Southern Well
Cluster
Monterey Pipeline
Note: Existing infrastructure locations are approximate. Proposed infrastructure
locations are shown for reference and were developed prior to this study.
Infrastructure locations were provided by the California American Water
Company and are included here for reference.

Figure 4
Representative Profiles and Envelopes by Ed Thornton, unpublished
SOURCE: Data from Thornton, unpublished.
Figures published in ESA PWA 2012.

Figure 5a
Profile 1 Overview

Sources: Topography from CA Coastal Conservancy LiDAR Project (collected in June 2010).
Bathymetry from the CSUMB Seafloor Mapping Lab (collected in September 2011).
* EMHW = Extreme Monthly High Water. This is, on average, the highest tide level that occurs each month.

Note: Proposed infrastructure locations are shown
for reference and were developed prior to this
study. The locations were provided by the
California American Water Company.

Figure 5b. Representative Profile #1 at Moss Landing Harbor

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion
(rip currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the
topography data (between x = 1181 ft and x = 1657 ft).

Figure 5c
Profile 1 - Inland Inset

Sources: Topography from CA Coastal Conservancy LiDAR Project (collected in June 2010).
Bathymetry from the CSUMB Seafloor Mapping Lab (collected in September 2011).
* EMHW = Extreme Monthly High Water. This is, on average, the highest tide level that occurs each month.

Note: Proposed infrastructure locations are shown
for reference and were developed prior to this
study. The locations were provided by the

Figure 6. Representative Profile #2 at Sandholdt Road

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography data (between x = 958 ft and x = 1299 ft).
3. This profile crosses the shore-parallel portion of Outfall 5 at x = 1648 ft (see Figure 3). This portion of the outfall does not fall within the erosion hazard zones through 2060.
Location of Outfall 5 provided by California American Water Company. Vertical location of the shore-perpendicular portion of Outfall 5 and Intake 6 were not available and
therefore are not shown in this profile view.

Figure 7. Representative Profile #3 at Potrero Road

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip currents), long-
term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography data (between x
= 4777 ft and x = 5259 ft).
3. Pumped well location is based on the Potrero Rd Pumped Wells Test Well Google Earth map provided by
CalAm on September 27, 2013.
4. This profile assumes the pumped well is perpendicular to shore.
5. The well input parameters in the table to the right were developed prior to this study and provided by the
Proposed slant well alignment is shown for
reference and was developed prior to this
study. The slant well alignment was provided
by the California American Water Company
and is included here for reference.

Figure 8. Representative Profile #4a at CEMEX

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip
currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography
data (between x = 919 ft and x = 1385).
3. This profile is located immediately south of the CEMEX Pacifica Lapis sand mining plant. No
data is available to quantify the uncertainty in adjacent beach and dune erosion related to
sand mining activities. The potential for fluctuations in beach width associated with sand
mining were not considered in this analysis.
4. Slant well location and angle are based on the Test Slant Well Alignment and Test Slant
Well Cross-Section drawings provided by Geoscience on July 30, 2013.
5. The well input parameters in the table to the right were developed prior to this study and
were provided by the California American Water Company.

Proposed slant well alignments are shown for
reference and were developed prior to this
study. The slant well alignments were provided
by the California American Water Company and
are included here for reference.

Figure 9. Representative Profile #4b at CEMEX

Notes:
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography data
(between x = 820 ft and x = 1480).
3. This profile is located immediately south of the CEMEX Pacifica Lapis sand mining plant. No data
is available to quantify the uncertainty in adjacent beach and dune erosion related to sand
mining activities. The potential for fluctuations in beach width associated with sand mining were
not considered in this analysis.
4. Slant well location and angle are based on the Well 3 Alignment and Well 3 Cross-Section
drawings provided by Geoscience on July 30, 2013.
5. The well input parameters in the table to the right were developed prior to this study and were
provided by the California American Water.
6.
Proposed slant well alignments are shown for reference and
were developed prior to this study. The slant well alignments
were provided by the California American Water Company and
are included here for reference.

Figure 10. Representative Profile #5 at Sand City

Notes:
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography data
(between x = 7127 ft and x = 7533 ft).
3. This profile does not intersect any proposed desalination infrastructure.

Figure 11. Representative Profile #6 at Del Monte

Notes:
1. These envelopes of erosion consider seasonal changes in beach width, localized erosion (rip currents), long-term erosion, and accelerated erosion caused by sea level rise.
2. The profile shape is linearly interpolated between the bathymetry data and the topography data (between x = 7960 ft and x = 7920 ft).
3. Approximate horizontal and vertical location of the Monterey Pipeline provided by California American Water Company.
Monterey Pipeline location, approximate. The location
along the profile, depth, and diameter were provided by
the California American Water Company and are included
here for reference. Pipe cross-section not to scale.
Technical Memorandum

To: Emily Creel, J D (SWCA)

From: J ason Magalen, PE (SEI)
Ken Israel (SEI)

Date: April 18, 2014

Re: Review of Coastal Erosion Analysis by ESA PWA (2014) for the California American
Water Temporary Slant Test Well Environmental Impact Evaluation

On behalf of SWCA Environmental Consultants, Sea Engineering, Inc. (SEI) reviewed a recently
completed coastal erosion and sea level rise report for the southern Monterey Bay coastline region
(ESA PWA, 2014). The objectives were to evaluate the overall sufficiency and accuracy of the report,
assess how it applies (or does not apply) to the smaller Slant Test Well project, and identify any
potential impacts of long term erosion and sea level rise on the Slant Test Well project. Each of these is
discussed individually below.

ESA PWA (2014) Review
In 2014, ESA PWA, herein referred to as ESA, completed a simplified, conservative assessment of the
erosion that the Southern Monterey Bay coastline may experience between a 2010 baseline year and the
year 2060. Estimated rates of erosion were based on computed historic erosion rates, erosion expected
from sea level rise, and erosion from infrequent events such as extreme storms (i.e. 100-year storms).
Available historical datasets of the region (1852, 1933, 1998 and 2010) were evaluated for use in
determining the historic erosion rate trends; and linear regression solutions were used to estimate the
resultant, long-term erosion rates. The 2010 year is defined as the baseline year since no elevation data
exist (or were utilized) that are closer in date to the present.

Though the actual methods and calculation used in the ESA study are not explicitly stated or defined
(e.g., the linear regression fit parameters utilized), it is clear that a worst-case scenario approach was
chosen when computing potential erosion. As a result, predicted inland erosion magnitudes may be
over-estimated in their report; however, the report is deemed sufficiently conservative for planning
purposes:
It comprises a simplified study of potential shoreline change using discrete shore-parallel
profiles, geographical information system (GIS) approaches and traditional beach profile
analysis methods.
No numerical modeling of potential beach profile and/or shoreline changes were completed
(though use of programs such as XBEACH and GENESIS are recommended as alternative
future analysis options).
No additional data analyses were described to estimate near-shore wave heights, wave run-up
and/or overtopping potential at the project site(s).
The ESA investigation considers likely worst-case scenarios of inland erosion based on several
historical shoreline location datasets, cautiously high sea level rise estimates (i.e. upper range
estimates of recent sea level rise estimates from the IRC, 2012, and CA Coastal Commission
estimates, 2013) and aggressive extreme (e.g., 100-year) storm event impacts.
Remaining conservative, the investigation did not consider the potentially beneficial effects of
periodic beach accretion at any of the locations evaluated.
Further, the investigation assumed that sand mining practices would continue unabated, that
sand mining exacerbates the shoreline erosion problem, and that no additional efforts would be
made to combat shoreline erosion (e.g., beach nourishment).

Figures 8 and 9 from ESA PWA (2014) illustrate the potential temporal beach profile shapes and
locations at two along-shore locations near the CEMEX site (profiles 4a and 4b, respectively). The
slant well insertion points are shown only for reference along each profile (i.e. might not be accurately
geo-referenced), but are sufficient to approximately quantify the risk to each insertion point if erosion
continues unabated. The ESA results indicate that, at present, both insertion points (along profiles 4a
and 4b) are inshore of the 2010 beach profile, but may be exposed to wave attack by future erosion.

Focusing on profile 4a (e.g., the northerly CEMEX profile, the well cluster of which includes the
location of the temporary slant test well), the slant well insertion point is expected to remain landward
of the 2010 beach profile even after a 100-year storm; however, the ESA study indicates that the well
casing(s) may become exposed near the toe of the beach dune after a 100-year storm. By 2040, the
beach profile is expected to be shoreward of the insertion point by approximately 25 feet; and
shoreward approximately 150 feet by year 2060.

At the southerly CEMEX profile (4b), the slant well insertion point is presently about 25 shoreward of
the 2010 profile. If a 100-year storm occurs in the near future, though, the beach profile may migrate as
much as 100 shoreward of the insertion point. By 2040, this distance might be 150; and, by 2060 this
distance might be 300 (with even larger migration amounts if 100-year storms occur within these
timeframes).

Relevance to Slant Test Well Project
The ESA report is an important resource to consider even for short-term planning horizons. The 100-
year storm definition is the storm that has a 1% chance of occurring every year. Though, the probability
is low that significant erosion will occur at the CEMEX site during the 2-year duration of the Slant Test
Well, this means that there is still a small potential for a 100-year storm occurring during the project
timeframe. If erosion occurs at the project site as a result of a 100-year storm, the Slant Test Well
project may be at risk of exposure (either the insertion point or the well casing(s) may be left vulnerable
due to beach dune erosion).

Long-term Potential Impacts to Slant Well Test Project
Although the proposed project would be temporary, coastal erosion and wave run-up may also have
long-term implications. As described in the project description for the Slant Test Well project, the well
will be decommissioned at the end of the project and the well casing removed to a depth of 5 feet below
existing ground elevation. Further, based on the ESA (2014) erosion estimates, unabated shoreline
migration may continue for decades, migrating as much as several hundred feet inland. If this erosion
does occur, the buried well casing will likely become exposed and require additional remedial efforts to
remove the hazard from the retreating shoreline. It is recommended that, for the purpose of avoiding
emergency remedial efforts in the future, the well casing either: 1) be removed to a sufficient depth so
as to eliminate the potential for well casing un-burial or surfacing in the future, or 2) be removed
altogether at the conclusion of the project.

