HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04141998 - C154 Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Costa
FROM: WATER COMMITTEE QCounty
Supervisor Joe Canclamllla, Chair
Supervisor Gayle B. Ullkema
DATE: December 15, 1998
SUBJECT: REPORT ON BALD►WIN SHIP CHANNEL LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM CONTRA COSTA.
COUNTY AS LOCAL SPONSOR FOR THE PROJECT
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) S BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
BE-C MENDATIQN'S
AUTHORIZE Chair to sign a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers offering continued support as
local sponsor for the Baldwin Ship Channel/Marine Link Project.
FINANCIAL IMI!ACI
There is no financial impact associated with sending a letter of support.
REASONS FUR RECDMMENDAILONS
The County has been local sponsor for the Baldwin Ship Channel deepening project for many years.
From time to time the Carps has requested a letter of support from the local sponsor, due to federal
regulation requiring local partnership for federal navigation projects. Before;the Carps is able to
spend federal funds on a project, local sponsorship must be in place.
The San Francisco-to-Stockton deepening to 45 feet MLLW was authorized by Congress in 1965.
The last phase of this project to be completed is the Baldwin channel section from Richmond to the
Martinez-Benicia Bridge. This would allow less restricted movement of'oil tankers into the
Carquinez Strait area, reducing lightering (or off loading) in San Francisco Bay. Studies have
indicated some degree of salinity intrusion into the delta will occur as a result of this deepening.
Wickland Oil Co has provided the Marine Pipeline Link as an additional alternative to allow crude
oil transport eastward to refineries.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR t/ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE (S): S R OR JOE CANCIAMILLA S PERMS GAYLE B. KEMA
ACTION OF BO' N oecgnber 15p 1998 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED xx OTHER,
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
Mi UNANIMOUS (ABSENT - - - - ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:- BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE MATE
SHOWN.
Contact: Roberta Goulart (925-335-1226) ATTESTED Wmber 15, 1998
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COU Ty ADMINISTRATOR
San Francisco .Bay to Stockton Phase III
(John F. Baldwin)
Navigation Channel Project
Final
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
Volume I
Pft1a snaat '�u8s > Sreturt � •::: Finob moat Srrreat <
Charxaei ''` � .Shoei3'� gay .^ CnannN �■ryo 5 �tuHmF gay •.
San Pablo Boyce, 7e ,,, Sore Pam*Pyr„
CdINaf1 '1,,,+"E1AIS '� jk ikNp rM,..+„
+'� AVACl far# .::• / .;:. �,��
� Y�dCa¢D 3pFs�dWta :`;:: "'r r~"hls►flb � '
/ Ylndt � ,;; � eMr �►
#itYid
n
.,+
San San
t
Fraf=scv
gay A�dbilvy' 14
x : etrr
Channel Deepening Richmond Marine-Link Pipeline
Project Project
Prepared by
Federal Lead Agency.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
San Francisco District
State Lead Agency:
g Y
Contra Costa County
September 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SAN FRANCISCO BAY TO STOCKTON PHASE III
(JOHN F. BALDWIN)
NAVIGATION CHANNEL PROJECT
FOREWORD
This document is a joint environmental impact report/environmental impact statement (EIR/S), prepared
pursuant to the provisions of both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), defining and discussing a project that has the primary goal of
delivering petroleum arriving by vessel in the San Francisca Bay Area to refineries, storage terminals,
and other facilities located in the east San Francisco Bay Area. The EIR/S addresses the environmental
impacts associated with this project that is composed of two distinct alternatives as follows:
I. The proposed construction of the Phase III portion of the Johp F. Baldwin("JFB") ship
channel deepening alternative authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1965 (Public
Law 89-298, 89th Congress), which involves deepening 'approximately 16 miles of
existing navigational channels, extending from north of Angel Island and central San
Francisco Bay to the vicinity of Pacheco Creek in Suisun Bay, from an existing depth of
35 feet to a depth of 45 feet. The purpose of the channel deepening is to provide for
improved direct access of large oil tankers to the petroleum refineries and terminals
located in and adjacent to the Carquinez Strait. This would reducevessel-to-vessel t
lightering of crude oil at Anchorage 9, resulting in the reduction of tanker traffic in the
r
greater San Francisco Bay.
2. The Richmond Marine-Link Pipeline System(pipeline system)proposed for construction
and operation by Wickland Pipelines LLC, which involves:
a. The rehabilitation and operation of an existing 35-mile-long pipeline from
Richmond to Pittsburg (referred to as the PG&E Pipeline) or construction of a
new 20-inch pipeline.
b. Improvements to an existing pumping station in Hercules, California (referred to
as the Hercules Pump Station). Additional offered connections to the PG&E
Pipeline.
