addendum no. 1 to the final environmental impact report ... · impact report (draft eis/eir) for...

Addendum No. 1 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for theLower Elkhorn Basin Levee Setback Project

Prepared by:

Consulting

Engineers and

Scientists

Prepared for:

California Department of Water Resources

April 2019

State Clearinghouse No. 2016092015

EXHIBIT B_3

Addendum No. 1 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Elkhorn Basin Levee Setback Project SCH# 2016092015

Prepared for: California Department of Water Resources 3464 El Camino Avenue, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95821

Contact: Erin Brehmer Project Manager (916) 574-2313

Prepared by: GEI Consultants, Inc. 2868 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 400 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670

Contact: Drew Sutton Senior Environmental Project Manager (916) 631-4532

April 2019

Project No. 1611277.160528

Addendum No. 1 – LEBLS Project EIR GEI Consultants, Inc. DWR i Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. ii

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.1 Regulatory Context ........................................................................................................................... 4

2. Project Modifications and Refinements .................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Underground Utility Relocation ......................................................................................................... 5

3. Environmental Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 10 3.1 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................. 11 3.3 Aquatic and Terrestrial Biological Resources ................................................................................. 12 3.4 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................... 13

4. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 14

5. References ................................................................................................................................................. 15

Figures Figure 1a: Pipeline Relocation Overview ........................................................................................................... 7 Figure 1b: Pipeline Relocation Overview ........................................................................................................... 8 Figure 1c: Pipeline Relocation Overview ........................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Motor-Operated Valve Enclosure ................................................................................................... 10

GEI Consultants, Inc. Addendum No. 1 – LEBLS Project EIR Abbreviations and Acronyms ii DWR

Abbreviations and Acronyms

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CVFPP Central Valley Flood Protection Plan DWR California Department of Water Resources EIS/EIR Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report HDD horizontal directional drilling LEBLS Lower Elkhorn Basin Levee Setback MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MOV motor-operated valve NOx nitrogen oxides O&M operations and maintenance PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter SHPO California State Historic Preservation Officer USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers YSAQMD Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District

Addendum No. 1 – LEBLS Project EIR GEI Consultants, Inc. DWR 3 Introduction

1. Introduction

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR), as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),1 prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIS/EIR) for the Lower Elkhorn Basin Levee Setback Project (LEBLS project) and distributed the Draft EIS/EIR on May 25, 2018 for a 45-day public review period. The public comment period on the Draft EIS/EIR closed on July 9, 2018. A Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) were released on March 6, 2019 and sent to agencies, organizations, and individuals who had commented on the Draft EIS/EIR within the 45-day review period. DWR certified the EIR, adopted the associated MMRP, and approved the LEBLS project on March 18, 2019. The Draft EIS/EIR, Final EIR, and MMRP are available at DWR’s offices at 3464 El Camino Avenue, Sacramento, CA 95821, and online at https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Flood-Management/Flood-Projects/Lower-Elkhorn-Basin.

Consistent with DWR’s 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP), the LEBLS project would expand the flood capacities of the Yolo and Sacramento Bypasses, which are both critical flood risk reduction elements for major urban and agricultural areas in the lower Sacramento River watershed. The project would lower flood stages in the Sacramento River and upper Yolo Bypass, reducing flood risks to portions of the Cities of Sacramento, West Sacramento, and Woodland.

As described in the Final EIR, the project includes a new setback levee in the Yolo Bypass along the Lower Elkhorn Basin, aligned north to south, which would be set back approximately 1,500 feet east of the existing alignment. It would begin just south of I-5 and continue approximately 5.5 miles south, ending at the new Sacramento Bypass North Levee. The Sacramento Bypass would be expanded by constructing a new setback levee 1,500 feet north of the existing levee, which would be approximately 1.6 miles long. Although most of the existing Yolo Bypass East Levee and Sacramento Bypass North Levee would be degraded following construction of the setback levees, up to 4,500 linear feet of the Yolo Bypass East Levee would be left in place to provide upland habitat for special-status species.