Recommendations
We recommend the following actions be incorporated into the Slant Test Well project to minimize the
potential risk of effects associated with coastal erosion and/or storm run-up. The well insertion point
should be sited such that the wellhead vault and the entire length of subsurface well casing is located
outside of the 2010 100-year storm erosion hazard zone elevation profile. At project completion, one
of two alternatives should be employed: 1) remove the well casing to a depth which would eliminate
the potential for future surfacing of the decommissioned well casing as a result of long-term erosion; or
2) remove the well casing completely to eliminate potential resurfacing altogether. Based on the
elevation profiles shown in the ESA (2014) report, the well casing should be removed to an elevation of
-15-feet NAVD88 (an approximate removal of 40-feet from the 2010 well insertion point ground
surface elevation).

Based on our professional judgment, the ESA study (2014) represents a worst-case scenario developed
by a very conservative approach. Mitigating the temporary Slant Test Well project based on the
information provided in the ESA study, as discussed above, should be adequate to minimize the risk of
effects associated with coastal erosion and wave run-up.

The comments and opinions expressed above were based on available data and reports of the pending
projects in Southern Monterey Bay and current understanding of the processes involved at the project
site. A full evaluation of the potential erosion magnitudes and impacts of shoreline retreat were not
completed as a part of this assessment. A thorough literature and data review would be required to fully
assess and validate the erosion and shoreline change estimates made by ESA (2014).

Respectfully submitted,

J ason Magalen, P.E.
Coastal and Ocean Engineer

STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD
DRAFT REVIEW OF CALIFORNIA AMERICAN
WATER COMPANYS MONTEREY PENINSULA
WATER SUPPLY PROJECT

April 3, 2013

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. i
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
2. Background .............................................................................................................. 2
3. Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Description ............................................. 3
4. Physical Setting ........................................................................................................ 8
4.1 Groundwater Aquifers ........................................................................................ 8
4.2 Groundwater Quality ........................................................................................ 13
4.3 Groundwater Recharge and Discharge ............................................................ 16
4.4 Groundwater Gradient ...................................................................................... 17
4.5 Groundwater Modeling ..................................................................................... 18
5. Proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project ............................................. 19
5.1 Gravity Well Design .......................................................................................... 19
5.2 Pumping Well Design ....................................................................................... 20
5.3 Groundwater Capture Zone Delineation ........................................................... 21
5.4 Extraction Scenarios ........................................................................................ 22
5.4.1 Extraction of Feedwater by Gravity Wells .................................................. 22
5.4.2 Pumping from Unconfined Conditions ....................................................... 23
5.4.3 Pumping from Confined Conditions ........................................................... 26
5.5 Summary of Impacts ........................................................................................ 27
6. Legal Discussion of Proposed Extraction Wells in Basin ........................................ 28
6.1 General Principles of Groundwater Law ........................................................... 29
6.2 Developed Water ............................................................................................. 31
6.3 Physical Solution Discussion............................................................................ 33
6.4 Summary of Legal Analysis .............................................................................. 38
7. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 40
8. Recommendations .................................................................................................. 42

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction
The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) asked the State Water
Resources Control Board (State Water Board) whether the California American Water
Company (Cal-Am) has the legal right to extract desalination feedwater for the proposed
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project (MPWSP). Cal-Am proposes several
approaches that it claims would legally allow it to extract water from the Salinas Valley
Groundwater Basin (SVGB or Basin) near or beneath Monterey Bay without violating
groundwater rights or injuring other groundwater users in the Basin. The purpose of this
report is to examine the available technical information and outline legal considerations
which would apply to Cal-Ams proposed MPWSP.

Technical Conclusions
There are gravity and pumped well designs proposed for the MPWSP, as well as
several well locations. Well design and well location will need testing to provide
design/site specific information needed for complete technical and legal analysis. The
conditions in the aquifer where MPWSP feedwater would be extracted could be either
confined or unconfined however; there is currently not enough information to determine
what type of conditions exist at the location of the MPWSP wells. Effects from confined
aquifer pumping would be observed over a larger area than if extraction occurred from
an unconfined aquifer. Previous studies done in the one of proposed MPWSP well
locations indicate that there would be an approximate 2-mile radius zone-of-influence if
groundwater was pumped from an unconfined aquifer. It is unknown what the effects
would be if water was pumped from a confined aquifer with different hydrogeologic
conditions.

The aquifers underlying the proposed extraction locations have been intruded with
seawater since at least the 1940s. The impairment means that there is little or no
beneficial use of the water in the intruded area. Groundwater quality at the site of the

ii

proposed MPWSP wells will play an important role in determining the effects of
extraction on the other users in the Basin.

The Basin is in overdraft. Groundwater extractions and outflows to the ocean needed to
repel seawater intrusion exceed groundwater inflow into the Basin. The overdraft
condition is important because it limits the availability of fresh water supplies to Basin
users.

Legal Conclusions
To appropriate groundwater from the Basin, the burden is on Cal-Am to show no injury
to other users. Key factors will be the following: (1) how much fresh water Cal-Am is
extracting as a proportion of the total pumped amount, to determine the amount of
treated water considered as desalinated sea water, available for export as developed
water; (2) whether pumping affects the water table level in existing users wells and
whether Cal-Am can mitigate any lowering of water levels through monetary
compensation for increased pumping costs or upgraded wells; (3) how Cal-Am should
return any fresh water it extracts to the Basin to prevent injury to others; and (4) how
groundwater rights might adjust in the future if the proportion of fresh and sea water
changes both in the larger Basin area and the immediate area around Cal-Ams wells.

Both near and long-term, a physical solution that protects legal users in the Basin from
harm would permit Cal-Am to extract groundwater. Even if overdraft conditions
continued in the Basin following imposition of the solution, Cal-Am could legally
continue pumping brackish water so long as the quantity and method of extraction are
not detrimental to the conditions in the Basin and other Basin users rights, taking into
account replacement water provided as part of the project. So long as overlying users
are protected from injury, appropriation of water consistent with the principles discussed
in this report should be possible. Cal-Am should have the opportunity to show any
desalinated water it produces is surplus to the current needs of the Basin, replacement
water methods are effective and feasible, and the MPWSP can operate without injury to
other users.

iii

Recommendations
Additional information is needed to accurately determine MPWSP impacts on current
and future Basin conditions regardless of whether the extraction occurs from pumped or
gravity wells. First, specific information is needed on the depth of the wells and aquifer
conditions. Studies are needed to determine the extent of the Dune Sand Aquifer, the
water quality and quantity of the Dune Sand Aquifer, the extent and thickness of the
Salinas Valley Aquitard and the extent of the 180-Foot Aquifer.

Second, the effects of the MPWSP on the Basin need to be evaluated. Specifically, a
series of test boring/wells would be needed to assess the hydrogeologic conditions at
the site. Aquifer testing would also be needed to establish accurate baseline conditions
and determine the pumping effects on both the Dune Sand Aquifer and the underlying
180-Foot Aquifer. Aquifer tests should mimic proposed pumping rates.

Third, updated groundwater modeling is needed to evaluate future impacts from the
MPWSP. Specifically, modeling scenarios are necessary to predict changes in
groundwater levels, groundwater flow direction, and changes in the extent and
boundary of the seawater intrusion front. Additional studies are also necessary to
determine how any extracted fresh water is replaced, whether through re-injection wells,
percolation basins, or through existing recharge programs. The studies will form the
basis for a plan that avoids injury to other groundwater users and protects beneficial
uses in the Basin.

1

1. Introduction
In a letter dated September 26, 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission
(Commission) asked the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board)
whether the California American Water Company (Cal-Am) has the legal right to extract
desalination feedwater for the proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
(MPWSP). The Commission stated it is not asking for a determination of water rights,
but is instead requesting an opinion as to whether Cal-Am has a credible legal claim to
extract feedwater for the proposed MPWSP, in order to inform the Commissions
determination regarding the legal feasibility of the MPWSP.
In a letter dated November 16, 2012, the State Water Board informed the Commission
that State Water Board staff would prepare an initial report for the Commission and for
public review. On December 21, 2012, the State Water Board provided the
Commission an initial draft of the report and on February 14, 2013, the Commission
provided the State Water Board comments on the initial draft report. The Commissions
February 14, 2013 correspondence also contained additional information for the State
Water Board to evaluate, specifically, a revised design of the feedwater intake system
for the MPWSP.
Cal-Am proposes several approaches it claims would legally allow it to extract water
from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin, or SVGB) near or beneath Monterey
Bay without violating groundwater rights or injuring other groundwater users in the
Basin. The purpose of this report is to examine the available technical information and
outline legal considerations which would apply to Cal-Ams proposed MPWSP.
This paper will (1) examine the readily available technical information and that provided
by the Commission; (2) discuss the effect the proposed MPWSP could have on other
users in the Basin; (3) discuss the legal constraints that will apply to any user who
proposes to extract water from the Basin; and (4) outline information that will be
necessary to further explore MPWSPs feasibility and impacts. Ultimately, whether a
legal means exists for Cal-Am to extract water from the Basin, as described in its
proposal outlined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Notice of

2

Preparation
1
(NOP) document and in the additional information provided, will depend on
developing key hydrogeologic information to support established principles of
groundwater law.
2. Background
In 2004, Cal-Am filed Application A.04-09-019 with the Commission seeking a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Coastal Water Project. The
primary purpose of the Coastal Water Project was to replace existing water supplies
that have been constrained by legal decisions affecting the Carmel River and Seaside
Groundwater Basin water resources. The Coastal Water Project proposed to use
existing intakes at the Moss Landing Power Plant to draw source water for a new
desalinization plant at Moss Landing. In J anuary 2009, the Commission issued a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Coastal Water Project and two project
alternatives the North Marina Project and the Monterey Regional Water Supply
Project (Regional Project). In October 2009, the Commission issued the Final EIR
2

(FEIR) and in December 2009, it certified the FEIR. In December 2010, the
Commission approved implementation of the Regional Project.
In J anuary 2012, Cal-Am withdrew its support for the Regional Project and
subsequently submitted Application A.12-04-019 to the Commission for the proposed
MPWSP as described in their September 26, 2012 letter. In October 2012, the
Commission issued a NOP for a Draft EIR for the proposed MPWSP. The Commission
requested in their September letter that the State Water Board prepare an initial staff
report in a relatively short timeframe by December 2012. The short timeframe for the
initial report was necessary to inform written supplemental testimony due in J anuary
2013 for Cal-Am and written rebuttal testimony from other parties due February 2013.
The State Water Board completed and transmitted its initial draft report to the
Commission on December 21, 2012.