C. These additional new facilities:
i. A single-berth, deep-water wharf located at Point Molate. Included is
related minor dredging for ship access to the wharf.
ii. A crude oil terminal, located at either Point San Pablo or Point Orient,
connected by pipeline to the new wharf. The new wharf, the new oil
terminal, the pipeline running between the wharf and new oil terminal,
and minor dredging for ship access to the wharf are referred to
collectively as the Richmond Terminal.
iii. A new connecting pipeline (Alternate Route I and Alternate Route 2)
from the new Richmond Terminal to the PG&E Pipeline.
i
1
SUMMARY
3
4
5 SA MMODUCTION
6
7 The deepening of the John F. Baldwin(JFB) navigation channel was proposed to meet the needs of large
8 crude oil tankers for deeper shipping channels in San Francisco Bay to refineries and terminals in north
9 Contra Costa County and southern Solano County. An Administrative Draft Environmental Impact
10 Report/Environmental Impact Statement (ADEIRIS) on this proposed channel deepening project was
11 prepared in October 1995. Concerns that deeper channels could result in increased saltwater intrusion
12 into the Delta, with associated water duality impacts on drinking water supp�ies, led the beneficiaries of
13 the proposed dredging--members of the oil industry--to develop another approach to getting petroleum
14 products to and from the affected refineries and terminals in the North Bay. This ether approach --- a
15 new marine terminal in Richmond connected to an onshore pipeline serving the refineries and terminals
--
16 was defined during the period from November 1995 to August 1996 and is now also being analyzed
17 in this EIR/S in addition to channel deepening. Both the channel deepening and the pipeline system are
18 described in detail in Chapter 2; the latter is the recommended plan.
19
20 The Corps of Engineers,San Francisco District(Corps)is the federal lead agency for the project; Contra
21 Costa County is the state lead agency'. This EIRIS is an informational document that will inform and
22 assist public decisionmakers and the general public of any significant effects of the project and describe
23 feasible alternatives. This document assesses short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts of the
24 project. This EIRIS is also intended to support the permitting processes of all agencies whose
125 discretionary approvals must be obtained for particular elements of the project.
26
27 S.2 CHANNEL DEEPENING ALTERNATIVE
128
29 Deepening of the Phase III portion of the JFB navigation channel was authorized by the Rivers and
30 Harbors Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-298, 89th Congress). The authorized project includes deepening
31 three reaches of the JFB ship channel and several associated maneuvering/access areas. Approximately
32 16 miles of existing navigation channels would be deepened to a depth of 45 feet, from north of Angel
33 Island in Central San Francisco Bay to the vicinity of Pacheco Creek in Suisun Bay. Approximately 9.0
34 million cubic yards (racy) of material would be dredged. The Phase III project is the final link in
35 improving and deepening existing navigation channels that begin outside the Golden Crate Bridge at the
36 San Francisco Ear Entrance and extend to the Port of Stockton.
137
38 The natural depth of the navigation channel, together with continuous deposition of sediments transported
39 by ocean currents, limit the size of vessels and as well as the volume of cargo that can be safely
t0 transported to ports of call within San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun bays. In particular, the ability
1 of deep-draft vessels to navigate through the entire ship channel is constrained. For example, fully-laden
42 oil tankers with sizes of 80,000 to 175,000 dead weight tons(DWT) are currently unable to navigate the
43 Phase III portion of the navigation channel. As a result, cargo is transferred to smaller vessels in San
Francisco Bay, a process called "lightering." This process requires added steps in transporting the cargo
45 and results in greater vessel traffic in the channel (COE 1987b). Phase III deepening of the navigation
channel would allow tankers in the 175,000 DWT range to navigate the channels at deeper drafts, thus
6
V7 reducing vessel movement (COE 1986).
48
.49 In addition,shallow maneuvering areas near several refineries and marine terminals located along the JFB
0 ship channel in north Contra Costa County increase the potential grounding or collision of vessels(COE
S-1
Summary
1 1986). The project thus includes deepening maneuvering areas associated with wharves and piers serving
2 Unocal, Shell, Amorco (Tosco), Exxon, Pacific Refining, and Wickland Oil company facilities. The
3 deeper maneuvering areas would facilitate vessel traffic through these approach areas, reducing congestion
4 and hazards in the vicinity.
6 Phase 111 of the JFB project is the last of four channel deepening and improvement phases that began in
7 the early 1970s(COE 1986). The JFB project would result in linking Phases I and 11 of the project with
8 channel improvements completed between Point Edith and the Port of Stockton(Phase IV).
9
10 Six disposal options for sediments dredged during channel deepening are evaluated in this EIRlS. They
11 are composed of different combinations of four disposal sites: San Francisca Deepwater Ocean Disposal
12 Site (SF-DOSS), which is near the Farallon Islands, Montezuma Wetlands (a proposed wetland
13 restoration site in Solano County), levee rehabilitation on six western Delta islands in either Contra Costa
14 County or Sacramento County, and wetland restoration on Hamilton Arany Airfield in Novato, Marin
15 County. The six disposal options and the volume of sediment they would receive are as follows:
16
17 DESPOSAL SUESSEDIMENT--QUANTITY IN MCY
18 Montezuma ami ton
19 Disposal O,Pzion SF-DODS WWW ands Delta Ikslands Arnry Arfield
20 1 9.0
21 2 9.0 10
22 3 8.0 1.0
23 4 8.0 1.0
24 5 1.0 1.0 7.0
25 6 4.0 4.0 1.0
26 Total Capacity 16.0 17.0 2.4 7.0
27
28 Additional details of these disposal options are included in Chapter 2 and, in particular,Table 2.4-1. The
29 four disposal sites are evaluated in chapters 4, 5, and 6, and the impacts of the disposal options are
30 compared in Chapter 7. The environmentally preferred disposal option is Option 5 (SF-DODS,Hamilton
31 Army Airfield, and the Delta islands), which would maximize beneficial reuse of the dredged material,
32 as explained in Chapter 8.