This Addendum No. 1 to the Final EIR for the LEBLS project, State Clearinghouse No. 2016092015) addresses proposed modifications and refinements to the LEBLS project. These proposed modifications and refinements involve additional details concerning relocation of a jet fuel pipeline under the Sacramento Bypass, as shown on Figure 1 and described in more detail in Section 2, “Project Modifications and Refinements.” The modifications and refinements do not change the analysis for tasks except related to the specific equipment used, the visual impact of the motor-operated valve (MOV) enclosure, construction traffic, or the timing of construction.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 states that minor technical changes or additions may be addressed by a supplement to the EIR or an addendum, depending on whether such changes or additions result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. DWR has determined that the modifications and refinements to the description of the underground

1 CEQA is found at California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines are found at

California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.

GEI Consultants, Inc. Addendum No. 1 – LEBLS Project EIR Introduction 4 DWR

utility relocation (described in Section 2, “Project Modifications and Refinements”) constitutes a minor technical change to the project, and none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (see Section 1.1, “Regulatory Context”) requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. Therefore, DWR has prepared this addendum to the LEBLS Project Final EIR in accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines.

1.1 Regulatory Context Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines describes the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR as follows:

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

2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

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

a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;

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

c) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

d) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Based on the substantial evidence in light of the proposed project’s whole record, as supplemented with the analysis provided in Section 3, “Environmental Analysis,” none of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) requiring a subsequent EIR have occurred. Since none of these conditions have occurred, the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation (CEQA Guidelines Section 15162[b]).

Section 15164(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a lead agency may prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. DWR, as lead agency, has

Addendum No. 1 – LEBLS Project EIR GEI Consultants, Inc. DWR 5 Project Modifications and Refinements

prepared this addendum in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 because this document demonstrates that the proposed modifications to the underground utility relocation constitute changes to the project but would not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), as specified above, requiring a subsequent EIR. The purpose of this addendum, therefore, is to provide the additional substantial evidence and CEQA analysis necessary to address this minor technical change to the proposed project and supplement the administrative record for the proposed project.

2. Project Modifications and Refinements

The following discussion provides clarification to the underground utility relocation discussed in the Final EIR and provides some minor modifications and refinements to the specific information presented in the Final EIR. The modifications and refinements include changes to the size of the fenced enclosure for the MOV providing emergency shutdown capabilities, changes to the sizes of work areas at the entry and exit points for the horizontal directional drilling (HDD), refinement of the specific equipment that would be used, and timing of construction.

2.1 Underground Utility Relocation A portion of the Sacramento International Airport Pipeline would be replaced via HDD at least 50 feet below the Sacramento Bypass and new setback levee, and new tie-ins would be made to the north and south of the project. HDD is a trenchless pipeline installation method where a drilling head or “shoe” is inserted at a shallow angle into the ground and steered below obstacles to open-cut construction. The directionally drilled pipeline is connected to pipelines on either end installed via open-cut construction. The annular space between the reamed hole and the new HDD installed pipeline would be filled with a high yield bentonite drilling mud that would prevent the preferential flow of water around the outside of the pipeline. Following the relocation of the Sacramento International Airport Pipeline, all but about 750 feet of the pipeline section being replaced would be abandoned in place in accordance with regulatory guidance. The approximately 750 feet of pipeline scheduled for removal is located under and immediately to the south and north of the area upon which the new north levee of the Sacramento Bypass would be situated. The removed pipe will be recycled or disposed of in accordance with regulatory requirements.