1
California Public Utilities Commission, Notice of Preparation, Environmental Impact Report for the
Cal-Am Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project, October 2012.
2
Cal-Am, Coastal Water Project, FEIR, October 30, 2009.

3

In a memo dated February 14, 2013, the Commission expressed its appreciation to the
State Water Board for the initial draft report. Additionally, the Commission included
some comments and questions regarding the draft report and requested the State
Water Board evaluate new and additional information in its final report. State Water
Board staff reviewed the additional information to prepare this revised draft.
3

3. Monterey Peninsula Water Suppl y Project Description
When the Commission requested the assistance of the State Water Board in September
2012, the most current information available on the MPWSP was the description in the
NOP for a forthcoming Draft EIR. State Water Board staff analyzed the NOP and how
closely the new description matched the alternatives in the December 2009 FEIR
completed for the Coastal Water Project. Of the two project alternatives in the FEIR,
the North Marina Project more closely resembled the proposed MPWSP described in
the NOP. For this reason, State Water Board staff assumed most of the information,
including the slant well construction and operation as described in the FEIR North
Marina Project Alternative
4
, was applicable to the proposed MPWSP.
On February 14, 2013, the Commission provided comments on an initial draft of this
report and requested that State Water Board staff respond to some questions and also
consider new and additional information concerning revisions to the design and
configuration of the MPWSP. The new information provided to the State Water Board
includes: an updated project description, changes in the location and configuration of
the extraction well system, new information about the nature of the 180-Foot Aquifer,
timing of implementation for certain mitigation measures, and supplemental testimony
from Richard Svindland of Cal-Am.
The Commission requested that the State Water Board evaluate two possible
alternatives for the MPWSP; (1) the Proposed Project (preferred alternative) with slant
wells located at a 376-acre coastal property owned by the CEMEX Corporation and
illustrated by the yellow dots on Figure SWRCB 1, and; (2) Intake Contingency Option

3
Commission correspondence to State Water Board, February 14, 2013.
4
FEIR, Section 3.3 North Marina Project, October, 2009.

4

3 with a slant well intake system at Portrero Road north of the Salinas River as shown
in the top center of Figure SWRCB 2 by the small green dots. Figure SWRCB 3 shows
the approximate locations of the alternatives in the greater geographic area. The
preferred alternative would consist of 7 to 9 slant wells that would draw water from
under the ocean floor by way of gravity for delivery to the desalination plant. Intake
Contingency Option 3 would consist of 9 wells extracting water from beneath the ocean
floor by use of submersible pumps. For both alternatives, approximately 22 million
gallons of water per day (mgd) would be extracted from the wells to produce 9 mgd of
desalinated product water. The design of these options is further described in Section 5
of this report.
Information provided to the State Water Board to date does not allow staff to definitively
address the issue of how the proposed project would affect water rights in the Basin.
Currently, it is unknown which aquifer(s) the wells will extract water from and further
complicating the analysis, the relationship of the aquifers in the well area to surrounding
low-permeability aquitards is uncertain. Given these significant unknowns, this State
Water Board report provides the Commission with a first cut review of the MPWSP by
assuming the MPWSP hydrogeologic characteristics and effects to the SVGB would be
similar to the North Marina Project alternative analyzed in the FEIR, with the changes
described in the Commissions February 2013 correspondence. The State Water Board
also provides recommendations for additional work to clarify the hydrogeologic
unknowns so a more definitive review can be done at a later date.

5

Figure SWRCB 1
*
Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project
C At..lfO II III I A
WAf It
Intake Faci lities

CLIIB\fWlr.l:ml:m 201 1-0l.{liilOCJ
Figure 4

6

Figure SWCRB 2
Legend
0 Desalination Plant Site
'EJ
Slant Intake Wells
FeedWater Pipeline
Monterey Peninsula
*
(I
o o.25 o-5 water Supply Project

WAI LK Figure _ 4 Intake Contingency Option 3

7

Figure SWRCB 3

8

4. Physical Setting
This section contains a discussion of the physical setting of the SVGB that includes
a description of the hydrogeologic characteristics, groundwater quality, movement
and occurrence of groundwater, and groundwater modeling results. It is important to
understand the physical characteristics of the Basin to accurately determine the
effects the MPWSP will have on the Basin.
4.1 Groundwater Aquifers
Knowledge of the hydrogeologic characteristics in the area of the proposed
MPWSP wells is important in determining the impacts of the proposed project.
As shown by the dark blue line in Figure SWRCB 4, the SVGB extends
approximately 100 miles from Monterey Bay in the northwest to the headwaters
of the Salinas River in the southeast. Major aquifers in the SVGB are named for
the average depth at which they occur. The named aquifers from top to bottom
include the 180-Foot Aquifer, the 400-Foot Aquifer and the 900-Foot or Deep
Aquifer
5
. A near-surface water-bearing zone comprised of dune sands,
commonly referred to as the Dune Sand Aquifer, also exists but is considered a
minor source of water due to its poor quality. The Dune Sand Aquifer is not
regionally extensive and is not a recognized subbasin within the SVGB
6
. The
amount of groundwater in storage in the Dune Sand Aquifer is unknown. Figure
SWRCB 5 is a cross-section taken from the FEIR for the Coastal Water Project
that shows the relationship of aquifers and aquitards. The estimated extent of
the Dune Sand Aquifer and its relation to the 180-Foot Aquifer can be seen in the
upper left hand corner of Figure SWRCB 5. Figure SWRCB 6 shows the
westerly portion of the cross-section in the vicinity of the project area. The
proposed slant wells will either extract water from the 180-Foot Aquifer subbasin
and/or the Dune Sand Aquifer.

5
California Department of Water Resources, Californias Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Central Coast
Hydrologic Region, SVGB, February 2004.
6
FEIR, Section 4.2, Groundwater Resources, p. 4.2-5, October 2009.

9

The 180-Foot Aquifer is generally confined by the overlying Salinas Valley
Aquitard (SVA). The SVA is a well-defined clay formation with low permeability
that retards the vertical movement of water to the underlying 180-Foot Aquifer.
The SVA extends vertically from the ground surface to approximately 100 to 150
feet below mean sea level (msl) and extends laterally from Monterey Bay to 10
miles south of Salinas. Based on information from logs of two wells located
approximately mile south and mile northeast from the proposed MPWSP
slant wells, the top of the SVA is between 150 to 180 feet below msl. The well
logs show the top of the underlying 180-Foot Aquifer at approximately 190 to 220
feet below msl.
7

Studies have shown that in some areas the SVA thins enough to create
unconfined conditions in the 180-Foot Aquifer.
8
It is unknown if these
unconfined conditions exist in the proposed MPWSP well area. Determination of
the existence of the SVA, and thus the conditions of the aquifer at the location of
the proposed MPWSP wells will be very important in determining the area of
impact of the project as discussed at greater length in Section 5 of this report.

7
FEIR, Section 4.2 Groundwater Resources, Figure 4.2-3, October, 2009.
8
Monterey County Water Resources Agency, Monterey County Groundwater Management Plan,
Chapter 3 Basin Description, pp. 3.7 & 3.8, May 2006.

10

Figure SWRCB 4

(] Bay
[]
Monterey
Carmel
CermM88y
6.
D
Monitoring Wel s-Re<;I\AIIIed Sles (exld
loc8tions disllia-,ecO
Supply Wei$- Califomla 0epanner1 of Pldc
Healh (wthin one mile of acluEIIIocation)
SupptyWels- Other (Wioo 112 mle of actual
loc8tion)
Icons Wth e Cirde Jlround Them Slgrity e
Cluster of \Nels

11

Figure SWRCB 5

12

Figure SWRCB 6
D
(West)
INT'ERSECTIOH
WITHArA'
I
1.stl E-2GA2
14S/I E4Al03
14SIIE-2AL04
14SitE411.05
MPWSP
14S/2E-30G03
(IICWD#12)
Qod
INTERSECTION
wmtB-8'
I
Figure 13. Geologic Cross-Section (Portion of Plate 6 from HLA, 2001)

13

4.2 Groundwater Quality
Groundwater quality at the site of the proposed MPWSP wells will play an
important role in determining the effects of extraction on the other users in the
Basin. Historic and current pumping of the 180-Foot Aquifer has caused
significant seawater intrusion, which was first documented in the 1930s.
9
The
Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) uses the Secondary
Drinking Water Standard upper limit of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L)
concentration for chloride to determine the seawater intrusion front. The
MCWRA also uses the Secondary Drinking Water Standard to determine
impairment to a source of water. Standards are maintained to protect the public
welfare and to ensure a supply of pure potable water. MCWRA currently
estimates seawater has intruded into the 180-Foot Aquifer approximately 5 miles
inland as shown on Figure SWRCB 7. The increasing trend of inland movement
of seawater intrusion is also important and provides qualitative data on future
trends in the Basin. This seawater intrusion has resulted in the degradation of
groundwater supplies, requiring numerous urban and agricultural supply wells to
be abandoned or destroyed. In MCWRAs latest groundwater management plan
(2006), an estimated 25,000 acres of land overlies water that has degraded to
500 mg/L chloride. The amount of 500 mg/L chloride water that enters the Basin
was reported to be as high as 14,000 acre-feet per annum (afa) or 4.5 billion
gallons.
10

The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan lists
designated beneficial uses and describe the water quality which must be attained
to fully support those uses.
11
The Basin Plan states that water for agricultural
supply shall not contain concentration of chemical constituents in amounts which
adversely affect the agricultural beneficial use. Table 3-3 of the Basin Plan

9
California Department of Water Resources, Californias Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Central Coast
Hydrologic Region, SVGB, 180/400 Foot Aquifer subbasin, February 2004.
10
MCWRA, Monterey County Groundwater Management Plan, Chapter 3 Basin Description, pages
3.14 & 3.15, May 2006.
11
Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Basin, J une 2011, Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Central Coast Region. Page I-1.