33
34 S.3 PIPELINE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE
35
36 The pipeline system (summarized below and described in detail in section 2.5), formally called the
37 Richmond Marine-Link Pipeline System (RMLPS), is proposed by the Applicant, 'Wickland Pipelines
38 Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) (Wickland).
39
40 The pipeline system would involve minimal dredging just south of the Richmond-San; Rafael Bridge, a
41 new wharf in naturally deep water near the Point Molate Pier (two wharf options are considered), one
42 or two pipelines to shore (depending on the wharf option), a new tank farm on the San Pablo peninsula
43 (two possible sites are considered), a new connecting pipeline from the tank farm to the existing Pacific
44 Gas & Electric (PG&E) pipeline in Richmond (two alternate routes are considered), and use of that
45 PG&E line from: Richmond to Pittsburg. In addition, a new 20-inch line from Richmond to Hercules
46 would be added. Several new, short,above and below ground connecting pipelines would be built to link
S-2
'Summary
1 link end-user facilities (refineries and terminals in the North Bay) to the PG&E line. Like channel
2 deepening, the pipeline system would substantially reduce current lightering in the Bay.
I 3
4 SA COMBINATION ALTERNATWE
5
6 The combination alternative would consist of the pipeline system in combination with deepening all the
7 areas considered for channel deepening, but to 40 feet instead of the 45 feet proposed under charmel
8 deepening. It, too, would reduce lightering, but to a lesser extent than channeldeepening. This
9 alternative is described in more detail in section 2.6.
1
10
11 S.5 NO-ACTION
I 12
S 13 No improvements would occur under this alternative, which is described in section 2.7.
14
15 S.6 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONIVMNTAL IMPACTS
16
17 Impacts of each of the project alternatives are sunnnarized below, and comparison of optional elements
18 are included in tables S-1 through S-5. Impacts of the environmentally superior options for both the
19 channel deepening and pipeline system alternatives are described in Table S-6, along with recommended
20 mitigation measures. Table S-7 provides a comparison of impacts between the environmentally superior
21 channel deepening option, the recommended plan, and the no-action alternative. All tables are included
22 at the end of this section.
23
24 Channel Deepening Atternative
{ Z5
' 26 Dredging the 3FB channels under the channel deepening alternative would result in unavoidable significant
27 impacts associated with hydrology and hydrodynamics, water quality, and biological resources.
( 28 Navigation charmel deepening would facilitate saltwater intrusion into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,
29 resulting in the exceedance of salinity standards and related adverse ecological effects. ' Release of
30 additional fresh water from the Delta to mitigate these impacts is not feasible at this time. Dredging
31 could also impact 18 recorded historic shipwrecks. This impact would be mitigable to a less than
32 significant level,however.
33
34 Impacts of dredged material disposal at the four optional sites are summarized in Table S-1 (see end of
35 section for all summary tables). All impacts are mitigable to less than significant levels. Use of the
36 Hamilton Army Airfield site would have clear benefits associated with habitat restoration, since the site
37 currently has no habitat value. Levee rehabilitation would have substantial benefits associated with
38 increased flood protection.
39
40 Pipeline System Alternative
41
42 The pipeline system would consist of a number of optional components. These include construction of
43 a free-standing wharf 3,500 feet due west of Point Molate, with a submerged pipeline to shore, or
44 extending the existing pier and running the pipeline along the pier; construction of a tank farm at either
45 Point San Pablo or Point Orient; and two alternate pipeline routes connecting the tank farm to an existing
46 PG&E pipeline. Tables S-2 through S-5 provide a comparison of impacts associated with each of the
47 optional components. All impacts noted in these tables are either adverse but not significant, or
S-3
Summary
1 significant and miti able to insignificant levels with the exception of potential fires'along the i
g g 8 eP P $ pipeline
2 corridor.