The relocated pipeline would surface approximately 325 feet north and south of the post-project levee locations. This relocation would require preparing two work areas at each end of the pipeline alignment to operate a drill rig to horizontally drill the new pipeline location beneath the Sacramento Bypass, the setback area, and the new setback levee. The HDD Entry work area would be approximately 400 feet per side, and the HDD Exit work area would be approximately 200 feet per side. Figure 1 illustrates the work areas and pipeline location. The 12-inch internal diameter pipeline “string’ being prepared to enter the HDD boring would be assembled in an arcing line generally following the west toe of the south cross levee. The pipeline string would generally be assembled above the ground surface but the string location may require clearing or grading. An MOV would be required to provide emergency shutdown capabilities for the portion beneath the floodway. This MOV would be constructed within a 40-foot by 15-foot enclosure near an existing ranch and the “bend” in the south cross levee. A 100-foot by 100-foot area would be needed for construction of the MOV. Figure 2 illustrates a typical MOV enclosure.

GEI Consultants, Inc. Addendum No. 1 – LEBLS Project EIR Project Modifications and Refinements 6 DWR

Construction of the relocated pipeline would occur over 4-6 weeks in approximately August or September). Construction activities would occur between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Materials and workers would travel to the work areas from I-5 and I-80, U.S. 50, Reed Avenue, Old River Road, Harbor Boulevard, Tule Jake Road, Yolo County Road 124, and Yolo County Road 126. Approximately 25 truck trips would be required to transport materials to the pipeline location, and up to 20 workers would be present on-site during construction. A maximum of 10 truck trips per day could occur as part of the pipeline relocation. Construction equipment used during the pipeline relocation would include


Figure 1a: Pipeline Relocation Overview

Source: Wickland Pipelines 2019

GEI Consultants, Inc. Addendum No. 1 – LEBLS Project EIR Project Modifications and Refinements 8 DWR

Figure 1b: Pipeline Relocation Overview



Figure 1c: Pipeline Relocation Overview


GEI Consultants, Inc. Addendum No. 1 – LEBLS Project EIR Environmental Analysis 10 DWR

approximately five pipe hauling trucks, approximately three water trucks, approximately two HDD-related equipment trucks, and approximately four miscellaneous trucks. Soil material generated during the boring of the relocated pipeline would be transported to a permitted disposal site within 200 miles of the project site for appropriate disposal.

Construction of the relocated pipeline would be subject to the avoidance and minimization measures identified in the Final EIS/EIR to reduce or avoid impacts.

Figure 2: Motor-Operated Valve Enclosure


3. Environmental Analysis

This section of Addendum No. 1 analyzes the potential effects on the physical environment from implementation of the proposed modifications and refinements to the project. This analysis has been prepared to determine whether any of the conditions in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (described in Section 1.1) would occur as a result of the proposed modifications and refinements.

The proposed project modifications and refinements (i.e., modifications to the underground utility relocation activities) would result in negligible additional impacts and would not cause any new significant or potentially significant impacts or a substantial increase in the intensity or severity of previously identified significant effects analyzed and disclosed in the prior EIR for the following topic areas:

Energy Environmental Justice

Addendum No. 1 – LEBLS Project EIR GEI Consultants, Inc. DWR 11 Environmental Analysis

Geology, Soils and Paleontological Resources Groundwater Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Flood Risk Management Land Use and Planning, and Agricultural and Forestry Resources Mineral Resources Noise and Vibration Recreation Socioeconomics Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Water Quality

The modifications and refinements described in this Addendum No. 1 provide additional details on the activities that are described in the prior EIR as part of the underground utilities relocation task. The footprint of these activities falls within the footprint considered in the prior EIR, and the broad outline of the pipeline relocation activities (use of HDD drilling, conservative size estimate for work areas, etc.) were analyzed in the prior EIR. The modifications and refinements do not change the analysis for tasks except related to the specific equipment used, the visual impact of the MOV enclosure, construction traffic, or the timing of construction.

The following topic areas may be affected by the proposed modifications and refinements to the project and, therefore, are analyzed below.