14
provides guidelines for interpretation of the narrative water quality objective and
indicates that application of irrigation water with chloride levels above 355 mg/L
may cause severe problems to crops and/or soils with increasing problems
occurring within the range of 142-355 mg/L.
12

The MRWRA and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board show
impairment to the water in the intruded area for drinking and agricultural uses.
Since this groundwater is impaired, it is unlikely that this water is or will be put to
beneficial use.
Local agencies have taken steps to reduce the rate of seawater intrusion and
enhance groundwater recharge in the SVGB. To address the seawater intrusion
problem, the MCWRA passed and adopted Ordinance No. 3709 in September
1993.
13
Ordinance No. 3709 prohibits groundwater extractions and installation of
new groundwater extraction facilities in certain areas within the seawater
intrusion zone. To enhance groundwater recharge, efforts have also been made
to increase fresh water percolation through the Castroville Seawater Intrusion
Project (CSIP) which was completed in 1998.
14
The CSIP is a program operated
by the Monterey County Water Pollution Control Agency that reduces
groundwater pumping from seawater intruded areas and distributes recycled
water to agricultural users within the SVGB. The program provides a form of
groundwater recharge by effectively reducing groundwater extraction in those
areas of the Basin that are part of the CSIP area. Despite these and other
efforts, seawater intrusion continues its inland trend into the Basin.
The groundwater quality in the Basin, and more specifically the ratio of seawater
to freshwater composition, will play a key role in determining the effects the
MPWSP extraction has on other users in the Basin. Additionally the past data
provides insight into future conditions which could be expected absent the
MPWSP.

12
CCRWQCB, Basin Plan, Pages III-5 and III-8.
13
MCWRA, Ordinance No. 3709, September 14, 1993.
14
FEIR 4.2-17.

15
Figure SWRCB 7
MONTEREY
BAY
Historic Seawater Int rusion Map
Legend Pressure 180-Foot Aquifer - 500 mg/L Chloride Areas
Seawater Intruded Areas By Year
- 1944
- 1965
- 1975
1997
1999
2001
1985 2003 CJCities
- 1993 - 2005
0 0.5 1.5

HC'Ie Tht tcalt tnd OMilO>I'flf< 01 .. hloN'!IMlew'lti'IOW'I
l'ltreon f!Ppt'Olli'nfU.,"r. hoet'lded <tJ"de
tof -..r.-tyOtdMiO'I....Oill.- COf*'-' rlnt..-d....,toM
... dl.

16
4.3 Groundwater Recharge and Discharge
An understanding of the groundwater recharge and discharge in a groundwater
basin is important since it can determine whether a basin is in overdraft or not.
Basins that have overdraft (i.e. more discharge than recharge) experience a
reduction in the amount of available groundwater. This shortage may lead to a
reduction to the amount of water a legal user may extract under their water right.
Groundwater recharge in the lower portion of the Salinas Valley is largely by
infiltration along the channel of the Salinas River and its tributaries. This
accounts for approximately 50 percent of the total recharge within the SVGB.
Approximately 40 percent of the total recharge is from irrigation return water with
the remaining 10 percent due to precipitation, subsurface inflow and seawater
intrusion.
15

Approximately 95 percent of outflow from the Basin is from pumping with the
remaining 5 percent due to riparian vegetation evapotranspiration. Groundwater
withdrawal outpaces groundwater recharge of fresh water, which results in
overdraft conditions.
16

Historically, groundwater flowed seaward to discharge zones in the walls of the
submarine canyon in Monterey Bay.
17
This seaward flow of groundwater
prevented seawater from intruding landward into the SVGB. In much of the area,
groundwater in the 180-Foot Aquifer and 400-Foot Aquifer is confined beneath
extensive clay layers, and the hydraulic head in the aquifers is influenced by the
elevation of the water table in the upgradient recharge areas where the aquifer
materials are near the surface. When a well is drilled through these confining
layers, this hydraulic head, or pressure head, forces water in wells to rise above
the top of the aquifer; such aquifers are called confined aquifers. With increased
pumping, groundwater head elevations in the 180-Foot and 400-Foot Aquifers
have declined creating large pumping depressions in the aquifer pressure

15
MCWRA, County Groundwater Management Plan, Chapter 3 Basin Description, pp. 3-10, May 2006
16
Ibid
17
DWR, Bulletin 118.

17
surface. These cause the groundwater gradient to slope landward, reversing the
historic seaward direction of groundwater flow. The pressure surface for the
water in these aquifers is now below sea level in much of the inland area and
flow is now dominantly northeastward from the ocean toward the pumping
depressions.
18
This northeastward flow gradient has allowed seawater to intrude
into the SVGB, thereby degrading groundwater quality in the 180-Foot and 400-
Foot Aquifers.
The Department of Water Resources calculated that total water inflow into the
180-Foot and 400-Foot Aquifers is approximately 117,000 afa. Urban and
agriculture extractions were estimated at 130,000 afa and subsurface outflow
was estimated at 8,000 afa.
19
Therefore, there is currently a net loss or overdraft
of approximately 21,000 afa in the 180-Foot and 400-Foot Aquifers. Basin
overdraft has averaged approximately 19,000 afa during the 1949 to 1994
hydrologic period with an average annual seawater intrusion rate of 11,000 af.
20

The overdraft condition is important because it limits the availability of fresh water
supplies to Basin users.
4.4 Groundwater Gradient
Based on the occurrence of large pumping depressions in inland areas, it can be
reasonably assumed that there is a strong landward gradient (slope) of
groundwater flow, at least within the 180-Foot Aquifer. However, because the
degree of confinement of the 180-Foot Aquifer and the degree of connection
between this aquifer and the overlying Dune Sand Aquifer are not known it is not
possible to accurately predict what the effects of the landward gradient of
groundwater flow will be for various extraction scenarios. However, if present,
this landward gradient in the 180-Foot Aquifer would be a factor in determining
the effects of the groundwater extraction, regardless of whether the aquifer is
confined or unconfined in this area. It is important to understand the
groundwater gradient in the area of the proposed MPWSP because it will

18
FEIR, Section 4.2, p. 4.2-9.
19
DWR, Bulletin 118.
20
Monterey County Groundwater Manage Plan, p. 3-10, May 2006

18
influence the amount of water extracted from the landward side versus the
seaward side of the basin. More investigation will be needed to verify the degree
of the gradient and determine its effects on the MPWSP.
4.5 Groundwater Modeling
A groundwater model that accurately reflects the hydrogeologic characteristics of
the Basin is critical in providing insight to the effects the MPWSP would have on
the Basin. As part of the FEIR for the Coastal Water Project, a local groundwater
flow and solute transport model (Model) was developed to determine the effects
that pumping would have on groundwater levels and seawater intrusion in the
area.
21
This Model was constructed using aquifer parameters, recharge and
discharge terms, boundary conditions and predictive scenarios developed for a
regional groundwater model called the Salinas Valley Integrated Groundwater
and Surface Model (SVIGSM). The Model was developed to specifically focus
on the North Marina area and has a much finer cell size than the SVIGSM,
allowing for improved resolution in the vicinity of the proposed MPWSP. The
Model can model seawater intrusion, a capability that the SVIGSM does not
have.
The Model consists of six layers. The layers represented from top to bottom are
the following: (1) a layer directly beneath the ocean that allows direct connection
from the ocean to the aquifers; (2) the 180-Foot Aquifer; (3) an unnamed
aquitard; (4) the 400-Foot Aquifer; (5) an unnamed aquitard; and (6) the Deep
Aquifer. It should be noted the Model does not include a layer that represents
the SVA.
22
Therefore, the Model assumes that the 180-Foot Aquifer is
unconfined.
The Models aquifer parameters such as depth, hydraulic conductivity, storativity,
and effective porosity were obtained from the SVIGSM. In addition, monthly data
for recharge and discharge values were obtained from the SVIGSM. The North

21
FEIR, Appendix E, Geoscience, North Marina Groundwater Model Evaluation of Projects, J uly 2008.
22
FEIR, Appendix E, Geoscience, North Marina Groundwater Model Evaluation of Projects, p. 19, J uly
2008.

19
Marina predictive scenario was run for a 56-year period from October 1948 through
September 2004. This is the same period used in the SVIGSM predictive
scenarios.
Two potential projects were evaluated with the Model: (1) the North Marina
Project; and (2) the Regional Project. In both of these alternatives, the 180-Foot
Aquifer was modeled as an unconfined aquifer. It is not known if the MPWSP
wells would indeed be in unconfined conditions. Consequently, the alternatives
results discussed below may or may not be predictive of the MPWSP. In
addition, the groundwater model did not include the Portrero Road alternative.
Therefore, an updated groundwater model that accurately reflects the local
hydrogeologic conditions for all alternatives is needed in order to estimate the
effects the MPWSP would have on the Basin and groundwater users.
5. Proposed Monterey Peninsula Water Suppl y Project
On March 8, 2013, the Commission requested that the State Water Board evaluate two
possible alternatives for the MPWSP; a preferred alternative consisting of gravity well
design and a secondary alternative consisting of a pumping well design. This section
contains a discussion on the intake design of both alternatives and potential effects
each would have on the SVGB. .
5.1 Gravity Well Design
The preferred alternative has two options for the feedwater intake system: a 6.4
mgd system consisting of seven slant wells and a 9.6 mgd system consisting of
nine slant wells. This report focuses on the 9.6 mgd system since it has the
potential to have a greater effect on the groundwater basin. The 9.6 mgd system
will consist of eight slant wells and one test slant well. Results of the test well will
dictate final well design and will determine whether the wells would extract water
from the Dune Sand Aquifer and/or the 180-Foot Aquifer. The proposed location
of the gravity intake system is adjacent to the 376-acre parcel of land owned by
the CEMEX Corporation (Figure SWRCB 1). The wells system would consist of
two four- well clusters (North Cluster and South Cluster) plus the test well. Each