3
4 Combination Alternative
5
6 This alternative would combine the impacts of channel deepening and the pipeline system. Less material
7 would have to be dredged; therefore, air quality, geology, soils, and water quality impacts would be Iess
8 than for the channel deepening alternative, but they are not significant in any case. Water quality impacts
9 from dredging would be shorter in duration, and impacts at disposal sites wpuld be reduced. Salinity
10 intrusion would be reduced to an unknown but probably minor extent. Benefi ial impacts associated with
11 stabilization of levees on the Delta islands and wetlands restoration at the lfamilton Army Airfield and
12 Montezuma Wetlands sites would be proportionally reduced because of the smaller soil disposal volume.
13 Other impacts would be comparable to those described above.
14
15 Environmentally Superior/Environmentally Preferable Channel Deepening Option
16
17 For channel deepening,the same dredging impacts would occur regardless of the disposal option selected.
18 Therefore, disposal options are the determining factor in this analysis. Disposal option 5, which consists
19 of 1 million cubic yards (mcy) to SF-DODS, 7 mcy to Hamilton Army Airfield for wetland restoration,
20 and 1 mcy for levee rehabilitation at the Delta islands, is the environmentally (preferred channel
21 deepening/disposal option, as explained below.
22
23 Based on the comparison of impacts in Table S-1, none of the disposal options stands out as clearly the
24 best with respect to minimizing environmental impacts. All impacts associated with dredged material
25 disposal would be mtigable. Therefore, the option that involves the greatest benefits is selected.
26 Disposal option 5 would allow for wetland restoration at the Hamilton Army Airfield site and levee
27 rehabilitation at six of the western Delta islands.
28
29 Levee rehabilitation would minimize the incidence of levees breaching with subsequent flooding, loss of
30 important habitats, and salinity impacts. Using dredged material for wetland restoration and levee
31 maintenance would be consistent with the broad goals and policies of the Bay Area's regional Long-Term
32 Management Strategy (LTMS)program, which seeks to maximize beneficial reuse of dredged material.
33
34 Use of the Hamilton Army Airfield site is considered preferable to the Montezuma Wetlands Project,
35 which also involves wetlands restoration, because (1) the project would result in no"net loss of habitat
36 value (the Hamilton site essentially has no habitat value now, while the Montezuma site does have
37 valuable habitat that would be destroyed by the project); (2) the Hamilton site is being designated by the
38 BCDC in the Bay Plan as a wetland; (3)Hamilton is closer to most of the dredge area than Montezuma.
39
40 Environmentally Superior/Environmentally Preferable Pipeline System Options
41
42 The environmentally superior/environmentally preferable configuration for the pipeline system is the free-
43 standing wharf and Point Orient tank farm. No clear distinction was noted between Alternate Routes 1
44 and 2. The free-standing wharf option is considered environmentally superior, because renovation or
45 reconstruction would not be required for Point Molate Pier, coupled with the lessened;aesthetic impacts,
46 the decreased potential for large oil spills, and the greater physical separation that would occur between
47 the wharf and the uses proposed for Point Molate. Construction at Point Orient is considered
48 environmentally superior because impacts associated with grading would be minimized (resources
S-4
Summary
1 specifically affected by grading include geology, air quality, biology, and transportation). Additionally,
2 this site is preferable from the standpoint of aesthetics and biological resources. Alternate Route 1 is
3 preferred based on impacts to marine water quality, surface drainage and surface water quality, biology
4 (marine and terrestrial), soillsediment quality, and cultural resources. Alternate: Route 2 is preferred
5 based on impacts to geology, surface water hydrology, sail contamination, system safety, and aesthetics.
6 Each alternate route has advantages and disadvantages, and neither is clearly distinguishable as
7 environmentally superior.
8t
9 Environmentally SuperlorlEnvironmentaliy Preferable Project AlternItive
10
11 The no-action alternative has been eliminated from further consideration as the environmentally superior
12 alternative because it would not achieve the project objectives and because it would result in a
13 substantiallyhigher potential for a marine oil spill than the channel deepening project and pipeline system
14 and greater long-term air quality impacts.
15
16 The channel deepening project (Disposal Option 5) is rejected from further consideration because of the
17 significant and unavoidable impacts that would be associated with salinity intrusion into the Delta area.
18 This would affect hydrology/hydrodynamics, water quality, and biological resources. It is a substantive
19 impact that is of great concern to the regulatory agencies and is sufficient to render the project infeasible
20 at this time pending additional information regarding the severity of impacts and possible mitigation
21 measures.
22
23 The combination alternative would have the same salinity impacts as the channel deepening alternative,
24 and on this basis alone is rejected from consideration. In addition, either the channel deepening or
25 pipeline system alternative would achieve the project objectives by itself; thus, the greater impacts of the
26 combination alternative are not necessary.
27
28 Thus, the pipeline system is identified as tate environmentally superior alternative.' The free-standing
29 wharf and Point Orient tank farm are environmentally superior options, but no distinction was made
30 between the alternate pipeline routes.