3.1 Aesthetics The prior EIR identified a significant construction impact for the pipeline relocation, and a significant permanent impact on scenic vistas or visual character associated with a 10-foot by 30-foot enclosure for the MOV equipment, with equipment extending up to 10 feet high. The proposed modifications and refinements include a slightly larger, 15-foot by 40-foot MOV equipment enclosure. The modifications and refinements would not result in new or substantially more intense or severe impacts compared to those analyzed in the prior EIR.

Two mitigation measures were identified for this impact in the prior EIR, Mitigation Measures VIS-2a (Screen Construction Sites, Staging Areas, and Borrow Sites within 300 Feet of Residences) and VIS-2b (Incorporate Visual Screening for Permanent Pipeline Control Structure). These mitigation measures would be applied during construction and operation of the pipeline relocation, and would reduce the impacts of the modifications and refinements.

3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions The prior EIR evaluated the air quality effects of utility relocation, which included a general description of the Sacramento Airport Pipeline relocation. For this task, the analysis assumed 30 days of work in the first year of construction, using one excavator, three dump trucks, one front-end loader, and one pipe layer. The prior EIR found significant impacts related to construction emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) for the project as a whole during the first year of construction of Alternative 2, the proposed project.

GEI Consultants, Inc. Addendum No. 1 – LEBLS Project EIR Environmental Analysis 12 DWR

The proposed modifications and refinements would change the number of vehicles used in the relocation of the underground pipeline, and would complete the pipeline relocation in 2019, with the first year of levee construction occurring later. The modifications and refinements included in this Addendum No. 1 would include use of approximately five pipe hauling trucks, approximately three water trucks, approximately two HDD-related equipment trucks, and approximately four miscellaneous trucks in place of the equipment list provided in the prior EIR.

Because the pipeline relocation would not be constructed concurrently with the majority of the levee construction, annual air quality emissions, including greenhouse gas emissions, associated with the pipeline relocation would be slightly reduced compared to those presented in the prior EIR, and emissions would fall below the de minimis threshold for General Conformity and the annual mass emissions thresholds for NOx and PM10 set by the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD). The modified equipment list described in this Addendum No. 1 is similar to or less than the equipment included in the “New Road Construction” task in the prior EIR, which included 13 dump trucks, two vibratory compactors, two bulldozers, two motor graders, an asphalt paver, and an asphalt compactor. The “New Road Construction” task analyzed in the prior EIR had maximum unmitigated daily emissions of 40 pounds of NOx and 6.2 pounds of PM10 (the daily threshold for PM10 emissions is 80 pounds). Please refer to Appendix D, Table 3.5, “Alternative 2 Construction Emissions (Unmitigated/Mitigated)” in the prior EIR. Therefore, the proposed modifications and refinements would not result in new impacts or substantially more intense or severe impacts compared to those described in the prior EIR.

Mitigation Measures AIR-1a (Implement the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District’s Best Management Practices for Construction Emission Control, or Measures that Perform as Well as Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District’s Best Management Practices), AIR-1b (Implement the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s Enhanced Fugitive PM Dust Control Practices), and AIR-1c (Use the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s Enhanced Exhaust Control Practices for Construction Equipment) would apply to the pipeline relocation. The pipeline relocation would not itself exceed emission thresholds, and would not contribute to annual emissions in excess of thresholds since it would occur during a different year than the remainder of project construction. Therefore, the pipeline relocation activity would not trigger Mitigation Measures AIR-1d (Use the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District’s Off-site Mitigation Fee to Reduce Emissions, and Pay Associated Fees) or AIR-1e (Use Dispersion Modeling to Demonstrate PM10 Emissions Will Not Exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or State Ambient Air Quality Standards.).