20
well will be thirty inches in diameter and will be up to approximately 630 feet in
length and will have up to 470 feet of screen. The wells will be designed as
gravity wells such that they will not require submersible well pumps. The output
of each slant well is estimated at approximately 1,800 gpm. Each slant well will
have an 8-foot diameter vertical cassion, which will be connected to a 36-inch
diameter beach connector pipeline via an 18-inch diameter gravity connector.
Feedwater will flow by gravity from the slant well to the gravity connector and to
the beach connector pipeline where it will enter a 23 mgd intake pump station.
The intake pump system will pump the feedwater to the desalination plant using
four 250-horsepower pumps. The total well capacity required is approximately
23 mgd to meet the feedwater requirement for a 9.6 mgd desalination plant
operating at an overall recovery of 42 percent.
The gravity well design is a new alternative presented to the State Water Board
for evaluation at the CEMEX owned property. State Water Board staff previously
evaluated a pumping well alternative at the CEMEX site and found that the
pumped wells would have an impact to groundwater users within a 2mile radius
of the wells. Since modeling has not been done for the gravity well alternative,
State Water Board staff is unable to accurately predict impact to existing users
from the gravity wells.
5.2 Pumping Well Design
As described in the Commissions February 14, 2013 correspondence, the
secondary alternative (Intake Contingency Option 3) would include a feedwater
intake system consisting of nine pumped slant wells extending offshore into the
Monterey Bay. The slant wells would extract 23 mgd of water from the Dune
Sand Aquifer and convey the water via a 36-inch diameter connector pipeline to
a 23 mgd intake pump station and finally to the desalination plant. The slant
wells would be installed at the parking lot on the west end of Portrero Road along
the roadway that parallels the beach north of the parking lot (Figure SWRCB 2).
The potential impacts from the pumping wells at this site cannot be yet be
determined since groundwater modeling has not been done. Until an accurate

21
groundwater model is developed for this area, State Water Board staff is unable
to determine the extent of impacts to existing water users.
5.3 Groundwater Capture Zone Delineation
For aquifers with a substantial gradient (slope) in the direction of groundwater
flow, there is an important distinction between the cone of depression around the
pumping well (area where the water surface or pressure head is lowered) and the
capture zone for water that flows to the pumping well. Where there is an existing
slope to the water table or pressure surface of the groundwater system, not all
the water in the cone of depression flows to the pumping well, and much of the
water the pumping well intercepts is far outside the cone of depression in the
upgradient direction. The practical effect of this situation is that, with an
landward gradient of groundwater flow, more of the water captured by the
pumping well comes from the upgradient direction (in this case from the seaward
direction) and a much smaller proportion of the water captured by the pumping
well is from downgradient (inland) direction. Water captured from the seaward
direction would likely be seawater. Water captured from the landward side could
potentially have a greater likelihood of capturing some portion of freshwater.
Therefore, because the gradient means more water will be captured from the
seaward direction there is a reduced possibility that the wells will capture
freshwater.
An individual might assume the extraction wells would draw water equally from
seaward and landward areas. While this may be true in a system that has no
gradient of flow, it would not be true in the proposed MPWSP area because there
is a significant gradient of groundwater flow from the seaward areas toward the
inland pumping depressions. In this situation, the extraction well system would
draw most of its water from the upgradient (seaward) direction, and very little of
the fresh water from inland areas would be captured. In the long-term, the
situation would be altered and the source of the water drawn from the extraction
well system would need to be reevaluated under the following conditions: (1) if
pumping of fresh water from inland areas is reduced to the point that the

22
groundwater system is in equilibrium, and (2) the pumping depressions are
eliminated such that there is no longer a landward gradient flow.
The FEIR groundwater modeling studies conducted for the proposed extraction
of groundwater from the 180-Foot Aquifer included an evaluation of groundwater
elevations and gradients. The modeling evaluated the effects the landward
gradient of groundwater flow could have in determining the source of water that
would be captured by the extraction well system. As more information about the
groundwater system becomes available, a more detailed evaluation of the
capture zone for the extraction system will be possible. This type of capture
zone analysis will be important in evaluating the long-term effects of the
extraction well system and any potential impacts on existing water users.
5.4 Extraction Scenarios
There are three likely scenarios in which Cal-Am would extract groundwater for
its MPWSP: (1) extraction from gravity wells from an unconfined aquifer and/or a
confined aquifer; (2) pumping from an unconfined aquifer; and (3) pumping from
a confined aquifer.
5.4.1 Extraction of Feedwater by Gravity Wells
Cal-Am has proposed to construct a slant test well and collect data that
will determine if the gravity well alternative is feasible. If water is extracted
using gravity wells, the hydraulic effects on the aquifer would be the same
for either pumped wells or the proposed gravity wells as long as the
amount of drawdown in the wells is the same. Likewise, if the wells were
completed in either a confined or an unconfined aquifer, the effects on
those aquifers would be the same if the level of drawdown in the wells
were the same. However, if a pumping well had a greater drawdown than
a gravity well, there would be more of an effect to the aquifer from the
pumping well. The important factor is not what mechanism induces flow
from the wells but the actual drawdown produced in the groundwater
system.

23
The gravity well system would limit the maximum amount of drawdown
from the extraction wells to the head differential between sea level and the
depth of the intake pump station that the gravity wells would drain into.
This would add a level of protection against drawing more water from the
shoreward side because it would preclude the larger drawdowns that
could be obtained with submersible pumps in the wells. The cone of
depression (zone of influence) for the extraction well system would be
limited by the fixed head differential established by the depth of the intake
pump station. This configuration will also likely prevent the operator from
being able to maintain maximum flow rates from the extraction well system
because there is no ability to increase pumping rates should tidal effects
become a factor. The obvious potential problem with the gravity well
scenario is that if the flow to the wells is limited by lower permeability
zones or well efficiency problems, the operator cannot increase pumping
rates to obtain the quantities of water the system is designed to achieve.
5.4.2 Pumping from Unconfined Conditions
If pumping were to occur under unconfined conditions, water would be
extracted either from the Dune Sand Aquifer or from the 180-Foot Aquifer
(if the SVA is not present at the proposed well-site). In general, when
water is pumped from an unconfined aquifer, water is removed from the
aquifer and the water table in the aquifer is lowered as water drains by
gravity from the pore spaces in the aquifer. This lowering or drawdown of
the water table causes a cone of depression that is greatest close to the
well and gets smaller in all directions as the distance from the well
increases.
23
Modeling results of the North Marina Project show that
pumping would cause a decline in groundwater elevations at the slant
wells of approximately 15 feet. There would be about a 2-foot decline in
groundwater levels approximately one mile from the slant wells decreasing

23
Driscoll, 1986, Groundwater and Wells, p. 63-64.

24
to less than 0.5 feet about 1.5 miles away.
24
The lowering of groundwater
levels approximately 2 miles from the slant wells likely would be negligible.
If the final design calls for gravity wells at the north Marina site, then
modeling would be needed to estimate the effects from the gravity wells.
Since modeling was not done for the Portrero Road site the effects from
pumping at that location are unknown. Once the zone of influence is
estimated for each location and each pumping scenario then any wells
within the zone of influence would be affected by project pumping and
possibly cause injury.
According to information from the State Water Boards GAMA database,
approximately 14 wells are within 2 miles of the proposed MPWSP (Figure
SWRCB 8). All of these wells are within the seawater-intruded portion of
the Basin. The MPWSP drawdown would change the groundwater
gradient within the zone of influence causing a radial flow of groundwater
toward the extraction wells.
25
Currently, the predominant groundwater
flow direction in the 180-Foot Aquifer is toward the northeast. Project
pumping would likely change the flow direction to more of a southwest to
westerly direction within the zone of influence. Outside the zone of
influence there would be little if any change to groundwater flow direction;
however, the rate of flow in the original direction (northeast) would be
reduced. Therefore, the MPWSP would slow the rate of seawater
intrusion in a landward direction from the wells.

24
FEIR, Appendix E, p. 21 (E-28).
25
Driscoll, 1986, Groundwater and Wells, 63-64.

25

Figure SWRCB 8
B
_... 12"'
Coogle ..: ,...;. ,,. -__,.-...J
eru.om SlooJgll
@
Neuonal Estuanne
RtultClhAeHNe

0
North of CEMEX site Gravity Well Alternative
Monitoring Wells - Regulated Si tes (exact
l ocati ons di spl ayed)
Suppl y Wells- Cal. O!!partml!nt of Public
Heal th (wi thin one mile of actual l ocati on)
Suppl y Wells - Other (within 112 mile of actual
l ocati on)
Icons wi th a Circle Around Them Si gnify a
Cluster of Wells

26

As mentioned above, groundwater flow to the MPWSP extraction wells
would initially be from all directions in a radial pattern. Because the ocean
provides a constant source of nearby recharge to the extraction wells, the
zone of influence for the extraction wells cannot expand much farther than
the distance between the extraction wells and the ocean, or in the case of
confined aquifer conditions, the distance between the extraction wells and
the undersea outcrop of the confined aquifer. While a portion of the water
flowing to the well does come from the less saline water on the shoreward
side, the relative percentage of water drawn from the shoreward side of
the wells will depend on various factors, including the gradient of
groundwater flow toward inland pumping depressions. If the North Marina
Project model is applicable, then approximately 87 percent of the water
pumped (approximately 21,400 afa) would come from the ocean side of
the wells and approximately 13 percent of the water (approximately 3,250
afa) would come from the landward side of the wells.
26
It is unlikely that
pumping from an unconfined aquifer would extract fresh groundwater
since the seawater intrusion front is approximately 5 miles landward from
the proposed pumps. Because the Model shows that the seawater
intrusion front remains basically the same with or without the North Marina
Project, it is likely that the amount of water (3,250 afa) extracted from the
eastern portion of the aquifer will be brackish (intruded) water. Although
this brackish water is of substantially better quality than seawater, it is
likely degraded to the point that it is not suitable for any beneficial use
other than feedwater for desalination purposes.
5.4.3 Pumping from Confined Conditions
If pumping were to occur under confined conditions, water would be
extracted from the confined 180-Foot Aquifer. When a confined aquifer is
pumped, the loss of hydraulic head occurs rapidly because the release of

26
FEIR, Appendix E, Geoscience, North Marina Groundwater Model Evaluation of Projects p. 22
(E-29), J uly 2008.

27
the water from storage is entirely due to the compressibility of the aquifer
material and the water.
27
This zone of influence in a confined aquifer is
commonly several thousand times larger than in an unconfined aquifer.
28

Therefore, the effects from MPWSP pumping on the groundwater
pressure head would occur more rapidly and over a much larger area than
the effects seen in an unconfined aquifer. Modeling in the FEIR did not
predict the effects of pumping from a confined condition, so there are no
estimates on the extent of potential impacts. Generally speaking, the
pressure head would be lowered in wells much further inland and the long-
term effects on groundwater flow direction would be felt over a wider area.
Since pumping from a confined condition would affect a much larger area,
there would be a greater likelihood of the MPWSP affecting groundwater
users at greater distances from the project location.
5.5 Summary of Impacts
There are two types of potential impacts the proposed extraction wells could
have on inland water users. First, the inland groundwater users may experience
a reduction in groundwater levels in their wells, with associated increases in
pumping costs. This type of effect could be reasonably evaluated with
groundwater modeling. Until the degree of confinement and connection between
the Dune Sand Aquifer and the 180-Foot Aquifer has been more thoroughly
studied, the potential for injury to inland water users due to reduced groundwater
elevations and diversion of fresh water from the aquifer cannot be determined.
The second type of effect the extraction well system could have on in-Basin
groundwater users is a reduction in the quantity of fresh water that is available for
their future use. This effect would not be felt immediately and would depend on a
variety of factors. Since the capture zone for the extraction well system will likely
be limited to areas already heavily impacted by seawater intrusion, it would not
be appropriate to inject or percolate desalinated water in this intruded area, as

27
Driscoll, 1986, Groundwater and Wells, p. 64-65.
28
United States Geologic Survey, Sustainability of Groundwater Resources, Circular 1186. Section A, p.
2.