31
32 Recommended Plan
33
34 The recommended plan is the pipeline system with the free-standing wharf, Point Orient tank farm, and
35 Alternate Route 2. The free-standing wharf and Point Orient tank farm were identified as
36 environmentally superior options_ Since there was no clear distinction between the two alternate pipeline
37 routes in terms of long-term environmental impacts, the selection of Alternate Route 2 was based on
38 operational, as well as environmental, considerations. Ivey factors that influenced the selection of this
39 route are as follows:
40
41 Alternate Route I through the Chevron refinery was determined by the applicant,to be unacceptable for
42 three reasons: (1) capacity of the route was lower and required more horsepower than the alternative;
1443 (2)costs and construction tinting of the route were not economical; and(3)future access'and maintenance
44 would be cumbersome since the applicant would have to work through Chevron permitting and safety and
45 operations processes, which are designed around refinery operations. Selection of this route also would
46 increase the risk of third-party damage to the pipeline due to its proximity to refinery units. A minor
47 issue is the difficulty in providing cathodic protection for the pipeline, because it would be installed in
48 existing Chevron pipeline metal pipe supports throughout the refinery. In many cases, the above-ground
S-5
Summary
1 metal pipe supports would support numerous other pipelines, as well. RMLPS is required to have
2 cathodic protection systems on its entire length, including those portions that are above ground. Applying
3 an electrical impressed current to the pipeline is problematic due to the many potential electrical short
4 opportunities present by this above-ground metal support design. Attempting to isolate the pipeline
5 electrically is possible; however, maintenance of such isolation is difficult sincea minor movement of
6 the isolation collar could create a shorted system. Since the refinery has a large maintenance force and
7 many ongoing projects within the refinery, it would be difficult to manage the pipeline. Another concern
8 is the weather loading of the pipeline. Since the line would be exposed to temperature swings and
9 ultraviolet rays, it would require an extensive pressure relief system for thermal loading and, as a DOT
10 195 requirement, either paint or a sun-resistent coasting that adds to the n"�aintenance concerns. Neither
11 the pressure relief systems nor special coatings are required when a pipeline is installed underground.
12
13 S.7 ENVIRONMENTAL (MITIGATION) COMMITMENTS
14
15 The mitigation commitments required for the recommended plan are included in Appendix L in the form
16 of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.
17
18 S.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY OR CONCERN
19
20 Areas of controversy or concern have been identified through the Notice of Intent (N01) and Notice of
21 Preparation (NOP) process, which is described in section 14.1. A list of public concerns for both the
22 channel deepening and the pipeline system is provided in section 1.7.
23
24 The main area of concern associated with the channel deepening is the extent to which deepening the JFB
25 ship channel would increase salt water intrusion into the Delta, with potential adverse impacts on water
26 supplies and fish and wildlife resources.
2?
28 Among the concerns related to the pipeline system are the system safety and visual (aesthetic) impacts
29 of the new marine terminal and associated facilities. Another area of concern is the compatibility of the
30 pipeline system's facilities on the San Pablo peninsula with future uses on the Point Molate Naval Fuel
31 Depot property; these future uses are the subject of an ongoing community planning effort in Richmond.
32
33 S.9 UNRESOLVED ISSUES
34
35 No unresolved issues have been identified for channel deepening alternative. An unresolved issue
36 identified in the Draft EIR/S regarding the development of adequate fire protection for the pipeline system
37 has been resolved by the Richmond Fire Department's acceptance of the Draft Pre-Fire Plan submitted
38 by Wickland'in March 1998, The Draft Plan and the Richmond Fire Department's acceptance letter
39 (dated May 18, 1998) are provided in Appendix J of this Final EIR/S.
40
41 5.10 RELATIONSHIP TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATUTES
42
43 The regulatory framework that would govern the channel deepening or the pipeline system includes an
44 international treaty; several executive orders; numerous federal, state, and local regulations, and other
45 governmental'plans and policies, These statutes are summarized in Appendix F. Table S-8 sununarizes
46 the compliance of both the channel deepening and the pipeline system with the various environmental
47 requirements. The determination of compliance in this table assumes implementation of the recommended
48 mitigation measures described in this EIRIS. Instances of either partial compliance or non-compliance
S-6
Summary
1 with a regulation, noted as "PC" or "NC" in the table, are explained in AppendixF. Local regulatory
2 plans and policies are addressed in Chapter 6.
3
4 SAI PERMITS/APPROVALS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT
5
6 The following sections describe the permits and/or approvals that would be required for both the channel
7 deepening and pipeline system alternatives. Since these alternatives have substantially different project
8 components, different permits and approval would be required for each.
9
10 5.11.1 Permits/Approvals Required for Channel Deepening
11
12 Channel deepening would require the permits or approvals listed below. The use of dredged material for
13 levee repair on the Delta islands would be at the discretion of the local managing authority (e.g.,
14 reclamation district),which would also bear responsibility for permitting and compliance with applicable
15 laws and regulations. A list of the permits/approvals specific to levee maintenance on the Delta islands
16 follows the more general list below for channel deepening.
17
18 Federal Agencies
19
20 + Corps would:
21 - Issue the Record of Decision under NEPA.
22 - Issue a Section 10 permit if required for breaching levees to restore tidal flows, which
23 would be necessary at the Montezuma Wetlands site and the Hamilton Army Airfield site
24 if either were used for dredged material disposal.
25 - Issue a Section 103(MPRSA)permit for ocean disposal of certain sediments if SF-DORS
26 were used.