3.3 Aquatic and Terrestrial Biological Resources The prior EIR identified no effects to fish and aquatic organisms from the pipeline relocation. For terrestrial biological resources (vegetation and wildlife), the prior EIR identified potentially significant impacts to giant garter snake resulting from project implementation, including the pipeline relocation. However, the contribution of the pipeline relocation to the giant garter snake impact was relatively minor, and limited to a small amount of rice field (3.67 acres), located in the southernmost extent of the project footprint, which would be temporarily affected during the HDD entry work. The prior EIR assumed that the rice field would be dry and fallow during the construction work in this area, thus, qualifying the rice field as “upland” habitat for the giant garter snake.

The prior EIR also identified potentially significant impacts to birds, including potential loss of burrowing owl individuals, potential disturbance of nesting special-status birds and common raptor

Addendum No. 1 – LEBLS Project EIR GEI Consultants, Inc. DWR 13 Environmental Analysis

species, potential loss of active nests and nest trees, and potential loss of nesting and foraging habitat resulting from project implementation, including the pipeline relocation. Although the pipeline relocation would occur over 4-6 weeks in approximately August or September, which is generally outside the nesting bird season, some birds, including burrowing owl and Swainson’s hawk, can nest into late August and mid-September. Pipeline construction is expected to result in temporary effects to grassland and agricultural habitats, which may support suitable nesting and/or foraging habitat for some special-status bird species. The prior EIR concluded that there would be no long-term impact on the overall availability of foraging habitat in the study area, and that the project is unlikely to have a substantial adverse impact on special-status birds and common raptors. Pipeline construction, however, may disturb nesting birds through disturbance (such as noise and visual disturbances) from project construction and O&M activities in the vicinity of active nests, potentially resulting in nest failure and a potentially significant impact.

The proposed modifications and refinements would not result in new or substantially more intense or severe impacts compared to those analyzed in the prior EIR.

Mitigation Measures BIO-3a (Implement Measures to Avoid Impacts to Giant Garter Snake and Its Habitats), BIO-3b (If Avoiding Effects on Giant Garter Snake and Its Habitats is Infeasible, Minimize and, where Appropriate, Compensate for Effects on This Species and Loss of Habitat), BIO-5a (Conduct a Habitat Assessment and Focused Surveys for Burrowing Owls, and Avoid Impacts), BIO-5b (If Surveys Detect Burrowing Owl in the Project Area, Implement Measures to Avoid and Minimize Effects to Burrowing Owl and Establish Protective Buffers Around Occupied Burrows and Monitor), BIO-6b (Conduct Focused Surveys for Nesting Special-status Birds and Common Raptor Species, and Avoid Impacts), and BIO-6c (If Avoiding Construction-related Effects on Nesting Special-status Birds and Common Raptors is Infeasible, Implement Minimization Measures) would apply to the pipeline relocation.

3.4 Cultural Resources The majority of the area (approximately 80%) where the pipeline relocation would be constructed was covered by the records search performed for the LEBLS project in 2016 and is documented in the EIR. This records search indicated that three previous cultural resources inventories had been completed within the pipeline relocation area. Previous cultural resources pedestrian surveys, including the survey conducted for the LEBLS project and documented in the EIR, covered 44% of the pipeline relocation area. A geoarchaeological sensitivity analysis and a geoarchaeological trenching program (documented in the EIR) were also completed in the area surrounding the pipeline relocation area. In addition to these studies, DWR conducted extensive consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans in an effort to identify Tribal Cultural Resources in the LEBLS project area.

Based on the studies conducted in and in the area surrounding the pipeline relocation area, two cultural resources have been identified in the pipeline relocation area: the Sacramento Bypass (which includes the Bypass itself and also the Sacramento Bypass Training Levee on the south side of the Bypass); and Levee Unit 122 which includes the levee along the north side of the Sacramento Bypass (also known as the Sacramento Bypass North Levee). Both of these resources have been determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and are therefore considered to be significant resources for the purposes of this EIR Addendum. No Tribal Cultural Resources have been identified at the LEBLS project site.