28
the water would essentially be wasted. Another alternative would be to supply
replacement water to the existing CSIP system for delivery to groundwater users
in the affected area. The reduction in the availability of fresh water would not be
felt immediately; thus, replacement water could be provided after the MPWSP
has been in operation and modeling information becomes available to evaluate
the actual quantity of fresh water that needs to be returned to the system.
6. Legal Discussion of Proposed Extraction Wells in Basin
Although the Basin is in a condition of overdraft, the Basin has not been adjudicated
and water withdrawals by the Basins users are not quantified by court decree. Water
users state the Basins water is managed through cooperative agreements reached by
the Basins groundwater users.
29
Users claim that Cal-Ams proposed Project would
disrupt the Basins agreements, lead to a costly adjudication, and are barred by
principles of groundwater law.
30

Cal-Am needs no groundwater right or other water right to extract seawater from
Monterey Bay. Based on the information provided, however, the proposed MPWSP
could extract some fresh water from within the Basin. An appropriative groundwater
right is needed to extract water from the Basin for use outside the parcel where the
wells are located.
31
To appropriate groundwater from the Basin, Cal-Am will have to
demonstrate that the MPWSP will extract water that is surplus to the needs of
groundwater users in the Basin and injury to those users will not result. Because the
Basin is in a condition of overdraft, to appropriate water for non-overlying uses, any
fresh water that Cal-Am pumps will have to be replaced.
32

29
Salinas Valley Water Coalition, Letter to State Water Board Chair, Charles Hoppin, (December 3,
2012).
30
See generally, Application 12-04-019 before the California Public Utilities Commission, Opening Brief of
LandWatch Monterey County Regarding Groundwater Rights and Public Ownership, J uly 10, 2012;
Opening Brief of Various Legal Issues of Monterey County Farm Bureau, J uly 10, 2012, available at:
www.cpuc.ca.gov.
31
An appropriative groundwater right is not necessary to recover water injected or otherwise used to
recharge the aquifer, where the water used for recharge would not recharge the aquifer naturally.
32
Additionally, the Monterey County Water Resources Act, (Stats. 1990 ch.52 21. Wests Ann. Cal.
Water Code App.) prohibits water from being exported outside the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin.

29
6.1 General Principles of Groundwater Law
Groundwater rights may generally be classified as overlying, prescriptive or
appropriative.
33
Overlying users of groundwater have correlative rights which are
rights similar to riparian users rights, and an overlying user can pump as much
water as the user can apply to reasonable and beneficial use on the overlying
parcel so long as other overlying users are not injured. (City of Barstow v.
Mojave Water Agency (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1224, 1240 (Mojave).) In times of
shortage, pumping must be curtailed correlatively, to provide each overlying user
a reasonable share of the available supply. (Id. at 1241.)
Prescriptive rights are acquired through the taking of water that is not surplus or
excess to the needs of other groundwater users. Similar to other prescriptive
property rights, if the elements of prescriptive use are metthe use is actual,
open, notorious, hostile, adverse to the original owner, continuous and
uninterrupted for the statutory period of five yearsa user may acquire a
prescriptive right. (California Water Service Co. v. Edward Sidebotham & Son
(1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 715, 726.)
Appropriative groundwater rights apply to users who extract groundwater other
than those described above. (Mojave, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p.1241.)
Appropriative groundwater rights are not to be confused with appropriative rights
that apply to surface waters or subterranean streams administered by the State
Water Board. Unlike appropriative water rights that are permitted by the State
Water Board, appropriative groundwater rights are any rights to pump
groundwater that do not fall into either the overlying or prescriptive category.
34

No permit is required by the State Water Board to acquire or utilize appropriative
groundwater rights.
Because Cal-Am proposes to export water from the Basin to non-overlying
parcels in the Monterey Region, an appropriative groundwater right is required.

33
Groundwater rights referenced in this report apply to percolating groundwater only.
34
This is generally true. There are other types of rights, including pueblo rights, federal reserved rights,
and rights to recover water stored underground pursuant to surface water rights. These other types of
rights are not discussed in detail in this report.

30
To appropriate groundwater, a user must show the water is surplus to existing
uses or does not exceed the safe yield of the affected basin. (City of Los
Angeles v. City of San Fernando (1975) 14 Cal.3d 199, 214.) The appropriator
must show the use will not harm or cause injury to any other legal user of water.
The burden is on the appropriator to demonstrate a surplus exists. (Allen v.
California Water and Tel. Co. (1946) 29 Cal.2d 466, 481.) But if, after excluding
all present and potential reasonable beneficial uses,
35
there is water wasted or
unused or not put to any beneficial uses, the supply may be said to be ample
for all, a surplus or excess exists and the appropriator may take the surplus or
excess (Peabody v. City of Vallejo (1935) 2 Cal.2d 351, 368-369 (Peabody).)
As discussed previously, because groundwater in the Basin is in a condition of
overdraft, the only way to show there is surplus water available for export to non-
overlying parcels is for a user to develop a new water source.
Cal-Ams proposed MPWSP would pump brackish water. The exact composition
is yet to be determined, but the proposed source water is substantially degraded
by seawater intrusion and other natural factors. Estimates based on the North
Marina Project description are that 13 percent of the total water pumped through
the proposed wells could be attributed to the landward portion of the Basin and
87 percent could come from the seaward direction relative to the pump locations.
Based on data currently available, the State Water Board is unable to estimate
what percentage or proportion of water extracted from the Basin landward of the
proposed well location could be attributed to fresh water sources. It is known,
however, that the Basins waters are degraded some distance landward from the
proposed wells. MCWRA currently estimates that seawater has intruded into the
180-Foot Aquifer approximately 5 miles inland. It is unknown whether seawater
has intruded the Dune Sand Aquifer, but the reported poor water quality of the
Dune Sand Aquifer likely limits beneficial uses of its water.

35
Potential overlying uses are often inherently implicated in determining whether a long-term surplus
actually exists. Where a basin is not in overdraft, however, there may be temporary surplus where
probable future overlying uses have not yet been developed.

31
6.2 Developed Water
Water an appropriator pumps that was not previously available to other legal
users can be classified as developed or salvaged water.
36
[I]f the driving of
tunnels or making of cuts is the development of water, as it must be conceded it
is, we perceive no good reason why the installation of a pump or pumping-plant
is not equally such development. (Garvey Water Co. v. Huntington Land & Imp.
Co. (1908) 154 Cal. 232, 241.) Further, it is generally accepted that whoever
creates a new source of water should be rewarded by their efforts. (See
generally Hoffman v. Stone (1857) 7 Cal. 46, 49-50.)
If Cal-Am shows it is extracting water that no Basin user would put to beneficial
use, Cal-Am could show its proposed desalination MPWSP develops new water
in the Basin, water that could not have been used absent Cal-Ams efforts to
make it potable. Of course, this does not apply to any source water that is
considered fresh or non-brackish and would not be considered developed water.
Making use of water before it becomes unsuitable to support beneficial uses or is
wasted, is supported both by statute, case law and the California Constitution,
which in part states: the general welfare requires that the water resources of the
State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent of which they are capableand
that the conservation of such waters is to be exercised with a view to the
reasonable and beneficial use thereof. (Cal. Const., art. X, 2; see also City of
Lodi v. East Bay Municipal Utility District (1936) 7 Cal.2d 316, 339-341 (Lodi);
[salvaged water that would otherwise be wasted should be put to beneficial use].)
The key principle of developed waters is if no lawful water user is injured, the
effort of an individual to capture water that would otherwise be unused should be
legally recognized. As the court determined in Cohen v. La Canada Land and
Water Co. (1907) 151 Cal. 680 (La Canada), if water would never reach or be

36
The concepts of developed and salvaged waters are closely related and the legal concepts are the
same. Technically, salvaged waters usually refers to waters that are part of a water supply and are saved
from loss whereas developed waters are new waters that are brought to an area by means of artificial
works. (See Hutchins, The California Law of Water Rights (1956) p. 383.) For purposes of this report,
the distinction is largely irrelevant and the term developed waters will be used throughout for consistency.

32
used by others there can be no injury. (Id. at p. 691.) In La Canada, waters
which were secured by the construction of tunnels could be considered
developed waters as the waters were determined to trend away from the
direction of the natural watershed and would never have reached it and would be
lost if left to percolate in their natural flow. (Ibid.)
Under these circumstances, as the waters developed by the
tunnels were not waters which would have trended towards or
supported or affected any stream flowing by the land of
appellant,she was not injured as an adjoining proprietor or as an
appropriator, and hence could not complain or insist upon the
application of the rule announced in the cases cited to prevent the
respondents from taking such developed waters to any lands to
which they might see fit to conduct them.
(La Canada, supra, 151 Cal. at p. 692.)
[F]ull recognition is accorded of the right to water of one who saves as well as of
one who develops it. (Pomona Land and Water Co. v. San Antonio Water Co.
(1908) 152 Cal. 618, 623-624 (Pomona) citing Wiggins v. Muscupaibe Land &
Water Co. (1896) 113 Cal. 182, 195 (Wiggins).)
[I]f plaintiffs get the one half of the natural flow to which they are
entitled delivered, unimpaired in quantity and quality, through a
pipe-line, they are not injured by the fact that other water, which
otherwise would go to wastewas rescued. Nor can they lay claim
to any of the water so saved.
(Pomona, supra, 152 Cal. at p. 631.)
In summary, if there is no injury, a user should be able to develop all water
available:
The plaintiff could under no circumstances be entitled to the use of
more water than would reach his land by the natural flow of the
stream, and, if he receives this flow upon his land, it is immaterial to
him whether it is received by means of the natural course of the
stream or by artificial means. On the other hand, if the defendant is
enabled by artificial means to give to the plaintiff all of the water he
is entitled to receive, no reason can be assigned why it should not
be permitted to divert from the streamand preserve and utilize the
one hundred inches which would otherwise be lost by absorption
and evaporation.