27 - Issue a Conformity Determination as required by the Clean Air Act.'
28
29 • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would:
30 - Concur with,ocean disposal if SF-RODS were used.
31
32 State Agencies
33
34 • California Coastal Commission:
35 - Would be required to concur with the consistency determination if SF-DODS is used.
36
137 • Sart Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC):
38 - Would be required to concur with the consistency determination for dredging within the
39 Bay.
140
41 • San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB):
42 - Would grant Section 401 (Clean Water Act)certification for dredging.
43 - Would issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for
144 disposal if there is an effluent discharge(e.g., at the Montezuma Wetlands site).
45
46 • State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)-
147 - Would review the project to determine if it would result in significant adverse impacts
48 to cultural resources per Section} 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(NNHPA).
S-7
Summ
a3'
1 The Corps would consult with the SHPO to determine whether the3ro'ect would affect
p
2 cultural resources on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
3
4 • State Lands Commission(SLC):
5 - Would issue a permit for dredging of certain lands.
7 Regional Agencies
8
9 Bay Area Air Quality Management District(BAAQMD):
10 - Would issue a permit for the dredge if the dredge is tied u to a dock or pier or if the
11 dredge offloads dredged materials directly onto land.
12 - A permit may also be required for operating pumps if a dredged material pipeline is
13 used.
14
15 Local Agencies
16
17 • Contra Costa County:
18 - Would certify EIR.
19 - Would determine that the channel deepening is consistent with the Contra Costa County
20 General Plan.
21 - Issue grading and Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) permits for Delta
22 Islands reclamation.
23
24 PermitslApprovals Specific to Levee Maintenance on Delta Island's
25
26 Relevant requirements may include, but are not limited to, the following:
27
28 • Local reclamation districts would issue permits.
29
30 * SB 34 program requirements.
31
32 • Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404:
33 - A 404 permit from the Corps, and accompanying 401 Water Quality Certification from
34 the RWQCB, would be required for the placement of sediments 6n jurisdictional
35 wetlands. Such habitats are present, but may be avoidable, in the vicinity of several of
36 the disposal sites. It would be the local authority's responsibility to either avoid
37 placement of sediments on areas of jurisdictional wetlands, or to obtain the necessary
38 permits, which may require mitigation.
39
40 • Federal and State Endangered Species Acts:
41 - Federally or state-listed endangered species are not known to be present on any of the
42 sites,but could occur. The Corps would consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
43 (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Carne (CDFG) regarding potential
44 effects on endangered species that may exist at a particular site and measures that may
45 be needed to avoid adverse effects. The local authority would bear ongoing
46 responsibility for compliance with these statutes and with anyspecific USFWS and
47 CDFG stipulations on use of JFB sediments.
48
S-8
Summary
1 -
Delta Protection Commission has appeal authority over protects that receive local
2 government approvals within the Primary Zane of the Delta. All of the Delta islands
3 considered in the EIRfS are within the Primary Zone except Bethel Island,which is in
4 the Secondary Zone.
5
6 * SLC:
7 - A lease from SLG may be required for levee work depending upon the specific plans for
8 each levee maintenance project.
9
10 * RWQCB: �:##
11 - An NPDES permit may be required for discharges into wat4s of the United States(e.g.,
12 the Regional Board required an NPDES permit for the jersey Island demonstration
13 project). An NPDES permit would include waste discharge requirements issued by the
14 RWQCB.
15
16 5.11.2 Permits/Approvals Required for the Pipeline System
17
18 The following permits/approvals were identified in the Wickland's Supplemental Proponent's
19 Environmental Assessment(Wickland 1996b)and from comment letters submitted by agencies during the
20 scoping period for the pipeline system.
21
122 Federal Agencies
23
24 • Corps would issue.
25 - The Record of Decision under NEPA.
26 . A Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) permit for development in or over navigable
27 waters (i.e., a permit for the offshore wharf and associated pipeline(s)to shore).
28 - A Section 404 (Clean Water Act) permit for placement of fill in waters of the U.S.,
29 including wetlands, that would result from project construction.
30
31 * EPA:
32 - Has oversight authority over Corps permits for fill in waters of the United States under
33 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
134 - Defines requirements for the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Pian(SPCC)
35 for non-transportation related onshore and offshore facilities engaged in storing,
36 processing, refining, transferring, distributing, or consuming ail and oil products.
137
38 * Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC):
39 - Would approve user contract-based tariffs (i.e., would approve of how much the
140 Wickland can charge users of the pipeline system).
41
42 U.S. Coast Guard.
,43 - Prior to construction of offshore facilities, would review Wick 's Aid to Navigation
;44 Notification.
45 - Has jurisdiction over the operation of marine facilities.
46 - Would review and approve of the Oil Spill Contingency Plan and Marine Terminal
47 Operations Manual prior to operations.
48
S-9
Summary
1 USFWS:
2 - Would review and submit recommendations to the Carps for the issuance of permits in
3 accordance with USFWS Coordination Act and consultation per Section 7 of the
4 Endangered Species Act.
5 - Would issue Section 10 permit for the incidental take (harm or harassment) of listed
6 threatened or endangered species, per the Endangered Species Act.