GEI Consultants, Inc. Addendum No. 1 – LEBLS Project EIR Conclusions 14 DWR

In addition to the two cultural resources identified in the pipeline relocation area, two cultural resources have been identified adjacent or near the pipeline relocation area, but not directly in the pipeline relocation area: The Old Bryte Landfill located adjacent to the northwest side of the Sacramento Bypass, and the Lower Elkhorn South Cross Levee (also known as the Lovdal Levee). Both of these resources have been determined by USACE and SHPO to be ineligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and are therefore not considered to be significant resources for the purposes of this Addendum No. 1 and are not considered further.

Although the Sacramento Bypass (including the Bypass itself and also the Sacramento Bypass Training Levee on the south side of the Bypass ) and Levee Unit 122 (the levee along the north side of the Sacramento Bypass which is also known as the Sacramento Bypass North Levee) are both considered to be significant resources for the purposes of this Addendum EIR, neither of these resources would be adversely impacted by the pipeline relocation. Because the relocated pipeline would be installed using trenchless HDD methods and no physical impacts to these resources would occur and because no new visual elements would be introduced in the vicinity of these resources, the pipeline relocation would not diminish the integrity of the resource’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Therefore, the pipeline relocation would result in No Impact to known significant cultural resources.

Although no human remains or intact archaeological resources were identified during the investigations of the pipeline relocation area, it is possible that presently unknown Tribal Cultural Resources, archaeological resources, or human remains could be encountered during excavation of HDD entry and exit points or during preparation or use of staging areas. The EIR determined that the project could have a potentially significant impact on undiscovered Tribal Cultural Resources; on undiscovered archaeological resources; and on undiscovered human remains. Implementing Mitigation Measures CR-3a, b, and c (Conduct Cultural Resource Awareness Sensitivity Training; Conduct Monitoring at Locations Identified by Native American as Sensitive; Implement Procedures to Evaluate Tribal Cultural Resources/Traditional Cultural Properties and Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures to Avoid Significant Adverse Effects); CR-5 (Implement Procedures for Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Material and Implement an Inadvertent Discovery Plan); and CR-6 (Implement Procedures for Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains) which were previously adopted, would reduce the potentially significant impact on cultural resources to a less-than-significant level. These mitigation measures apply to all ground-disturbing activities, including the project modifications and refinements described in this Addendum No. 1. Therefore, for all of the reasons discussed above, the proposed project modifications and refinements would not result in any new or substantially more intense, severe, or greater impacts related to cultural resources. No further mitigation is required.

4. Conclusions

Based on the previous Final EIR and the analysis in this addendum, modifying the underground utility relocation would result in none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines that would trigger the need to prepare a subsequent EIR. Most importantly, the proposed minor technical changes evaluated in this addendum:

Addendum No. 1 – LEBLS Project EIR GEI Consultants, Inc. DWR 15 References

would not result in any new significant environmental effects,

would not substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects,

would not result in mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible becoming feasible, and

would not result in availability/implementation of mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous document that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.

These conclusions confirm that a subsequent EIR is required, and this addendum to the Final EIR is the appropriate CEQA document under CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 to evaluate the minor technical changes and resulting environmental impacts thereof.

5. References

California Department of Transportation. 1989, 2000, and 2004. Caltrans Bridge Inventory.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

Clark, W. B. 1970. Gold Districts of California. California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 193.

Gudde, E. G. 1969. California Place Names. Berkeley: University of California Press.

———. 1975. California Gold Camps. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Hoover, M.B., H. E. Rensch, E. G. Rensch, and W. N. Abeloe. 1966 and 1990. Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press.

National Park Service. 1996. National Register of Historic Places. List of properties.

State of California. 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources.

———. 1992. California Points of Historical Interest.

———. 1996. California Historical Landmarks.

———. 2006. Directory of Properties in the Historic Resources Inventory.

addendum no. 1 to the final environmental impact report ... · impact report (draft eis/eir) for...

Documents