33
(Wiggins, supra, 113 Cal. at p. 196.)
As discussed above, in developing a new water source Cal-Am must establish no
other legal user of water is injured in the process. Even if Cal-Am pumps water
unsuitable to support beneficial uses, the water could not be considered
developed water unless users who pump from areas that could be affected by
Cal-Ams MPWSP are protected from harm.
Cal-Am proposes a replacement program for the MPWSP water that can be
attributed to fresh water supplies or sources in the Basin. If Cal-Am can show all
users are uninjured because they are made whole by the replacement water
supply and method of replacement, export of the desalinated source water would
be permissible and qualify as developed water. In the future, this developed
water, under the above described conditions, would continue to be available for
export even if there are additional users in the Basin. Developed waters are
available for use by the party who develops them, subject to the no injury
standard discussed previously.
Cal-Am could use one or more of several possible methods to replace any fresh
water it extracts from the Basin. Cal-Am could return the water to the aquifer
through injection wells, percolation basins, or through the CSIP. Cal-Am would
need to determine which of those methods would be the most feasible, and
would in fact, ensure no harm to existing legal users. The feasibility analysis
would depend on site-specific geologic conditions at reinjection well locations
and at the percolation areas. These studies need to be described and supported
in detail before Cal-Am can claim an appropriative right to export surplus
developed water from the Basin.
6.3 Physical Solution Discussion
To operate the MPWSP, Cal-Am must ensure the MPWSP will not injure other
legal users in the Basin. This could require implementation of a physical
solution.

34
A physical solution is one that assures all water right holders have their rights
protected without unnecessarily reducing the diversions of others. The phrase
physical solution is used in water-rights cases to describe an agreed upon or
judicially imposed resolution of conflicting claims in a manner that advances the
constitutional rule of reasonable and beneficial use of the state's water supply.
(City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 266, 286 (City of Santa
Maria).) A physical solution may be imposed by a court in connection with an
adjudication of a groundwater basin where rights of all parties are quantified, as
part of a groundwater management program, or as part of a water development
project.
37
One important characteristic of a physical solution is that it may not
adversely impact a partys existing water right. (Mojave, supra, 23 Cal.4th 1224,
1251.) Physical solutions are frequently used in groundwater basins to protect
existing users rights, maintain groundwater quality, allow for future development,
and implement the constitutional mandate against waste and unreasonable use.
(See California American Water v. City of Seaside (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 471,
480.)
From the standpoint of applying the States waters to maximum beneficial use,
and to implement Article X, section 2 of the California Constitution, physical
solutions can and should be imposed to reduce waste.
38
(See, e.g., Lodi, supra,
7 Cal.2d 316, 339-341, 344-345; Hillside Memorial Park and Mortuary v. Golden
State Water Co. (2011) 205 Cal.App.4th 534, 549-550.) In Lodi, a physical
solution was imposed to limit the wasting of water to the sea. The defendant
appropriator was required to keep water levels above levels that would injure the
senior user or to supply equivalent water to the plaintiff. (Lodi, supra, 7 Cal.2d
316, 339-341, 344-345.)

37
Sawyer, State Regulation of Groundwater Pollution Caused by Changes in Groundwater Quantity or
Flow (1998) 19 Pacific. L.J .1267, 1297.
38
Additionally, Water Code section 12947 states the general policy of promoting saline water conversion
to freshwater in the State.

35
Agreement of all parties is not necessary for a physical solution to be imposed.
(See Lodi, supra, at p.341, citing Tulare Irrigation District v. Lindsay Strathmore
Irrigation District (1935) 3 Cal.2d 489, 574.) In addition, a basin need not be
determined to be in a condition of overdraft for a physical solution to be instituted.
Although we may use physical solutions to alleviate an overdraft situation, there
is no requirement that there be an overdraft before the court may impose a
physical solution. (City of Santa Maria, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th, 266, 288.)
Likewise, a physical solution can also be imposed in a basin that is determined to
be in a condition of overdraft. (See generally Pasadena v. Alhambra (1949) 33
Cal.2d 908 [in a situation of continued overdraft, the court imposed limits on all
users].)
Under the physical solution doctrine, although the Basin continues to be in a
condition of overdraft, to maximize beneficial use of the states waters Cal-Am
may be allowed to pump a mixture of seawater and fresh water and export the
desalinated water to non-overlying parcels. To avoid injury to other users and
protect beneficial uses of the Basins waters, Cal-Am would be required to return
its fresh water component to the Basin in such a way that existing users are not
harmed and foreseeable uses of the Basin water are protected.
Modeling of the North Marina Project, which may be similar to the MPWSP,
indicates that approximately 3,250 afa could be extracted from the landward
direction of the slant wells, or approximately 13 percent of the total water
extracted could be water that is contained or sourced from the Basin rather than
seawater derived from Monterey Bay. The percentage of this water that is fresh
or potable would have to be determined and the proportion of fresh water that is
extracted for the desalination facility would have to be replaced. The exact
method for replacing the fresh water extracted will be a key component of any
legally supportable project. Replacement methods such as fresh water injection
to recharge wells, fresh water delivery to recharge basins, or applying additional
fresh water through the CSIP program would need to be further examined to
implement a physical solution that ensures no injury to other legal users. Cal-Am

36
would need to determine which of those methods would be the most feasible and
result in returning the Basin to pre-project conditions.
One possibility raised by the parties is that Basin conditions may change in the
future, and if the seawater intrusion front shifts seaward, Cal-Am may extract a
higher proportion of freshwater from its wells and reach a limit where it will be
infeasible for it to return a like amount of fresh water back to the Basin and still
deliver the amount of desalinated water needed for off-site uses. Based on the
current project design and location of the extraction wells, it is highly unlikely that
in the foreseeable future Cal-Am will draw an increased percentage of freshwater
from wells located several hundred feet offshore. If pumping within the Basin
remains unchanged, it is projected that the MPWSP would not pump fresh water
within a 56-year period if pumping occurred in an unconfined aquifer. Since
modeling has not been done simulating confined conditions, the extent of the
impact on fresh water supply or wells is unknown in this situation. If, however,
Basin conditions do change and Cal-Ams freshwater extractions increase,
several scenarios could develop.
39

One possible scenario is that Cal-Am could show that (1) but-for the MPWSP,
new fresh water would not be available in the Basin, and (2) as it continues to
operate the MPWSP, the increased amount of fresh water available is developed
water that would have previously been unavailable both to it and to other users.
If this increased freshwater available to Basin users alleviates seawater intrusion
issues, as well as provides for a new supply in excess of what would otherwise
be available in the Basin, a physical solution could be imposed that would
apportion the new water supply and allow continued pumping.
Another possibility is that Basin conditions could improve independent of
MPWSP operation. If increased freshwater availability in the Basin could not be
attributed to the MPWSP and Cal-Ams freshwater extractions exceed what it can

39
North Marina Project modeling showed that if pumping occurred in an unconfined aquifer over a 56
year period, then pumping would have little to no effect on the movement of the seawater intrusion front.

37
return to the Basin, Cal-Am may have to limit its export diversions to ensure that
other legal users are not injured.
Based on historical uses of water in the Basin and despite efforts to reduce
groundwater pumping in seawater intruded areas through enactment of
Ordinance 3709 and efforts to increase recharge through the CSIP, there is no
evidence to suggest that Basin conditions will improve independent of the
MPWSP without a comprehensive solution to the overdraft conditions.
There is expected to be minimal impact to freshwater sources at start-up and for
the first several years of operation as water will certainly be sourced from the
intruded portion of the aquifer. The magnitude and timing of the effect on other
users would have to be determined to allow for a design solution to mitigate the
impact of continued operation. (See Lodi, 7 Cal.2d 316, 342; [the fact that there
is no immediate danger to the City of Lodi's water right is an element to be
considered in working out a proper solution.] The physical solution doctrine
could allow for an adjustment of rights, so long as others legal rights are not
infringed upon or injured. [I]f a physical solution be ascertainable, the court has
the power to make and should make reasonable regulations for the use of the
water by the respective partiesand in this connection the court has the power
to and should reserve unto itself the right to change and modify its orders
(Peabody, supra, 2 Cal.2d at pp. 383-384.)
If and when impacts to freshwater resources in the Basin are observed,
freshwater injection wells would have to be designed to ensure water is injected
in areas not already degraded. Alternatively, or in conjunction with injection
wells, Cal-Am could ensure an adequate supply of replacement water is
maintained within the CSIP program. Initial studies would be needed to
determine the most suitable location based on soil permeability for additional
percolation basins, if necessary. As with injection wells, percolation basins would
need to be located where the underlying aquifer does not contain degraded
water.

38
Based on the information provided in the FEIR, North Marina Project modeling
suggests a zone of influence of approximately 2 miles from the proposed
extraction wells.
40
Within this zone, there are approximately 14 known water
wells. These 14 wells are within the seawater intruded portion of the Basin. The
current use of these wells is unknown; however, it is unlikely the MPWSP would
injure users of these wells as the wells are within a zone where water quality is
significantly impacted from seawater intrusion. Within this 2-mile radial zone, the
two foreseeable injuries that overlying users could experience are: (1) a
reduction in the overall availability of fresh water due to possible incidental
extraction by the MPWSP; and, (2) a reduction in groundwater elevations
requiring users to expend additional pumping energy to extract water from the
Basin. Monetary compensation for increased pumping costs is one possible
mitigation approach for any lowering of the water table caused by the MPWSP.
If the MPWSP wells are located where unconfined aquifer conditions exist,
Project pumping likely would extract brackish groundwater. The majority of the
source water would be from within the seawater-intruded portion of the Basin as
the seawater intrusion front extends approximately 5 miles landward from the
proposed well locations. If the MPWSP receives source water from a confined
aquifer it would affect a much larger area in the Basin, but without test wells and
data showing operations under confined aquifer conditions, it is not possible to
determine what percentage of fresh water would be pumped under confined
conditions. Staff concludes, however, that the potential for injury is greater if the
source water is pumped under confined conditions.
6.4 Summary of Legal Analysis
In summary, to appropriate groundwater from the Basin, the burden is on Cal-Am
to show no injury to other users. Key factors will be the following: (1) how much
fresh water Cal-Am is extracting as a proportion of the total pumped amount and
how much desalinated sea water is thus available for export as developed water;
(2) whether pumping affects the water table level in existing users wells and

40
FEIR, Appendix E, Page 21 (E-28).

39
whether Cal-Am can mitigate any lowering of water levels through monetary
compensation or paying for upgraded wells; (3) how Cal Am should return any
fresh water it extracts to the Basin to prevent injury to others; and (4) how
groundwater rights might adjust in the future if the proportion of fresh and sea
water changes, both in the larger Basin area and the immediate area around Cal-
Ams wells.
As discussed in this report, additional data will be necessary to ensure that
continued operation of the MPWSP, under different source water extraction
scenarios, will not injure other legal groundwater users.
Both near- and long-term, a physical solution could ensure an adequate water
supply for all legal water users in the Basin and provide an assured supply of
groundwater to the Basins users.
41
Even if overdraft conditions continued in the
Basin following imposition of the solution, Cal-Am possibly could continue
pumping brackish water legally so long as the quantity was not detrimental to the
conditions in the Basin and other Basin users rights. When the supply is limited
public interest requires that there be the greatest number of beneficial uses
which the supply can yield. (Peabody, supra, 2 Cal.2d at p. 368.)
So long as overlying users are protected from injury, appropriation of water
consistent with the principles previously discussed in this report should be
possible. (See generally Burr v. MacClay Rancho Water Co. (1908) 154 Cal.
428, 430-31, 438-39 [if an appropriator does not exceed average annual

41
Some parties argue an adjudication of the Basins rights would be needed for the MPWSP to proceed.
While adjudication could provide some benefits to the Basins users it is not necessary for a physical
solution to be imposed. For reference, there are three general procedures by which an adjudication or
rights to use groundwater in the Basin could be quantified and conditioned: 1) civil action with no state
participation; 2) civil action where a reference is made to the State Water Board pursuant to Water Code
section 2000; or 3) a State Water Board determination, pursuant to the outlined statutory procedure that
groundwater must be adjudicated in order to restrict pumping or a physical solution is necessary to
preserve the quality of the groundwater and to avoid injury to users. (Wat. Code, 2100 et seq.)
Whether Cal-Am could force an adjudication of water rights is beyond the scope of this report but will be
briefly discussed. As applied in Corona Foothill Lemon Co. v. Lillibridge, (1937) 8 Cal. 2d 522, 531-32,
an exporter cannot force an apportionment where it is conclusively shown that no surplus water exists
and there is no controversy among overlying owners. But a conclusive showing that there is no water
available for export does not appear to be the case here. Water that is currently unusable, both due to its
location in the Basin and corresponding quality, could be rendered usable if desalinated and would thus
be surplus to current water supplies in the Basin.

40
replenishment of groundwater supply, lower users water levels in wells or restrict
future pumping, the appropriators use is not adverse to other users].). Additional
support is found in City of San Bernardino v. City of Riverside (1921) 186 Cal. 7,
20; No injunction should issue against the taking of water while the supply is
ample for all. But the respective priorities of each water right should be
adjudged, so that if in the future the supply falls below the quantity necessary for
all, he who has the prior right may have his preferred right protected.
Cal-Am should have the opportunity to show any desalinated water it produces is
surplus to the current needs of the Basin, replacement water methods are
effective and feasible, and the MPWSP can operate without injury to other users.
As discussed earlier, if the MPWSP pumps source water from an unconfined
aquifer, there may be no injury to other users outside of a 2-mile radius, with the
exception of possibly slightly lower groundwater levels in the seawater-intruded
area. Based on current information we do not know the exact effects on other
users if source water is pumped from a confined aquifer, but the effects in
general will be amplified.
7. Conclusion
The key determination in whether Cal-Am may extract water from beneath the SVGB is
whether injury will result to other users or the Basin. If the MPWSP is constructed with
gravity wells or pumping wells the effects on the aquifer would be the same as long as
the amount of drawdown in the wells is the same. But in the case of a pumped well, the
operator has the ability to induce greater drawdown than they would in the gravity wells.
In this case, there would be a greater effect to the aquifer. Since modeling has not
been completed for the gravity well scenario, it is unknown at this time the total effect
the gravity wells would have on the Basin and other groundwater users.
If the MPWSP is constructed as described in the FEIR for the North Marina Project, the
slant wells would pump from the unconfined Dune Sand Aquifer. If groundwater is
pumped from an unconfined aquifer and the modeling assumptions in the FEIR for the
North Marina Project are accurate, there will be lowering of groundwater levels within an
approximate 2-mile radius. Since seawater intrusion occurs in this area, this water

41
developed through desalination is likely surplus to the needs of other users in the
Basin. Based on the information available, it is unlikely any injury would occur by the
lowering of the groundwater levels in this region. Nevertheless, Cal-Am would be
required to show there was no injury and that any fresh water it extracts is returned to
the Basin.
If the proposed slant wells are determined to be infeasible, and the project is instead
designed to extract groundwater with conventional pumping wells, the potential impacts
could be greater, but they would not necessarily result in injury that could not be
compensated through appropriate mitigation measures. Impacts on other water users
in the form of increased groundwater pumping costs could be mitigated through
financial compensation within a reasonable time frame from when the costs are
incurred. Impacts on the availability of fresh water could be determined through
modeling and any replacement of freshwater would have to be returned in an area that
is not already degraded by seawater intrusion.
Modeling for the North Marina Project does not predict that Basin users fresh water
supplies would be affected if its wells pump from an unconfined aquifer, which we
assume to also be true for the MPWSP. If however, further exploratory testing shows
water is removed from a confined aquifer, water levels would be lowered in a larger
area and the effect on groundwater flow direction would be greater. Although pumping
from a confined condition affects a much larger area of the Basin, the quantity of fresh
water extracted from the aquifer would not necessarily be greater because the capture
zone for the extraction wells would be greatly influenced by existing groundwater
gradients. Additional studies are needed to determine whether the revised MPWSP
configuration would cause injury to other groundwater users in the Basin which would
require additional mitigation measures.
If no injury resultsthis would have to be shown through modeling, mitigation, project
design or other meansCal-Am could legally pump from the Basin by developing a new
water supply through desalination and showing the developed water is surplus to the
existing supply. If Cal-Ams extractions are limited to water derived from brackish or
saline sources or areas of the Basin, and it returns all incidental fresh water to the Basin

42
in a method that avoids injury to other users, the MPWSP could proceed without
violating other users groundwater rights.
A physical solution could be implemented to ensure all rights are protected while
maximizing the beneficial uses of the Basins waters.
42
Such an approach is consistent
with the general policy in the California Constitution article X section 2, and case law
provides guidance on solutions to address complex groundwater issues where supply is
constrained. The ongoing development of solutions tailored to the specific conditions
that apply to a given groundwater basin, reflects the understanding that California
waters are too valuable not to be utilized to the maximum extent possible if beneficial
uses and other legal users rights are maintained.
8. Recommendations
Additional information is needed to accurately determine MPWSP impacts on current
and future Basin conditions regardless of whether the extraction occurs from pumped or
gravity wells. First, specific information is needed on the depth of the wells and aquifer
conditions. Specifically, studies are needed to determine the extent of the Dune Sand
Aquifer, the water quality and quantity of the Dune Sand Aquifer, the extent and
thickness of the SVA and the extent of the 180-Foot Aquifer.
Second, the effects of the MPWSP on the Basin need to be evaluated. Specifically, a
series of test boring/wells would be needed to assess the hydrogeologic conditions at
the site. Aquifer testing also would be needed to establish accurate baseline conditions
and determine the pumping effects on both the Dune Sand Aquifer and the underlying
180-Foot Aquifer. Aquifer tests should mimic proposed pumping rates.
Third, updated groundwater modeling will be needed to evaluate future impacts from the
MPWSP. Specifically, modeling scenarios will need to be run to predict changes in
groundwater levels, groundwater flow direction, and changes in the extent and
boundary of the seawater intrusion front. Additional studies also will be necessary to

42
At some point, an adjudication of Basin rights could be initiated, this would in no way impact the
imposition of a physical solution that could account for the MPWSP and all other users needs in the
Basin.

43
determine how any extracted fresh water is replaced, whether through re-injection wells,
percolation basins, or through existing recharge programs. The studies will form the
basis for a plan that avoids injury to other groundwater users and protects beneficial
uses in the Basin.

Agenda Report

Date: June 12, 2014
Item No: 10.

06/12

SUBJECT: Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding the Detailed Critical Path
Method (CPM) Schedule for all Permits and Approvals for the Monterey
Peninsula Water Supply Project.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Water Authority discuss tracking of all future permits and
approvals for the MPWSP through the development by Cal Am of a critical path
schedule or equivalent.

DISCUSSION:

At the Governance Committee meeting of May 23 and the TAC meeting of June 2
nd
, the
Executive Director recommended that the Authority begin tracking all future permit and
approval requirements by means of a Critical Path Method (CPM) schedule or its
equivalent.

The Director would suggest that Cal Am provide the schedule by August 1, and that the
TAC add tracking the permit and approval schedule to its annual work plan.

MPRWA Agenda Packet 06-12-14

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MPRWA Agenda Packet 06-12-14

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agenda

Monterey Peninsula Regional Water Authority (MPRWA)

Proposal to Provide Value Engineering Services Value Management Strategies, Inc.

Item Name Hours Rate Cost Total

Test Well Facilities

Note: Existing infrastructure locations are approximate.

200 0 200 100 ft

You might also like