7
8 U.S. Navy:
9 - Wickland may need to consult with the Navy if the extened Point Molate Pier option
10 is selected.
11
12 State Agencies
13
14 • BCDC:
15 - Would be required to concur with the consistency d'eterrnination for dredging and
16 pipeline facilities work within BCDC's jurisdiction.
17 - Would issue a permit for the offshore wharf(either option)and connecting pipelines.
18 - Would issue a permit for the Alternate Route No. 2 pipeline from the tank farm to West
19 Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill.
20 - Would issue a permit for all onshore project facilities located within 100 feet of the Bay
21 (i.e., within the BCDC's "shoreline band"), including San Antonio Creek.
22 - The Engineering Criteria Review Board would review and approve of the seismic safety
23 criteria for any fill in the Bay (e.g., the wharf and connecting pipelines to shore).
24
25 CDFG:
26 - Has jurisdiction under Fish and Game Code sections 1601-03 for any activities that
27 would divert or obstruct the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any
28 stream.
29 - Would issue a Section 1603 Streambed Alteration Agreement for any disturbance within
30 the banks of a creek (e.g., road crossings and culverts).
31 - Would issue a Section 2081 management permit(s) for certain impacts on state-listed
32 threatened and endangered species.
33 - Would approve of the Oil Spill Contingency Plan prepared by Wickland.
34
35 • California Department of'Transportation (Caltrans):
36 - Would issue an encroachment permit for the pipeline crossing of interstate highways 80
37 and 6801.
38 - Would issue an encroachment permit for the pipeline crossing of San Pablo Avenue
39 (which is a Caltrans highway).
40 - Review dredging plans to ensure dredging would not impact the footing of the Richmond-
41 San Rafael Bridge.
42 - Determine if bumpering system of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge is adequate for
43 proposed ships.
44
45 CaIPUC:
46 - Would approve of PG&E's transferring its existing pipeline to Wickland.
47 - Would approve of user contract-based tariffs(the pipeline throughput;fee that Wickland
48 proposes to charge its customers and contracts with customers for term business).
5-10
Summary
I - Would transfer the existing lease for SLC property traversed by the PG&E pipeline from
2 PG&E to Wickland.
3
4 + SHPO:
5 - Would review the project to determine if it would result in significant adverse impacts
6 to cultural resources per Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
7 The Corps would consult with the SHPO to determine whether the project would affect
8 cultural resources on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
9 t
10 + SLC:
I I - Would issue a Dredging Lease for the dredge area that is paA of the pipeline system.
12 - For the extended Point Molate wharf option, the renovated wharf, or any new
13 construction, must undergo an engineering review by the Marine Facilities Division,
14 including a review of the seismic design criteria.
15 - Per the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill,Prevention and_Response Act:
16 - would have jurisdiction over all aspects of the marine ail terminal;
17 - would review/approve the Marine'Terminal Operations Manual;
18 - would review/approve training and certification programs for terminal personnel;
19 - would monitor the daily operation of the terminal for compliance;'
24 - would conduct an annual inspection of marine terminal structures and systems for
21 "fitness for purpose", and
22 - would review the Oil Spill Contingency Plan prepared by the Applicant.
23
24 + State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB):
25 - Is responsible for: Water Quality Certification or the waiver of certification for Corps
26 permits per Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
27 - Inspection of the tank farm and approval of the Applicant's groundwater monitoring
28 program for that site, per the Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act.
29
30 + California,State Fire Marshal:
31 - Regulates hazardous liquid pipelines.
32
33 Regional Agencies
34
35 * BAAQMD:
36 - Mould grant an Authority to Construct permit and a Permit to Operate (PTO) for each
37 above-ground storage tank on the San Pablo peninsula.
38 - Would modify the PTO for the Hercules pump station based on changing the stored
39 product from low sulfur fuel to crude oil and other petroleum liquids and proposed pump
10 modifications.
I1
12 + East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD):
0 - Would issue an encroachment permit for crossing of EBRPD lands.
l4
t5 • San Francisco Regional 'Water Quality Control Board (SF-RWQCB):
t6 - Would issue a NPDES permit and associated SWPPP(Storm Water Pollution Prevention
E7 Plan) for discharge of stormwater and process water.
S-11
Summary
1 Local Agencies
2
3 • Contra Costa County:
4 - Would issue a certification of this ETR under CEQA.
5 - Would issue a franchise for new pipeline construction within the right-of-way of roads
6 on County-owned property. Modified franchises would be needed for existing pipelines.
7
8 Contra Costa County Community Development Department:
9 - Would issue a Conditional Use Perrin for changing the use.of the PG&E line, the dig-
10 ups and refinery connections, and installation of the new 20-inch pipeline between
11 Richmond and Hercules.
12
13 « Contra Costa County Department of Public Works:
14 - Would issue an encroachment permit for construction affecting County roadways.
15
16 • Contra Costa County Health Services Department, Hazardous Materials Division:
17 - Would approve of the Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the storage of hazardous
18 materials on site(e.g., for the Point San Pablo tank farm and the Hercules pump station).
19
20 + Centra Costa Flood Control and Water Conservation District(CCFCWCD):
21 - Would issue a Flood Control permit for crossing water courses that are owned or under
22 easement to CCFCWCD.
23 - Drainage permit for crossing water;ourses not owned or under easement to CCFCWCD.
24
25 • City of Richmond:
26 - Under the new Zoning Ordinance:
27 - Conditional Use Permit approval from the Planning Commission, per the Special
28 Features Additive District (15.04.520), the Hazardous Materials section
29 (15.04.820.020), and Conditional Use Permit for the pipeline (as a public utility)
30 through certain zoning districts.
31 - Design review approval,per the Site Development Review section(15.04.250)of the
32 Zoning Ordinance, by the Public Development Review Board. (This approval will
33 also be required under the new Zoning Ordinance.)
34
35 - Lease through the Port of Richmond for the wharf site, the Point San Pablo tank farm.
36 site, and any portion of submerged pipelines where they cross City-owned land.
37 - Building permit for marine terminal facilities within city jurisdiction.
38 - Encroachment permit approval from City Council for crossings of City roadways.
39 - Franchise agreements for the pipeline in city lands.
40 - Richmond Fire Department, under contract to the Hazardous Materials Division of
41 Contra Costa County Health Services Department,would take the lead in approval of the
42 Hazardous Materials Business Plan.
43 - Richmond Fire Department would review project for compliance with Articles 79 and
44 80; would approve the emergency response plan, conceptual plans, and access and
45 placement of containment facilities„ and would issue the Uniform Fire Code permit for
46 the project.
47
48 Other cities along the PG&E Pipeline(Pinole, Hercules, Martinez, Pittsburg):
S-12
Summary
1 - Would issue Conditional Use Permit approval.
2 - Would issue Encroachment Permit for road construction.
3 - Mould issue new franchise agreement for new pipeline construction through roads and
4 on city property. Modify the franchise for the existing pipeline.
5 - Would issue drainage permit for crossing water courses.
b
7 5.1.1.3 EIR CertificationlEIS Record of lesion
8
9 Before the project is approved, Contra Costa County must certify that the Final EIR was prepared in
10 compliance with CEQA and was presented to the lead agency's decision tnaing body, which reviewed
11 and considered the Final EIR before approving the project. It must also certify that the EIR reflects the
12 independent judgment of the lead agency.
13
14 After the Final EIS is prepared, at the time of its decision on a selected course of action, the federal lead
15 agency (the Corps) must prepare a Record of Recision (ROD). The ROD is a written public record
16 explaining why the lead agency has taken this particular course of action. It includes (1) a statement
17 explaining the decision; (2) an explanation of alternatives that were considered and those that are
18 environmentally preferable; (3) the factors considered by an agency in making the decision; (4) an
19 explanation of which mitigation measures, if any, were adopted, and if mitigation measures were not
20 adopted, an explanation of why not; and (5) a monitoring and enforcement program; for any adopted
21 mitigation measures.
S-13
the Board of Supervisors ContraCW*Of ft Oftrd
VW
ro� 0 .661 RW Costa )
W,Uft� -I County
Jf�t t�oyl�rti,tst£1Ndrkt
ftVft&Uftwft 21W ObVi i
00""t w Std t7UtM ` / t
U" D10ft
Lt. Colonel Peter brass December 15, 1998
District Engineer
U.S.Army Carps of Engineers
San Francisca District
333 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dear Colonel Grass:
On December 15, 1998,the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors authorized this letter to convey
support of phase three of the Baldwin Ship Channel Deepening Project,part of the San Francisco-to-
Stockton Ship Channel Deepening Project. We understand this is the final phase of the project,
authorized by Congress in 1965.
This letter of support is a continuation of the County's long-held position as the local';sponsor,and is a
reaffirmation of our recognition of the vital role that shipping plays in the industrial health and economic
structure of our County.
The County has had concern regarding potential water quality(salinity)impacts of the project on the
Delta,recommending that water quality impacts be fully mitigated. The addition of the Marine Link as
an alternative to dredging of the entire channel provides a less environmentally damaging alternative
while satisfying the overall project goals;that of safe transport of petroleum products arriving by vessel
to the refineries for processing,reducing(and hopefully eliminating)lightening,or off-loading of crude
oil onto smaller vessels in south San Francisco Bay.
We understand the dredging portion of the project is to be cost-shared,and have made arrangements for
Wickland Oil Co,as the lead representative of the ship channel users,and the applicant for the Marine
Link Pipeline Project,to finance the local sponsor's share of costs for the Project.
If you have questions,please contact Roberta.Goulart,at the County Community Development
Department at(925)335-1226.
Sincerely,
I14-r XA7 �
Jim Rogers,Chair
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors